id Software's Official DOOM3 Benchmarks

BoogerBomb said:
I know but the [H] readers are already rating the cards based solely on the fps that Id has provided. I would think that a few more would want to seen IQ screenshot comparisons. Would have been nice if Kyle could have talked them into at least 2 (one for each card).
Click to expand...
Obviously some of you can't read.
id Software & HardOCP Team Up

Today we are showing you the DOOM 3 timedemo frame rates that so many of you will use to help make a decision for your DOOM 3 gaming configuration. But do keep in mind, as John mentioned above, we should not all live and die by the frame rate. As many of you are familiar with, HardOCP has taken a very tough line on evaluating the real-world gaming experience provided by our hardware, and that is exactly what is being done with DOOM 3 as well. id Software is very aware that there is a portion of the gaming and enthusiast crowd that wants their framerates straight up and that is what is being delivered to you today, but remember there is much more to the picture. id Software and HardOCP want you to be aware of just what kind of DOOM 3 experience you can expect from your current system or one that you are building or buying specifically to play DOOM 3.

The question, "Is my box OK for playing DOOM 3?" has been asked many times in the last year. Id Software and HardOCP are working to answer that question right now. Next week, before you can purchase DOOM 3, our goal is to publish the DOOM 3 [H]ardware Guide in order to give you an official resource to help you know what to expect out of your current hardware or to help make the right hardware buying decision should you be ready for an upgrade. This guide will look at components as well as full systems and what it is going to take to deliver the true hellish experience that is DOOM 3.

For those of you that think you are not going to have the hardware that you need to play DOOM 3, the fact of the matter is that many of you will be just fine, although an upgrade may still be in your future. As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good gaming experience. Even a subtle jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce 3 video card that is two years old will deliver a solid gaming experience that will let you enjoy the game the way id Software designed it to be. That fact alone should let many of you know that you will not be left behind in experiencing DOOM 3.
Click to expand...

Now I don't know about you but I could be a complete idiot but that reads as if the [H] guys where at id and playing the game (on boxes by Dell). :rolleyes:
 
BoogerBomb said:
I guess Kyle and the guys are failing in their attempts to show gamers that there is more to a game and hardware than just how fast a card can render a game. Framerate and quality are 2 different things. Just because Nvidia has a higher framerate doesn't mean it is a better card. I would like to actually see game screenshots from each card and be able to look at the image quality differences between the two. What good is 60fps if its rendering 60fps of crap?
Click to expand...

The 6800's have as good or better IQ then the X800's in every other game. The X800's dont support FULL Trilinear Filtering. The 6800's do. The X800's use Trilinear with a mix of Brilinear like the FX series used.

The 6800's also have UltraShadow II Technology which will be awesome for Doom 3.

The reviews so far have shown the 6800's to have the same IQ quality as the X800's. Please dont make me have to start digging out reviews and quotes.

Whatever the merits of ATI's adaptive trilinear filtering algorithm, ATI appears to have intentionally deceived members of the press, and by extension, the public, by claiming to use "full" trilinear filtering "all of the time" and recommending the use of colored mip map tools in order to verify this claim. Encouraging reviewers to make comparisons to NVIDIA products with NVIDIA's similar trilinear optimizations turned off compounded the offense. Any points ATI has scored on NVIDIA over the past couple of years as NVIDIA has been caught in driver "optimizations" and the like are, in my book, wiped out.
Click to expand...

http://techreport.com/etc/2004q2/filtering/index.x?pg=1

Screenshots are also not always accurate of on the fly in-game IQ.

TR: We noticed some interesting things about GeForce 6-series antialiasing in our review. Is the GeForce 6800's 8X antialiasing mode 4X supersampling plus 2X multisampling?

Tamasi: The current mode that's actually in the control panel is a 4X super/2X multi, and that will work in both OpenGL and D3D. We actually do have a 4X multi/2X super mode that a driver, probably within the next few weeks, is going to enable as well.

TR: Does GeForce 6800 antialiasing do anything at scan-out that won't be picked up in screenshots? If so, what is it doing and in which modes?

Tamasi: The resolve pass—when you typically multisample you have to do a resolve pass—can either be done as another pass in the frame buffer or at scan-out. In the case of, like, if you're doing, say, 4X multisampling, that resolve pass is actually done what we call "on the fly." We don't take a separate pass and write another buffer.

So if you take screenshots, you need to... there's a couple of utilities that will do the right thing and a couple of them which will not do the right thing. In fact, our drivers now basically do the right thing. In other words, when you grab a frame, it will give you a a post-resolve image as opposed to a non-multisampled image.

TR: Now, does that apply in all your multisampled modes?

Tamasi: Yeah. This resolve on the fly technology works for any multisampling mode.

TR: What about screenshots from 3DMark03? When you use its image quality tool, does it produce the correct output?

Tamasi: If you select AA with 3DMark, then you'll get the correct frame grabs.

TR: ATI has touted "gamma-correct blending" for antialiasing in the R300 series. Does the GeForce 6800 Ultra have this feature, and if not, why not?

Tamasi: It does, and I want to be really specific about this, because there's a lot of confusion about it. There's a great deal of difference between gamma correction and gamma adjustment. What ATI does is do a gamma adjustment to gamma 2.2, which can be correct depending on your display, and that's essentially what we do, as well. Gamma correction would typically would mean you could do an adjustment to any gamma, and that would require a shader pass.
Click to expand...

ATI also says they have gamma corrected AA which they dont. Its gamma adjusted like nVidia has for the 6800's. If it was gamma corrected they would take about a 2x performance hit to what they are now. I've got more information on that if anyone needs it.

I'm sorry, but ATI has no lead over nVidia for IQ this round like they did last year with the NV30's vs R300's.

You can probably max out the eye candy for Doom 3 on a 6800GT. I doubt that you will be able to say the same about the X800Pro considering its gimping along behind the pack :p.
 
Where did I say Nvidia was rendering "crap" I left that generic on purpose. Im not a big ATI or Nvidia fan. I have owned cards from both companies. I went with ATI 9800Pro because at the time Nvidia's drivers where crashing most of the games I play. Nvidia finally saw what they were doing and went back to the methids that worked. Right now I would say that performance wise both cards are about even. Is it really possible to tell the difference between 60 and 65 fps?
 
NOTD665 said:
I'm most suprised about the ATi defecit in the lower end segment (x800 Pro vs. 6800GT).

The x800 gets trumped!

I think this is appropriate.

"We don't deny that ATI has a wonderful product and it took the performance lead from us. But if they think they're going to hold onto it, they're smoking something hallucinogenic.''
Click to expand...


DUDE The Pe got trumped
 
CrimandEvil said:
Obviously some of you can't read.


Now I don't know about you but I could be a complete idiot but that reads as if the [H] guys where at id and playing the game (on boxes by Dell). :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But at what settings? NoAA/NoAF?
 
ZenOps said:
Oh comeon, lets not do this debate, but IMO:

ATi owned 2D after weeding out Cirrus logic, Tseng and number 9, Nvidia hadn't even been born at that time. 3Dfx made the early rage and tnt chips look like they were standing still, but it did not matter becase 3dfx was 3d only at the time (you needed both boards anyways) Everything up to the GF3 was owned by 3Dfx. The GF3 and 4, but not the 3 and 4MX's (which is the worst naming deception to date) definitively took the crown from 3dfx just as 3dfx was starting to get into the 2D aspect. Ati caught up with the Radeon 8500, but only after about 6 months of straightening out the drivers. Ati definitively beat Nvidia with the 9700pro.

Now, its just about even again, with ATi doing better in D3D high res/AA/AF and NVidia doing better in OGL low AA/AF.
Click to expand...

I agree with just about all of this, especially the point that ATI had superior 2d quality for quite a while which I forgot about since it stopped being an issue so long ago.

However. 3dfx started losing the day the TNT came out. 1 Voodoo2 lost badly to a TNT, only SLI could beat it, and that's a $500 3 slot solution, so SLI was pretty rare.

Let's not forget the Voodoo Banshee, which marked the beginning of the end. 3dfx bought out STB (who was a huge oem partner for Nvidia) and started making thier own cards, and what did they produce? A giant piece of shit. The Voodoo 3s could compete with Nvidia, but not win. Not to mention all the bullshit about thier lack of 32bit color support and all thier attempts to convince people that there was no difference. They even pulled a whole bunch of nonsense about, what was it, 22bit color? something stupid like that?

ATI did catch up with the 8500, but Nvidia driver upgrades kept them slightly ahead again, and all the nonsense about ATI cheatin badly in Quake3 left me with a poor impression of the 8500, which was actually a pretty good card.

I'm not even going to mention the Voodoo5 6000.
 
Doom 3 does seem to be a little more geared toward Nvidia and all its goodies, IE: Ultrashadow II, NVidias HDR, etc. Although late to implement, things that could have been added from ATI would have been 3Dc and better Smartshader support.

Still, I'm curious as to what the screenies look like... Both cards should be completely different in their rendering abilities. ATi should be a standard 24-bit FP, and I seriously doubt Nvidia is getting these numbers with a 32-bit FP but they also seem low for a pure 16-bit FP. Maybe Carmack did get around to that hybrid precision?
 
This doesn't surprise me at all.

Doom 3 is a heavy OpenGL game, everyone should of known that Nvidia's cards would run a lot faster.

I wonder how Half Life 2's benchmarks will do. The Radeon Cards will probably run great on it. But how big will the FPS difference be between the NV and ATI?

And when developers pick up these engines? We see that one company doing a vampire game (which does look totally bitching) on the Source engine, but that's it.
 
^^^^see above^^^^

I've been debating between ATi and nVidia (seriously, where was my 6th grade English teacher when they were handing out names? Silly techies....) for my new machine, and I have to say, this news hasn't really helped my see-sawing. If you look at any of the other benchmark reviews that people have done comparing the various flagships, the X800 and GT are fairly well matched, with the GT a little ahead, same thing with the 6800U and X800XT-PE, with the PE SLIGHTLY ahead in that case.

So all this is saying that nVidia cards do well on a game that was optimized for nVidia cards and that was ignored by ATi? This is a suprise?

I'm not a fanboy on either side, but from my standpoint these benchmarks only say one thing: at this moment, on Intel rigs, with a lot of RAM, nVidia cards do better on Doom3.

*shrug* If this phemomenon were to be wide-spread with new games, then it would be telling, but Farcry doesn't show appreciable differences between the cards and I'm doubtful that that will change with other new releases unless everyone starts "optimizing". If anyone can post evidence suggesting that other games will go to nVidia's or ATi's cards, please please post it here.

Right now I'm leaning toward the 6800GT, but that's because of SM3.0 support, not these new statistics.

Did no one else think that the most telling thing was the >6 fps gap between the PCI-Express and APG configs? Granted, the procs and RAM was different....but was that extra gig really that important?
 
a couple of people like who cares about 20 fps etc. etc.? while i cannot see the diffrence i can feel the diffrence between 80 and 60 fps, i play massive amounts of dod on my 9800 pro and when im running other programs as well everyonce in a while it will dip down to 60 and i catch it every time looking down at netgraph going wtf, so yes, 20 fps, or even 5 fps for that matter, matters
 
ZenOps said:
ATi owned 2D after weeding out Cirrus logic, Tseng and number 9, Nvidia hadn't even been born at that time.
Click to expand...
I think you're forgetting a little company called Matrox.
 
ZenOps said:
Doom 3 does seem to be a little more geared toward Nvidia and all its goodies, IE: Ultrashadow II, NVidias HDR, etc. Although late to implement, things that could have been added from ATI would have been 3Dc and better Smartshader support.

Still, I'm curious as to what the screenies look like... Both cards should be completely different in their rendering abilities. ATi should be a standard 24-bit FP, and I seriously doubt Nvidia is getting these numbers with a 32-bit FP but they also seem low for a pure 16-bit FP. Maybe Carmack did get around to that hybrid precision?
Click to expand...

Doom 3 doesn't have HDR, ATI's OpenGL drivers dont support 3Dc, and you can run Full Trilinear on the 6800's while you can only run Trilinear mixed with Brilinear on the X800's.
 
SearchForTheAnyKey said:
So all this is saying that nVidia cards do well on a game that was optimized for nVidia cards and that was ignored by ATi? This is a suprise?
Click to expand...

I really can't emphasize enough that this game was optimized for ALL cards and Nvidia was not given preferential treatment. Nvidia wins in Doom3 because ATi has neglected thier OpenGL drivers.

It's not a surprise that the 6800U is on top, however it is a surprise that the GT is ahead of the XTPE.
 
If anyone thinks that the DOOM3 engine will only be used in a few games they are nuts. If it ends up being all it is cracked up to be it will be used in tons of games not to mention the 2 big id titles Quake4 and the next Wolfenstien game. ATI still may get thier GL drivers to run better but this is a big bench people have been waiting a long time for, so naturally people are excited. Just think how long the Q3 engine has been used. This is going to be a very popular engine because DOOM3 looks awsome and is suposed to preform very well on older hardware. That means more PCs can run it and more people will buy it. Ati didnt keep up with thier GL drivers and that was dumb considerring how huge DOOM3 will be. I love my ATI cards but it is a matter of preformance for price and right now NVidia has the better preformance and the same price. This isnt just about DOOM3. The 6800s and the X800 ran close in other stuff too, but this is a big game to lose on.
 
*shrug* If this phemomenon were to be wide-spread with new games, then it would be telling, but Farcry doesn't show appreciable differences between the cards and I'm doubtful that that will change with other new releases unless everyone starts "optimizing". If anyone can post evidence suggesting that other games will go to nVidia's or ATi's cards, please please post it here.
Click to expand...

LOL, do you see what you're saying? No appreciable difference in Far cry, and complete ownage in DOOM...the choice is obvious.
 
iZero said:
I think you're forgetting a little company called Matrox.
Click to expand...

Well that's always been true, hell Matrox still rocks for 2d and especially multi-monitor 2d.

However, it wasn't in the running with ATi and Nvidia for 3d performance so much, so the comparison's were all between ATi and Nvidia. So when people were listing reasons to go ATi instead of Nvidia, 2d quality was always mentioned since they were noticeably ahead of Nvidia back in the day.
 
I predict brand new driver releases the day before D3 ships from both companies that dramatically alter performance on D3. I will buy D3 the day it comes out but will wait a few weeks for drivers to be optimized specifically for D3, since thats all that most gamers care about right now, before I decide which high-end card to buy.
 
Rasha said:
a couple of people like who cares about 20 fps etc. etc.? while i cannot see the diffrence i can feel the diffrence between 80 and 60 fps, i play massive amounts of dod on my 9800 pro and when im running other programs as well everyonce in a while it will dip down to 60 and i catch it every time looking down at netgraph going wtf, so yes, 20 fps, or even 5 fps for that matter, matters
Click to expand...

Those benchies are WITHOUT AI AND LIGHTING in full effect...the more fps the better, frankly I'll probably end up going for a config with a minumum of 50fps, no matter what it looks like, for online play, and maybe 40fps minimum for single player.
 
BoogerBomb said:
I guess Kyle and the guys are failing in their attempts to show gamers that there is more to a game and hardware than just how fast a card can render a game. Framerate and quality are 2 different things. Just because Nvidia has a higher framerate doesn't mean it is a better card. I would like to actually see game screenshots from each card and be able to look at the image quality differences between the two. What good is 60fps if its rendering 60fps of crap?
Click to expand...
Yep, it is back to Quake 3 timedemos next week.
 
It's no surprise that ATI's opengl drivers aren't very efficient. For a long time now nvidia cards have been probably about 30% faster in games like counterstrike. I saw ATI say somewhere that there's haven't been any games out that push hardware in opengl, and that their driver was inefficient because it needs to be completely redone from scratch. From what I've seen if ATI gets off their asses and decided they want a viable product to sell, it won't be too hard for them to actually ship out X800-XT's and get their drivers up to competitive performance.
 
Also, I'm kinda happy reading that the game does preform well on a 1.5 ghz with a GFMX440. That means it will run nice on my other machine (2.4 ghz with a GF5600 256.)
 
BoogerBomb said:
I predict brand new driver releases the day before D3 ships from both companies that dramatically alter performance on D3. I will buy D3 the day it comes out but will wait a few weeks for drivers to be optimized specifically for D3, since thats all that most gamers care about right now, before I decide which high-end card to buy.
Click to expand...

It runs fine on GT/Ultra's now with the current drivers. Why wait? Anyway, if you love DOOM it seems to me the choice is pretty obvious. Even if you don't, I'd decided on the GT weeks ago based on a thoughtful analysis of what each card had to offer.

Good luck.

These people talking about how there aren't any opengl games anyway....HAHAHAH. Give me a freakin' break. There will be now, that's for sure, as we start seeing the coolest games pop up using the doom 3 engine. Even half life started out on the quake engine. Id's engines and tech that supports them will be incredibly important if you like FPS and games like me...the coolest games have always been built around id game engines.
 
From SearchForTheAnyKey:

"I'm not a fanboy on either side, but from my standpoint these benchmarks only say one thing: at this moment, on Intel rigs, with a lot of RAM, nVidia cards do better on Doom3."

Agreed. I really can't wait for [H]'s comparison of different hardware running D3.

I really think I'm going to wait and see how this game runs on my current rig. If I'm happy with it, I'll wait to upgrade. I'm really interested in seeing what the new cards can do with not only D3, but Stalker and some of the other new games.
 
i love the way people try to justify losing cards---can you really tell the difference between 50 and 60 fps??? LOL

If fps didnt matter people, then you wouldnt read that review
 
Drakensoul said:
The spirit of him knowing he can sell the X800XT and buy his GT back for a profit? :)
Click to expand...
shhhhh, i have similar plans.
 
as i refer to my earlier statement, yes i can tell the diffrence between 50 and 60 fps, not in what i see, but in how i shoot
 
burningrave101 said:
Carmack is using ARB_precision_hint_fastest (FP16) on the 6800's.
Click to expand...
That was the old NV30 path that was dropped. The 6800 (and x800/R3x0) uses the ARB2 path, as he has said several times recently.
 
burningrave101 said:
Carmack is using ARB_precision_hint_fastest (FP16) on the 6800's.
Click to expand...

So, is nvidia still doing shader recompiling with it's driver? Or does it natively run 24 bit now with the 6800.

This seems such a simple question, don't know why I don't know this yet.
 
I think that the shaded portion of John Carmack's statement below are key. No conspiracies here, just the [H]ard cold facts.


Today we are sharing with you framerate data that was collected at the id Software offices in Mesquite, Texas. Both ATI and NVIDIA were present for the testing and brought their latest driver sets. While an extensive amount of data was taken, what we want to focus on is the high end video cards that are currently making their way to market. That means we will be showing you frames per second rates taken using the DOOM 3 timedemo "demo1" that will be included in your boxed copy of DOOM 3. The version of the game used to test is the same version you will be loading onto your own computer.

If Ati had some miraculous superior IQ during this comparison, we would have heard about it already. Ati would & TeamRadeon.com would have D3 screenshots plastered everywhere.

Many thnx to a results oriented [H] team. As usual great work guys!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Glad i still got 8 days to return my X800Pro for a refund at the store lol, There is a store 25 miles from me that has 6 6800 Ultra cards for $599 so im gonna just spend the extra cash and try to get one of them tomorrow, sounds like im blowing off work!
 
This is the first we have seen of DOOM3 benches and who knows what will happen in real game play, but it doesnt look good for ATI so far. Alot can change but a 20fps lead is a big one. I think it will take alot of ATI Cat drivers to make up that lead. :)
 
davidj said:
I think that the shaded portion of John Carmack's statement below are key. No conspiracies here, just the [H]ard cold facts.


Today we are sharing with you framerate data that was collected at the id Software offices in Mesquite, Texas. Both ATI and NVIDIA were present for the testing and brought their latest driver sets. While an extensive amount of data was taken, what we want to focus on is the high end video cards that are currently making their way to market. That means we will be showing you frames per second rates taken using the DOOM 3 timedemo "demo1" that will be included in your boxed copy of DOOM 3. The version of the game used to test is the same version you will be loading onto your own computer.

If Ati had some miraculous superior IQ during this comparison, we would have heard about it already. Ati would & TeamRadeon.com would have D3 screenshots plastered everywhere.

Many thnx to a results oriented [H] team. As usual great work guys!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Was I just imagining things or did they say they were using the 8.05 driver from ATi?

What Catalyst version does this correspond to? 4.8? And has there been any comment on whether or not this driver version contains ATi's rumored new OpenGL driver?
 
im quite happy i chose to go with the GT, these benches dont look good for ati :eek:
 
^eMpTy^ said:
Was I just imagining things or did they say they were using the 8.05 driver from ATi?

What Catalyst version does this correspond to? 4.8? And has there been any comment on whether or not this driver version contains ATi's rumored new OpenGL driver?
Click to expand...

I hope not for thier sake.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
Was I just imagining things or did they say they were using the 8.05 driver from ATi?

What Catalyst version does this correspond to? 4.8? And has there been any comment on whether or not this driver version contains ATi's rumored new OpenGL driver?
Click to expand...

Maybe ATI wants to be like Nvidia and just have huge jumps in numbers between driver releases. I wonder how companies come up with version numbers for their drivers. I cant see any real pattern, its almost like they both just pick a number out of thin air and says that sounds good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top