• 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.

How fast does Doom3 levels load for you? Including RAID0

R

Rob94hawk

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
2,222
I'm just curious if your Doom3 levels load faster than 30 sec in RAID0. I timed my 74GB Raptor and that's what I got. I read a review at anandtech.com that RAID0 does nothing for gaming, only with synthetic benchmarks does it do well.

Anyone running RAID0 for gaming?
 
i get about 45 seconds with SATA

i got 1 minute with PATA...

don't have raid
 
My drives aren't that new, I use them with converters to attach to SATA.

Doom 3 takes forever to load.
 
the levels will load faster if you can decompress the .pak files but this also makes it so you cant do the online multiplayer
 
DirtyApe said:
the levels will load faster if you can decompress the .pak files but this also makes it so you cant do the online multiplayer
Click to expand...
Wrong...it's just the opposite. (levels will take even longer to load) This idea (extracting the pak files) has been officially debunked by the lead programmer on Doom 3.

Robert Duffy's quote
 
thats odd...i tried it myself and the levels loaded in half the time.could just be me. and yes i did time them...and i can do it again if you want me to and see if it does it again...couldve been a flook but i dont know.
 
It's a placebo effect, unpacking the pak files, you know, like some believe reinstalling XP over and over improves performance.
 
Doom3 takes me about 30-40 seconds to load a new level non cached. I have two 37gb raptors in RAID0 32k stripe. Other games like BFV and Far Cry take about 15-30 seconds to load. A lot faster than when my 80gig IDE's were in RAID0.

edit: unpacking doom3 .pak files made the game take a lot longer for it to load in my case.
 
Riftgarde said:
It's a placebo effect, unpacking the pak files, you know, like some believe reinstalling XP over and over improves performance.
Click to expand...

Erm, reinstalling XP DOES improve performance... You should know this. MS Windows has a general habit of collecting fluff and getting more and more bloated as well as things getting messed up, conflicting, etc. All of which is solved for about a week by reinstalling. Of course, this only applies if you wait at least that week before reinstalling again, doing this every day has no benefit. ^_^

Now, as to why unpacking the files doesn't help most people, but does some, I suspect at least part of this is the CPU. If it is able to decompress fast enough, then the file will actually load from the harddrive faster obviously. You might be thinking your CPUs are more than enough, but, don't forget that it's doing a lot of processing for everything it loads too. I'd imagine that an Athlon 64 3000+ should be just a bit better than a P4C 2.6 (those PR ratings aren't perfect, but, they are still pretty good.) I'm sure there are a bunch of other factors involved too. For example, as I understand it, harddrives read faster towards one end of the drive than the other kind of like CDs.

What's the point though? Does it really hurt so much to have to wait a whole minute or two for levels to load?
 
norton ghost is a close friend of mine...maybe youve hear of him?? anything goes wrong with my computer and TADA! ive got a restore point :D makes ya feel all safe and fuzzy inside...until i play doom 3 that is :eek:
 
Riftgarde said:
Regedit and system restore aren't your friends are they?
Click to expand...
No, system restore just makes a bigger mess of things in my experience -- on the rare occasions I can even use it, which turned out to be so rare that I needed the HD space more than the system restore files. Don't forget that it quickly becomes pointless to use it anyway. Regedit I use just about every day, but, there's only so much it can do obviously. Even if you HAVE memorized every single point that needs to be fixed and exactly what to change it to to fix things. Besides, once you start going to such lengths, you get closer and closer to doing the same amount of work as a reinstallation anyway. Minus the extra advantages of a completely clean install.

And norton ghost is basically the same thing as reinstalling, just one heck of a time saver and obviously overall a lot easier. I admit that one of these days I need to get around to making a clean installation and making something like that.
 
Nazo said:
No, system restore just makes a bigger mess of things in my experience -- on the rare occasions I can even use it, which turned out to be so rare that I needed the HD space more than the system restore files. Don't forget that it quickly becomes pointless to use it anyway. Regedit I use just about every day, but, there's only so much it can do obviously. Even if you HAVE memorized every single point that needs to be fixed and exactly what to change it to to fix things. Besides, once you start going to such lengths, you get closer and closer to doing the same amount of work as a reinstallation anyway. Minus the extra advantages of a completely clean install.

And norton ghost is basically the same thing as reinstalling, just one heck of a time saver and obviously overall a lot easier. I admit that one of these days I need to get around to making a clean installation and making something like that.
Click to expand...
yea, norton ghost makes it a hell of a lot easier to do a restore to a previous point where everything works great. fastest way to do a ghost image is to save the image to the hard drive. this way it will only take about 10 minutes (if even that long) to put your windows back to where you want it
 
System restore is for nubs... it only slows ur PC down because of the shit it keeps and wastes space. If ur dumb enough to screw something up or delete a important document u should have to suffer because u deserve it! ;D


PS: it is a myth that reinstalling makes things work better. Its another idiout outside syndrome issue. I've had the same win2k install for i think 3 or so years now and has gone through a few mobo/cpu/video card upgrades too and guess what it still purrs like a kitten in games! =D
 
Tazman2 said:
PS: it is a myth that reinstalling makes things work better. Its another idiout outside syndrome issue. I've had the same win2k install for i think 3 or so years now and has gone through a few mobo/cpu/video card upgrades too and guess what it still purrs like a kitten in games! =D
Click to expand...

The obvious answer to that being that it would roar like a lion if you reinstalled. d-: Seriously though, it's not a HUGE difference when you reinstall. Just because your benchmarks results don't double doesn't mean it's not worth doing on a few occasions though. And no where did anyone say that it will slow down more and more until after a long enough time it would actually be painfully slow.
 
A Windows XP re-install would make performance slightly better due to all the crap getting knocked out of the registry. As well as all your ad-ware/malware and spyware being crippled.

A re-image of the machine with Ghost every three months would suffice for heavy use. That's what we do at work and it's fine. But there is no need to re-install your OS. You can keep the same performance that you always had if you don't load a bunch of crap you don't need and you clean your registry the right way if you do install new stuff.

You also have to be diligent about the removal of your spyware.
 
35-40 seconds doom3
25-35 seconds far cry

Three year old Seagate Barracuda IV ATA-100
 
I love system restore. helps a lot when you get some spyware or something. I have a ghost image too, but why should i do that when i can just restore? Answer - there is no reason.
 
Just tested. About 35-40 seconds depending on level, using 1280x1024 High settings on a 2x80GB SATA RAID 0.
 
I'm wondering why 2 ATA-100 barracuda drives non raid are running almost on par with sata raid 0.

The second hard drive is for games only, the most played games and all executables are at the front of the drive, the old games are placed at the end of the drive. I just didn't think it would speed it up that much.
 
You need to state the resolution and effects quality you were loading the game at. Look at the differences I found:

1600x1200 High 4xAA 16xAF - 41 seconds from pressing the 'load game' button from the introductory screen.

1600x1200 High, no AA, 8xAF - 38 seconds

640x480 Low no AA, no AF - 25 seconds

I've got 2x160Gb drives in SATA RAID 0
 
Different save games load at different speeds too, Hell loads slower than administration.

1600x1200 High 4xAA 16xAF: 25 seconds on administation, 35 on hell (autosaves) strange thing is it's the same time no matter the video setting for me *shrug*.

I copy everything off of the games drive, then format the drive then copy the games back over in the order of speed importance, doom3 is at the front of the drive. When I posted the last numbers I was using using speed disk to place the games, this new method seems better.

Now dual raid would be really fast, the OS on one array, the games on a second array, you don't have the OS/Programs fighting with the games for the front of the drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top