• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

9800pro in doom3...medium or high...!!

M

Mike Ryna

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
65
Alright this question has been asked a rediculous amount of times in the official thread for the Doom 3 [H]ardware Guide but everytime it gets lost in the rest of the clutter in that post. I've got 4 days and while I'm not upgrading this gen. it'd be nice to get a real answer on this.

Why does the Athlon XP (NOT 64 DONT REPLY WITH 64>3.0 IM TALKING XP) 3200+ suggest to run at high quality (HQ) 1024 with results of:
http://www2.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA5MDc4NzE0M1RPNjJBTU9FV1hfN185X2wuZ2lm

Avg FPS of 47.3


At the same time the same graphics cards with 1gb of ram INSTEAD of 512mb in the AMD system is recommended for medium settings at 1024 with results of:
http://www2.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTA5MDc4NzE0M1RPNjJBTU9FV1hfOV84X2wuZ2lm

Avg FPS of 50.4


The other differences noted are that the AMD run is at 8x AF whereas, because of medium settings, the Intel run is at 0x AF.


As far as I have ever read the Athlon XP vs. a 3.0ghz intel on the i875 platform was always inferior in most anything. It was not until the 64-bit AMDs did AMD edge ahead in a few categories including gaming. Why can the Athlon XP 3200+ run Doom 3 in HIGH settings with 8x AF whereas the 3.0ghz intel on i875 must resort to medium at the same resolution? Is this a typo at some place? I don't understand how the AMD is so much better (its supposed to be inferior...) that it can run with HALF the ram, HQ vs. MQ and 8x ansio and only lose 3fps...something is wrong here.

Please let US (i stress us because there were more ppl than me asking in the huge thread) know it'd be nice to know if I can(and based on that I should be able to...) run my 2.8 p4 with 9800pro on high at 1024...
 
Questioning the D3 Hardware Guide is like questioning the Bible. Basically, what the Bible said is truth, and that's all you need to know.

"Why" is a very dangerous question. Just accept and embrace. :)



This is a joke btw. Might be too subtle for some people.
 
lol the first guy wtf...they don't just pick it out of a hat something affected their decision and I am basically posing a few questions:

1. Did the XP 3200+ ACTUALLY perform THAT much better (better yet...did it at all?) than the 3.0ghz p4?

2. If not, why is there only a 3fps decrease with 512mb LESS ram, hq instead of mq and 8x af instead of 0x...?

3. Are you sure this isn't a typo or some mistake?

I am not bad-mouthing the guide as it is simply awesome. I didn't think a 9800 pro WOULD be able to play high settings because of the 128mb aspect so I wasn't surprised when I checked my system getting 50fps on mq in 1024...I didn't even think about any of this until I went back and read the whole guide and saw the 3200+ with the same card, less ram and higher settings running only 3fps less.

I'm just asking for some kind of reason or confirmation, not bad-mouthing the guide or the methods.
 
MY guess is that it would probably be a typo... 128MB = medium quality from what I've heard.
 
Just because you have a 128mb card doesn't rule out the possibility of running in High. On a 9800, I would guess it is doable along as you have enough RAM to support the texture swapping. Same holds true for those with 256mb cards wanting to run in Ultra. There are many things that affect performance, so it is simply best to experiment once you have the game. :cool:
 
Mike Ryna said:
As far as I have ever read the Athlon XP vs. a 3.0ghz intel on the i875 platform was always inferior in most anything. It was not until the 64-bit AMDs did AMD edge ahead in a few categories including gaming. Why can the Athlon XP 3200+ run Doom 3 in HIGH settings with 8x AF whereas the 3.0ghz intel on i875 must resort to medium at the same resolution? Is this a typo at some place? I don't understand how the AMD is so much better (its supposed to be inferior...) that it can run with HALF the ram, HQ vs. MQ and 8x ansio and only lose 3fps...something is wrong here.

Please let US (i stress us because there were more ppl than me asking in the huge thread) know it'd be nice to know if I can(and based on that I should be able to...) run my 2.8 p4 with 9800pro on high at 1024...
Click to expand...

My guess would be the much stronger x87 FPU unit of the XP is being heavily used rather than SSE/SSE2. The XP always performed better than the p4 in Serious Sam, and some other games. It mainly depends on the game. The ram isn't much of an issue anyways because more than 512MB isn't going to help you from the sounds of it.

Judging by the article, I'd say you're in for medium quality unless you give the p4 a little overclock lovin. Since it's the same card in both machines and the XP has better settings, it must be related to CPU power.
 
Still lookin for an official response on this one...I understand that if its true its related to CPU power but the results are still weird and don't make sense...
 
Mike Ryna said:
Is this a typo at some place? I don't understand how the AMD is so much better (its supposed to be inferior...) that it can run with HALF the ram, HQ vs. MQ and 8x ansio and only lose 3fps...something is wrong here.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, AMD is suppose to be inferior? I could link you to a couple thousand reviews that say otherwise...
 
haha and I was hoping for high with my 2.5 :( maybe I should put the OC on so I can get medium haha..
 
Shane_c82 said:
Hmmm, AMD is suppose to be inferior? I could link you to a couple thousand reviews that say otherwise...
Click to expand...

Whats links??...I would appreciatte if you can send me this links...But be aware we are talking about AMD XP not 64...I believe you are right with 64 but not for AMD XP...Even in most games ( almost all ) P4 3.0 works better than AMD Xp 32000..And if you add the double memory in P4 3.0 it is more strange the subject...
Also I dont agree with the statement that 128 MB = Medium Quality..As the guide says there are cases that you can handle High Quality with 128 MB video cards...it depends on the rest of hardware.but if AMD Xp 3200 with 512MB can handly I hardly doubt P 4 3.0 with 1 GB cant.
Mike, I am in the same position of you but symetricaly on the opposite..I have a 3.2 P4 1GB RAM and a 9800pro 128 MB video card...Thats why that result caught my attention...I think my CPU is pretty fast to change it..and about a video card the only option is the new generation but they are really too expensive to justify now the purchase...The 9800pro is an excellent card at the present...So thats why I also want and official answer..Maybe is as it is but it is really strange and the justification about AMD architecture seems logical but really not enough to make so difference...If you know something else please post...Thanks

PD: I really ask for the links that shows that an AMD XP 3200 is better than a P4..please..
 
I despise people like Shane that don't read the post and assuming I'm talking about the 64 and not the XP :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Still waiting for something official or maybe I'll just have to wait a week and try it :( .
 
I'd still run medium with nearly any card if you had 128MB of videoram. If you tried to run high, the speed of the GPU would not even be a factor because it would have to go through the absolutely slow AGP interface to grab some AGP texture space from your main memory. PCI-E might lessen the drastic speed drop that would happen, but even then it would probably be pretty choppy.
 
But if the guide isn't a typo....the 9800pro ran high on XP 3200+...with 512mb ram...at 47fps...

That is what I'm trying to figure out...if this is correct.
 
I never said a 3200+ was better than a P4 3.0, the way I interpreted his statement was that AMD makes inferior products, which obviosly it doesn't and the reviews I was referring to prove that. If he didn't mean that fine. :)

As for running Doom 3 in high quality with a P4 2.8 and a gig of ram, I wouldn't worry about it, it should run it fine with a 9800 pro, though it might slow down some with many monsters on the screen.

And Mike I read your post, I was not talking about the 64...
 
Shane_c82 said:
I never said a 3200+ was better than a P4 3.0, the way I interpreted his statement was that AMD makes inferior products, which obviosly it doesn't and the reviews I was referring to prove that. If he didn't mean that fine. :)

As for running Doom 3 in high quality with a P4 2.8 and a gig of ram, I wouldn't worry about it, it should run it fine with a 9800 pro, though it might slow down some with many monsters on the screen.

And Mike I read your post, I was not talking about the 64...
Click to expand...

whether you like it or not, Amd's XP line in the late part of its life (were talking 3000+, 3200+) ARE inferior to the P4's late production life (3.0C on). They just were. Now, however, AMD > Intel in the high end segment.
 
computerpro3 said:
whether you like it or not, Amd's XP line in the late part of its life (were talking 3000+, 3200+) ARE inferior to the P4's late production life (3.0C on). They just were. Now, however, AMD > Intel in the high end segment.
Click to expand...

I agree, I was talking more generally. I would say AMD and Intel are on the same playing field as far as desktop performance is concerned.
 
Shane_c82 said:
I agree, I was talking more generally. I would say AMD and Intel are on the same playing field as far as desktop performance is concerned.
Click to expand...


Well, all is solved..no misunderstanding..Still the question remainss..I guess Mike is right..until next week to have an answer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top