Doom 3 performance issue

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Perhaps being thick here?
I am finding Doom3 very jerky and unresponsive
I am running a 2.6GHz P4 in a Dell Dimeension 8300 with 512Mb HT PC3200 RAM
It has a standard NVidia GeForce FX5200 (128Mb)
Any recommendations for settings that I may be missing?
Thanks
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:19:15 GMT, "DCA" <dca860MAPS@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Perhaps being thick here?
>I am finding Doom3 very jerky and unresponsive
>I am running a 2.6GHz P4 in a Dell Dimeension 8300 with 512Mb HT PC3200 RAM
>It has a standard NVidia GeForce FX5200 (128Mb)
>Any recommendations for settings that I may be missing?
>Thanks
>David
>

You've got two issues.

The first is the amount of system memory. Newer games typically don't
perform optimally on a system with less than 1 Gig of RAM. 512megs
will work, but you'll encounter longer load times and some games will
be jerky. Not much you can really do on the software end.

The second is the video card. The FX5200 is the extreme low end for a
DX9 compliant card. I used to have that card in my system, and while
it's sold as a low end gaming card, that's not entirely true. Upgrade
it if you can, if you can't, drop the detail settings down. While
it's technically a DX9 compliant card, and supports OpenGL Shaders
2.0, performance is pretty bad, and I usually found that disabling
shader effects helped a lot. It still probably won't be the smoothest
experience, but it will at least be (more or less) playable -- some
levels will still lag though.
---------------------------------------------

MCheu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

More memory would be my first guess. I've got a Gig and the regular game
only stutters on the Boss levels and on some fan made maps. I'm using a ATI
9800 Pro. Doom3 uses boatloads of memory.

--
there is no .sig
"DCA" <dca860MAPS@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7fGse.17687$jS3.6977@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Perhaps being thick here?
> I am finding Doom3 very jerky and unresponsive
> I am running a 2.6GHz P4 in a Dell Dimeension 8300 with 512Mb HT PC3200
> RAM
> It has a standard NVidia GeForce FX5200 (128Mb)
> Any recommendations for settings that I may be missing?
> Thanks
> David
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

x-no-archive: yes

DCA wrote:

> It has a standard NVidia GeForce FX5200 (128Mb)

the cpu is just fine... yes you could put more memory and i
would recommend more 512 but doom3 jerkiness is not cause of
it but instead all your graphic cards fault
the geforce fx 5200 is very weak so you should upgrade

all of these graphic cards will run doom3 fine and they are
listed from cheapest to most expensive... if i was you i
should go for the middle the 6600 gt
.. nvidia geforce 6600 (the cheapest bellow $150)
.. nvidia geforce 6600 gt (bellow $200)
.. nvidia geforce 6800 (bellow $250)
.. nivdia geforce 6800 gt (the best bellow $300)
all of these graphic cards need extra power so you must have
at least a 350w power supply

ps: i didn't recommend any ati graphic cards cause i think
at this point they are behind nvidia when it comes to game
support

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

DCA wrote:

> Perhaps being thick here?
> I am finding Doom3 very jerky and unresponsive
> I am running a 2.6GHz P4 in a Dell Dimeension 8300 with 512Mb HT
> PC3200 RAM It has a standard NVidia GeForce FX5200 (128Mb)

The problem is Your gfx card. I have a FX5200 (128MB/128bit) myself, and
some time ago I made several tests. This card is much slower than even a
Radeon 8500 which in Doom3 almost delivers double fps...

The FX5200 is an ultra budget card for 2D and simple 3D work. Nothing
for games...

> Any recommendations for settings that I may be missing?

No settings, just upgrades. Get a Geforce 6600 or better 6600GT for Your
system, or if it has to be really really cheap something like a Radeon
9600...

And I'd upgrade to 1GB RAM is possible. Modern games are a memory hog...

Benjamin

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3hi1dnFgu2i8U1@individual.net...
> DCA wrote:
>
>> Perhaps being thick here?
>> I am finding Doom3 very jerky and unresponsive
>> I am running a 2.6GHz P4 in a Dell Dimeension 8300 with 512Mb HT
>> PC3200 RAM It has a standard NVidia GeForce FX5200 (128Mb)
>
> The problem is Your gfx card. I have a FX5200 (128MB/128bit) myself, and
> some time ago I made several tests. This card is much slower than even a
> Radeon 8500 which in Doom3 almost delivers double fps...
>
> The FX5200 is an ultra budget card for 2D and simple 3D work. Nothing for
> games...
>
>> Any recommendations for settings that I may be missing?
>
> No settings, just upgrades. Get a Geforce 6600 or better 6600GT for Your
> system, or if it has to be really really cheap something like a Radeon
> 9600...
>
> And I'd upgrade to 1GB RAM is possible. Modern games are a memory hog...
>
> Benjamin

Agreed - and after you upgrade *then* you can think about settings. There
are lots of tweaks on the net but the only one I use is to go into the Doom3
cfg file and change anistropy from 8 to 2 when on high settings. On my
9800Pro this makes everything silky smooth.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message
news:1119082061.3805.0@echo.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:3hi1dnFgu2i8U1@individual.net...
>> DCA wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps being thick here?
>>> I am finding Doom3 very jerky and unresponsive
>>> I am running a 2.6GHz P4 in a Dell Dimeension 8300 with 512Mb HT
>>> PC3200 RAM It has a standard NVidia GeForce FX5200 (128Mb)
>>
>> The problem is Your gfx card. I have a FX5200 (128MB/128bit) myself, and
>> some time ago I made several tests. This card is much slower than even a
>> Radeon 8500 which in Doom3 almost delivers double fps...
>>
>> The FX5200 is an ultra budget card for 2D and simple 3D work. Nothing for
>> games...
>>
>>> Any recommendations for settings that I may be missing?
>>
>> No settings, just upgrades. Get a Geforce 6600 or better 6600GT for Your
>> system, or if it has to be really really cheap something like a Radeon
>> 9600...
>>
>> And I'd upgrade to 1GB RAM is possible. Modern games are a memory hog...
>>
>> Benjamin
>
> Agreed - and after you upgrade *then* you can think about settings. There
> are lots of tweaks on the net but the only one I use is to go into the
> Doom3 cfg file and change anistropy from 8 to 2 when on high settings. On
> my 9800Pro this makes everything silky smooth.
>
>
Ehm - am I being thick? What is anistropy ?

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"DCA" <dca860MAPS@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XpUse.22616$m4.3794@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message
> news:1119082061.3805.0@echo.uk.clara.net...
>>

>>
>> Agreed - and after you upgrade *then* you can think about settings.
>> There are lots of tweaks on the net but the only one I use is to go into
>> the Doom3 cfg file and change anistropy from 8 to 2 when on high
>> settings. On my 9800Pro this makes everything silky smooth.
>>
>>
> Ehm - am I being thick? What is anistropy ?
>

No- I am - it's anisotropy (if you're asking for an explanation of what it
actually is or does then I haven't a clue).

The line in the DoomConfig.cfg file is:

seta image_anisotropy "8"

Change the 8 to a 2 and it's smoother with no difference in image that I can
see...

 

[Toby]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 2005-06-18, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>
> "DCA" <dca860MAPS@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:XpUse.22616$m4.3794@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message
>> news:1119082061.3805.0@echo.uk.clara.net...
>>>
>
>>>
>>> Agreed - and after you upgrade *then* you can think about settings.
>>> There are lots of tweaks on the net but the only one I use is to go into
>>> the Doom3 cfg file and change anistropy from 8 to 2 when on high
>>> settings. On my 9800Pro this makes everything silky smooth.
>>>
>>>
>> Ehm - am I being thick? What is anistropy ?
>>
>
> No- I am - it's anisotropy (if you're asking for an explanation of what it
> actually is or does then I haven't a clue).
>
> The line in the DoomConfig.cfg file is:
>
> seta image_anisotropy "8"
>
> Change the 8 to a 2 and it's smoother with no difference in image that I can
> see...

Am I alone in never being able to see the difference between anisotropic
filtering on/off?

--
Toby.
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject
field to circumvent my email filters.
Ignore any mail delivery error.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:03:00 +0100, Toby <google@asktoby.com> wrote:


>Am I alone in never being able to see the difference between anisotropic
>filtering on/off?

No, I have problems seeing the difference too. Maybe if I squint I can
make it out, but viewing it normally, no.

Anti-aliasing also seems pointless to me. Maybe there's a tiny
difference, but nothing I'd notice during gameplay.

Perhaps if I got a bigger monitor, but at 19" and 1280x1024 (as high
as this old CRT will run at 100MHz, sadly) FSAA and AF are useless
wastes of resources for me. I'd usually keep them turned off and
maintain a high, smooth framerate.

 

[Toby]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 2005-06-19, Spalls Hurgenson <yoinks@ebalu.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:03:00 +0100, Toby <google@asktoby.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Am I alone in never being able to see the difference between anisotropic
>>filtering on/off?
>
> No, I have problems seeing the difference too. Maybe if I squint I can
> make it out, but viewing it normally, no.
>
> Anti-aliasing also seems pointless to me. Maybe there's a tiny
> difference, but nothing I'd notice during gameplay.
>
> Perhaps if I got a bigger monitor, but at 19" and 1280x1024 (as high
> as this old CRT will run at 100MHz, sadly) FSAA and AF are useless
> wastes of resources for me. I'd usually keep them turned off and
> maintain a high, smooth framerate.

If I have AA on, I can tolerate 640x480, and my monitor is 22"
widescreen. AA is amazing.

--
Toby.
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject
field to circumvent my email filters.
Ignore any mail delivery error.

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Toby" <google@asktoby.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb9a14.tkr.google@ID-171443.user.uni-berlin.de...

> Am I alone in never being able to see the difference between anisotropic
> filtering on/off?
>

I have only 'seen' the difference in one game - HL2 - water effects were
better but the performance hit wasn't worth it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in
news:1119114097.24509.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net:

> No- I am - it's anisotropy (if you're asking for an explanation of
> what it actually is or does then I haven't a clue).
>
>

The condition of having a property value being dependent on the
directions in which it is observed. In practical situations a
property may be anisotropic at one scale and not at another.

--
Marc

Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
Doyle : What was that ?
Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967A4D62A5243mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
> "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in
> news:1119114097.24509.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net:
>
>> No- I am - it's anisotropy (if you're asking for an explanation of
>> what it actually is or does then I haven't a clue).
>>
>>
>
> The condition of having a property value being dependent on the
> directions in which it is observed. In practical situations a
> property may be anisotropic at one scale and not at another.
>

I knew that... not

....but what does it mean to a gamer, visually?...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3hi1dnFgu2i8U1@individual.net...
> DCA wrote:
>
>> Perhaps being thick here?
>> I am finding Doom3 very jerky and unresponsive
>> I am running a 2.6GHz P4 in a Dell Dimeension 8300 with 512Mb HT
>> PC3200 RAM It has a standard NVidia GeForce FX5200 (128Mb)
>
> The problem is Your gfx card. I have a FX5200 (128MB/128bit) myself, and
> some time ago I made several tests. This card is much slower than even a
> Radeon 8500 which in Doom3 almost delivers double fps...
>
> The FX5200 is an ultra budget card for 2D and simple 3D work. Nothing for
> games...
>
>> Any recommendations for settings that I may be missing?
>
> No settings, just upgrades. Get a Geforce 6600 or better 6600GT for Your
> system, or if it has to be really really cheap something like a Radeon
> 9600...
>
> And I'd upgrade to 1GB RAM is possible. Modern games are a memory hog...
>
> Benjamin
Thnaks Benjamin
Is my FX5200 (Dell) an AGP or PCI??
Thanks
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

You're kidding me right? I have a 19" monitor and I can notice the jaggies.
Look at any railing in any level, if you can't see the jaggies with AA off
you've gotta be blind. Although you play at a MUCH higher resolution than I
do, at 800x600 the jaggies are easily noticed.

--
there is no .sig
"Spalls Hurgenson" <yoinks@ebalu.com> wrote in message
news:h24ab1dslkti4livubp8vfpkd51nf4bp0d@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:03:00 +0100, Toby <google@asktoby.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Am I alone in never being able to see the difference between anisotropic
>>filtering on/off?
>
> No, I have problems seeing the difference too. Maybe if I squint I can
> make it out, but viewing it normally, no.
>
> Anti-aliasing also seems pointless to me. Maybe there's a tiny
> difference, but nothing I'd notice during gameplay.
>
> Perhaps if I got a bigger monitor, but at 19" and 1280x1024 (as high
> as this old CRT will run at 100MHz, sadly) FSAA and AF are useless
> wastes of resources for me. I'd usually keep them turned off and
> maintain a high, smooth framerate.
>
>
>

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsfZte.2071$Bx6.1826@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> You're kidding me right? I have a 19" monitor and I can notice the
> jaggies. Look at any railing in any level, if you can't see the jaggies
> with AA off you've gotta be blind. Although you play at a MUCH higher
> resolution than I do, at 800x600 the jaggies are easily noticed.
>
> --
> there is no .sig
> "Spalls Hurgenson" <yoinks@ebalu.com> wrote in message
> news:h24ab1dslkti4livubp8vfpkd51nf4bp0d@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:03:00 +0100, Toby <google@asktoby.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Am I alone in never being able to see the difference between anisotropic
>>>filtering on/off?
>>
>> No, I have problems seeing the difference too. Maybe if I squint I can
>> make it out, but viewing it normally, no.
>>
>> Anti-aliasing also seems pointless to me. Maybe there's a tiny
>> difference, but nothing I'd notice during gameplay.
>>
>> Perhaps if I got a bigger monitor, but at 19" and 1280x1024 (as high
>> as this old CRT will run at 100MHz, sadly) FSAA and AF are useless
>> wastes of resources for me. I'd usually keep them turned off and
>> maintain a high, smooth framerate.
>>
>>

At 1280x1024 on my 21" CRT the jaggies on hand-rails etc are there but are
much less noticeable than they would be at lower rez's.

I guess that is where Spalls is coming from.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:24:24 +0100, "Shawk"
<shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:


>At 1280x1024 on my 21" CRT the jaggies on hand-rails etc are there but are
>much less noticeable than they would be at lower rez's.

>I guess that is where Spalls is coming from.

More or less. If I really look, I can see that the jaggies are
somewhat smoothed out, but to do this I gotta stand still (virtually)
and stare at the screen for a few seconds. Any motion and the
difference between an anti-aliased and aliased screen are moot (for
me, at least). At 800x600 the differences were more noticable, but at
1280x1024 the individual pixels are small enough that I *just don't
notice*. I'm much more sensitive to fluctuating framerates; not low
framerates necessarily, but when a 60fps scene suddenly drops down to
10fps and a second later back up to 60fps again.