Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3DMark2003 Score: Radeon 9800 Pro

Tags:
  • Radeon
  • Dual Channel
  • ATI
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 2:29:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Hey, All

How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
slower system than mine?

My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.

Thanks.

More about : 3dmark2003 score radeon 9800 pro

October 11, 2004 5:36:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

No way you're gonna get 12000 in 3dmark2003 with a 9800 Pro unless something
very odd is going on. You sure it's the same vid card and/or that it's not
3dmark2001?

"Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bd3ba0ce497eabd989693@news.charter.net...
> Hey, All
>
> How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
> slower system than mine?
>
> My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
> driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 5:47:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

You're right, 12000 is kinda impossible. I think the machine I was
referring to was using 3DMark2001.

---------------
In article <JYmdnSiDm7NrhvfcRVn-vw@cablespeedmd.com>, JT [j@mail.com]
says...
> No way you're gonna get 12000 in 3dmark2003 with a 9800 Pro unless something
> very odd is going on. You sure it's the same vid card and/or that it's not
> 3dmark2001?
>
> "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bd3ba0ce497eabd989693@news.charter.net...
> > Hey, All
> >
> > How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
> > slower system than mine?
> >
> > My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
> > driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
Related resources
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 9:52:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:

>Hey, All
>
>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
>slower system than mine?
>
>
You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.

>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
overclocked, I get 6100.


--
"Coming soon: Meatspace spyware, little men who live in your cupboards and watch what you eat and then try to sell you timeshares in Toronto."

Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
www.inglostadt.com
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 9:52:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
version or something.

Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
I would like it to be.

---------------
In article <Wcpad.27733$QJ3.18609@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Inglo
[ioo@??.¿¿¿] says...
> On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
>
> >Hey, All
> >
> >How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
> >slower system than mine?
> >
> >
> You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
> over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
>
> >My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
> >driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >
> That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
> who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
> overclocked, I get 6100.
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 9:52:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
version or something.

Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
I would like it to be.

-------------------------
What resolution are you playing at? What quality level? What ATI drivers?
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 6:16:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
version or something.

Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
I would like it to be.
____________________________________________________________________


At 800x600 at High Detail, everything on, including V-sync (triple buffered)
I get 55fps in the timedemo.

I also have a P4 3Ghz, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (cat 4.9), 1Ghz of Dual channel
400Mhz RAM etc.

What's your system scoring in the doom 3 timedemo then? (type timedemo demo
1 in the console, run it twice)
October 11, 2004 10:05:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:52:55 GMT, Inglo <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote:

>On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
>
>>Hey, All
>>
>>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
>>slower system than mine?
>>
>>
>You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
>over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
>
>>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
>>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
>who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
>overclocked, I get 6100.

WHOA WHOA WHOA.. No way 8000 is the highest! I just upgraded my 2.6C
proc to a 3.2E and ran all the tests. Check it out:

Aquamark3 ; 63,391
3dmark01 ; 21,959
3dmark03 ; 11,075
3dmark05 ; 4912

That's with no o/c on the proc but my X800 PRO is overclocked
506/499.50.

P4 3.2E Ghz 800FSB 1MB Cache / Zalman C7000A HS / Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
/ 1GB Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 / Xtasy X800 PRO (@ 506/499.50) /
DirectX9.0c / Omegas 4.9's 8.07betas / WD1600JB 160gig / WD1200JB
120gig / Lite-On DVDRW LDW-851S 8x / Creative Audigy Gamer / Nec 19"
FE991SB / Logitech MX510 mouse / Saitek Gamer's Keyboard / WinXP Home


Pluvious
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 10:34:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Pluvious" <Pluvious@knowhere.com> wrote in message
news:o iilm0503eqbg93okv7u4rrokajtrl7l48@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:52:55 GMT, Inglo <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote:
>
>>On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
>>
>>>Hey, All
>>>
>>>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
>>>slower system than mine?
>>>
>>>
>>You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
>>over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
>>
>>>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
>>>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
>>who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
>>overclocked, I get 6100.
>
> WHOA WHOA WHOA.. No way 8000 is the highest! I just upgraded my 2.6C
> proc to a 3.2E and ran all the tests. Check it out:
>
> Aquamark3 ; 63,391
> 3dmark01 ; 21,959
> 3dmark03 ; 11,075
> 3dmark05 ; 4912
>
> That's with no o/c on the proc but my X800 PRO is overclocked
> 506/499.50.
>
> P4 3.2E Ghz 800FSB 1MB Cache / Zalman C7000A HS / Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
> / 1GB Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 / Xtasy X800 PRO (@ 506/499.50) /
> DirectX9.0c / Omegas 4.9's 8.07betas / WD1600JB 160gig / WD1200JB
> 120gig / Lite-On DVDRW LDW-851S 8x / Creative Audigy Gamer / Nec 19"
> FE991SB / Logitech MX510 mouse / Saitek Gamer's Keyboard / WinXP Home
>
>
> Pluvious
>
That was my first reaction too, but he (not so) obviously meant the highest
score for a 9800 Pro...
October 11, 2004 10:56:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:34:14 GMT, "Kill Bill" <a@b.c> wrote:

>
>"Pluvious" <Pluvious@knowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:o iilm0503eqbg93okv7u4rrokajtrl7l48@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:52:55 GMT, Inglo <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
>>>
>>>>Hey, All
>>>>
>>>>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
>>>>slower system than mine?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
>>>over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
>>>
>>>>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
>>>>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
>>>who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
>>>overclocked, I get 6100.
>>
>> WHOA WHOA WHOA.. No way 8000 is the highest! I just upgraded my 2.6C
>> proc to a 3.2E and ran all the tests. Check it out:
>>
>> Aquamark3 ; 63,391
>> 3dmark01 ; 21,959
>> 3dmark03 ; 11,075
>> 3dmark05 ; 4912
>>
>> That's with no o/c on the proc but my X800 PRO is overclocked
>> 506/499.50.
>>
>> P4 3.2E Ghz 800FSB 1MB Cache / Zalman C7000A HS / Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
>> / 1GB Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 / Xtasy X800 PRO (@ 506/499.50) /
>> DirectX9.0c / Omegas 4.9's 8.07betas / WD1600JB 160gig / WD1200JB
>> 120gig / Lite-On DVDRW LDW-851S 8x / Creative Audigy Gamer / Nec 19"
>> FE991SB / Logitech MX510 mouse / Saitek Gamer's Keyboard / WinXP Home
>>
>>
>> Pluvious
>>
>That was my first reaction too, but he (not so) obviously meant the highest
>score for a 9800 Pro...
>

Ohhhhhh.. heh. I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

Pluvious
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 11:16:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

With Doom 3, I've been trying to play at 800x600 and even 640x480. I
use the default quality level. The only thing I adjust is the
resolution. I'm using ATI 4.9 drivers.

---------------
In article <Yosad.82923$DV3.6173@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, John David
Carter [char3091@bellsouth.net] says...
> "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
> Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
> version or something.
>
> Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
> performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
> I would like it to be.
>
> -------------------------
> What resolution are you playing at? What quality level? What ATI drivers?
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 11:29:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

At 800x600 at Hight Detail, everything on, including V-Sync, I get 42.5
FPS. Without V-Sync I get 55.4 FPS.

It almost seems like I get what everyone else is getting w/ a similar
system, but, the gameplay is sorta choppy on mine and you can see things
like the wall trying to catch up and re-draw.

Is Doom 3 really that resource intensive. Given the Minimal
Requirements for the game, I almost double everything. I just don't
understand. :( (

---------------
In article <416a87ae$0$16014$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, The
Berzerker [Berzerker@wooooooo.com] says...
> "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
> Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
> version or something.
>
> Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
> performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
> I would like it to be.
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
>
> At 800x600 at High Detail, everything on, including V-sync (triple buffered)
> I get 55fps in the timedemo.
>
> I also have a P4 3Ghz, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (cat 4.9), 1Ghz of Dual channel
> 400Mhz RAM etc.
>
> What's your system scoring in the doom 3 timedemo then? (type timedemo demo
> 1 in the console, run it twice)
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 2:06:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On 10/11/2004 11:56 AM Pluvious brightened our day with:

>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:34:14 GMT, "Kill Bill" <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Pluvious" <Pluvious@knowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:o iilm0503eqbg93okv7u4rrokajtrl7l48@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:52:55 GMT, Inglo <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hey, All
>>>>>
>>>>>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
>>>>>slower system than mine?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
>>>>over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
>>>>>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
>>>>who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
>>>>overclocked, I get 6100.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>WHOA WHOA WHOA.. No way 8000 is the highest! I just upgraded my 2.6C
>>>proc to a 3.2E and ran all the tests. Check it out:
>>>
>>>Aquamark3 ; 63,391
>>>3dmark01 ; 21,959
>>>3dmark03 ; 11,075
>>>3dmark05 ; 4912
>>>
>>>That's with no o/c on the proc but my X800 PRO is overclocked
>>>506/499.50.
>>>
>>>P4 3.2E Ghz 800FSB 1MB Cache / Zalman C7000A HS / Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
>>>/ 1GB Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 / Xtasy X800 PRO (@ 506/499.50) /
>>>DirectX9.0c / Omegas 4.9's 8.07betas / WD1600JB 160gig / WD1200JB
>>>120gig / Lite-On DVDRW LDW-851S 8x / Creative Audigy Gamer / Nec 19"
>>>FE991SB / Logitech MX510 mouse / Saitek Gamer's Keyboard / WinXP Home
>>>
>>>
>>>Pluvious
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>That was my first reaction too, but he (not so) obviously meant the highest
>>score for a 9800 Pro...
>>
>>
>>
>
>Ohhhhhh.. heh. I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
>
>Pluvious
>
>
>
>
I noticed the lack of clarity myself, but failed to rectify it. oops.

--
"Coming soon: Meatspace spyware, little men who live in your cupboards and watch what you eat and then try to sell you timeshares in Toronto."

Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
www.inglostadt.com
October 12, 2004 2:06:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

New 9800 pro (oem) on Cat 4.9 and DirectX 9.0c
640 megs pc2100 (3 generic sticks)
AMD 2000+
Abit KD7a motherboard
WinXP Pro sp2
80 gig 7200rpm HD
C-Media 8738 5.1 sound


Scores:
3Dmark2003 - 5670

Many problems were incurred in getting the correct drivers to load. Some my
fault, others the software. Ati's "Control Center" is not exactly the best
thing I think. I have always had some sort of problem with it on all my Ati
cards over the years. I usually end up loading the Omegas to make things
work good. They seem the most reliable. But this time, I think I have a
good mix and the games look nice. This is up from same equipment with a
9500 pro getting an average score in the 3800+ zone for mark03.

"Inglo" <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote in message
news:_tDad.28430$QJ3.14356@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> On 10/11/2004 11:56 AM Pluvious brightened our day with:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:34:14 GMT, "Kill Bill" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Pluvious" <Pluvious@knowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>news:o iilm0503eqbg93okv7u4rrokajtrl7l48@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:52:55 GMT, Inglo <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 10/10/2004 10:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey, All
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How is it that I see people getting over 12000 on 3DMark2003 with a
>>>>>>slower system than mine?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>You don't, the highest 3DMark03 score you'll find at Futuremark is just
>>>>>over 8000 and it's been done by two people with extreme overclocking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>My system is a 3.0 Ghz, 1 G Dual Channel, and Radeon 9800 Pro. ATI
>>>>>>driver 4.9. My score is only about 5900.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>That's exactly what you should be getting. That's about what everyone
>>>>>who isn't overclocking their cards gets. I have my 9800 Pro slightly
>>>>>overclocked, I get 6100.
>>>>>
>>>>WHOA WHOA WHOA.. No way 8000 is the highest! I just upgraded my 2.6C
>>>>proc to a 3.2E and ran all the tests. Check it out:
>>>>
>>>>Aquamark3 ; 63,391
>>>>3dmark01 ; 21,959
>>>>3dmark03 ; 11,075
>>>>3dmark05 ; 4912
>>>>
>>>>That's with no o/c on the proc but my X800 PRO is overclocked
>>>>506/499.50.
>>>>
>>>>P4 3.2E Ghz 800FSB 1MB Cache / Zalman C7000A HS / Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
>>>>/ 1GB Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 / Xtasy X800 PRO (@ 506/499.50) /
>>>>DirectX9.0c / Omegas 4.9's 8.07betas / WD1600JB 160gig / WD1200JB
>>>>120gig / Lite-On DVDRW LDW-851S 8x / Creative Audigy Gamer / Nec 19"
>>>>FE991SB / Logitech MX510 mouse / Saitek Gamer's Keyboard / WinXP Home
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Pluvious
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That was my first reaction too, but he (not so) obviously meant the
>>>highest score for a 9800 Pro...
>>>
>>
>>Ohhhhhh.. heh. I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>
>>Pluvious
>>
>>
>>
> I noticed the lack of clarity myself, but failed to rectify it. oops.
>
> --
> "Coming soon: Meatspace spyware, little men who live in your cupboards and
> watch what you eat and then try to sell you timeshares in Toronto."
>
> Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
> www.inglostadt.com
October 12, 2004 2:45:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Go to this site and you can see some advanced tweaking options. Some of
these help a bit for framerates without losing much quality.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Doom3_8.html


"Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bd4de4ea8e3b7a8989696@news.charter.net...
> With Doom 3, I've been trying to play at 800x600 and even 640x480. I
> use the default quality level. The only thing I adjust is the
> resolution. I'm using ATI 4.9 drivers.
>
> ---------------
> In article <Yosad.82923$DV3.6173@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, John David
> Carter [char3091@bellsouth.net] says...
>> "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
>> Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
>> version or something.
>>
>> Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
>> performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
>> I would like it to be.
>>
>> -------------------------
>> What resolution are you playing at? What quality level? What ATI
>> drivers?
>>
>>
>>
October 12, 2004 3:00:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Btw, using some of those tweaks I was able to run at 1024x768 at High
Settings. I have a 9800 Pro with a 2.4 P4 running @2.8. I do have a 1 gig of
memory which may be helping some as well.

"JT" <j@mail.com> wrote in message
news:-6qdnVd7GsSr2PbcRVn-iw@cablespeedmd.com...
> Go to this site and you can see some advanced tweaking options. Some of
> these help a bit for framerates without losing much quality.
>
> http://www.tweakguides.com/Doom3_8.html
>
>
> "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bd4de4ea8e3b7a8989696@news.charter.net...
>> With Doom 3, I've been trying to play at 800x600 and even 640x480. I
>> use the default quality level. The only thing I adjust is the
>> resolution. I'm using ATI 4.9 drivers.
>>
>> ---------------
>> In article <Yosad.82923$DV3.6173@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, John David
>> Carter [char3091@bellsouth.net] says...
>>> "Spawn666948" <x@y.z> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1bd3eacf453a5201989695@news.charter.net...
>>> Wow. I guess you're right. The guy must have linked to a 3DMark2001
>>> version or something.
>>>
>>> Have you tried playing Doom 3? I can't believe my system has poor
>>> performance w/ this game. Even w/ Day of Defeat, it's not as smooth as
>>> I would like it to be.
>>>
>>> -------------------------
>>> What resolution are you playing at? What quality level? What ATI
>>> drivers?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 6:54:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On 10/11/2004 7:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:

>At 800x600 at Hight Detail, everything on, including V-Sync, I get 42.5
>FPS. Without V-Sync I get 55.4 FPS.
>
>It almost seems like I get what everyone else is getting w/ a similar
>system, but, the gameplay is sorta choppy on mine and you can see things
>like the wall trying to catch up and re-draw.
>
>Is Doom 3 really that resource intensive. Given the Minimal
>Requirements for the game, I almost double everything. I just don't
>understand. :( (
>
>
>
Turn on triple buffering in the openGL/3D settings of the control panel
if you're going to use vsync. Have you got the Doom 3 1.1 patch?

--
"Coming soon: Meatspace spyware, little men who live in your cupboards and watch what you eat and then try to sell you timeshares in Toronto."

Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
www.inglostadt.com
October 12, 2004 11:25:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:16:21 -0700, Spawn666948 <x@y.z> wrote:

>With Doom 3, I've been trying to play at 800x600 and even 640x480. I
>use the default quality level. The only thing I adjust is the
>resolution. I'm using ATI 4.9 drivers.

I still use the 4.4 drivers (and RefreshForce) on my 9700 Pro, Doom 3
is playable at 1024x768 with 2xAA and 4xAF. I haven't tried all the
later drivers, but the ones I have caused problems. I tried the latest
Omega drivers the other day and my Doom 3 framerate was awful for 20
seconds then the game crashed. The later drivers may be necessary for
the top end ATI cards, but for the older ones, 4.4 are by far the best
IMO.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 7:37:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Doom 3, hmmm ,been a while since I played it last, but I did the
entire game in 1280x1024, 2nd highest settings. Was gettign around
44 fps in a timedemo. No tweaks, card at 380\360.

p4 3.0 gig, asus p4p800, Seagate 7200 ide drives, and kingston hyperx
512 pc3200 ram. nothing overclocked.


at the time it was the omega driver based on the 4.8 cats. Never had a
issue with doom 3 at all, besides the fact that it was boring.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 10:04:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

What does Triple Buffering do ?
I have not tried that setting. Does it increase visual quality ?
Thanks

"Inglo" <ioo@??.¿¿¿> wrote in message
news:lHHad.11903$nj.6380@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> On 10/11/2004 7:29 PM Spawn666948 brightened our day with:
>
>>At 800x600 at Hight Detail, everything on, including V-Sync, I get 42.5
>>FPS. Without V-Sync I get 55.4 FPS.
>>
>>It almost seems like I get what everyone else is getting w/ a similar
>>system, but, the gameplay is sorta choppy on mine and you can see things
>>like the wall trying to catch up and re-draw.
>>
>>Is Doom 3 really that resource intensive. Given the Minimal Requirements
>>for the game, I almost double everything. I just don't understand. :( (
>>
>>
> Turn on triple buffering in the openGL/3D settings of the control panel if
> you're going to use vsync. Have you got the Doom 3 1.1 patch?
>
> --
> "Coming soon: Meatspace spyware, little men who live in your cupboards and
> watch what you eat and then try to sell you timeshares in Toronto."
>
> Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
> www.inglostadt.com
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 4:13:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"RonK" <hereiam@homenow.com> wrote in message
news:SxYad.28996$3C6.1030218@news20.bellglobal.com...
> What does Triple Buffering do ?
> I have not tried that setting. Does it increase visual quality ?
> Thanks
>

Adds a third buffer to the card, or something...... use google to get an
advanced answer. Either way, it'll allow you to get V-sync with virtually no
difference to the framerate, if the game utilises it well. I think you might
also be capable of getting temporal 2x anti-alias at no extra cost too,
maybe.

I use v-sync in doom 3 with absolutely zero difference to the framerate. The
only disadvantage is that is uses more video memory, for this exra buffer.
Haven't noticed any difference tbh (128MB card.)
!