PDA

View Full Version : 8800GTS Doom 3 performance


XxDeadlyxX
03-13-07, 08:50 AM
Running D3 @ 1920x1200, 2xAA, 8xAF, High settings, my fps averages at 30-45fps. Now I'm aware that my A64 @ 2.5ghz is 'barely' pushing the card, but to me this seems to be GFX limited, because when I gradually lower the resolution and settings, the fps increases accordingly. So at 800x600, it's a constant 60 (vsync limit).

Doing the timedemo at 1600x1200, 4xAA, Vsync off, Ultra quality I get a mere 38fps, someone else in another thread got 90fps with same settings and similar setup except had an 8800GTX. He also had a standard single-core A64 like me. Something seems wrong here...

Any thoughts? Running 100.87.

Xraider
03-13-07, 02:17 PM
Look into the other settings like trilinear optimization, I think it works poorly on the 8800s. Also the GTX is superior to the GTS.

The memory speed is prolly different. From what i understand the GTS is the budget version with usually 320mb(I know urs is 640 just saying) and less speed on memory. This shows in high resolutions.

L33t Masta
03-13-07, 03:19 PM
Well with the 8800GTX, it does have more memory and it is faster. Thats probably the cause of the FPS boost. Try running it at 1680 by 1050 and you should get a boost.

Madpistol
03-13-07, 03:57 PM
Indeed. The 8800 GTX runs Doom 3 maxed out @ 1600x1200 with literally no slowdown. I find it odd that a GTS wouldn't run similarly. Interesting.... :headexplode:

grey_1
03-13-07, 04:06 PM
D3 looks horrendous on mine, both XP and Vista. It's smooth enough with everything maxed, it just looks pixalated and jaggy as heck, like I was running it at 640x480. Config is set to 1920x1200.

Here's the kicker though, if I run it windowed, which I do frequently for mapping, it looks insanely beautiful.

I'll post back if I find any fixes for it.

Dragunov
03-13-07, 05:14 PM
Maybe OpenGL is not up to speed yet

grey_1
03-13-07, 05:16 PM
Maybe OpenGL is not up to speed yet
That would be my guess. Surprised the heck out of me, it looked great on my 78s.

L33t Masta
03-13-07, 05:17 PM
Indeed. The 8800 GTX runs Doom 3 maxed out @ 1600x1200 with literally no slowdown. I find it odd that a GTS wouldn't run similarly. Interesting.... :headexplode:


Well the GTX is signifiganty faster than the GTS. Thats why I opted for ther GTX rather than the GTS.

Dragunov
03-13-07, 05:29 PM
The GTS uses the same cooling so I guess u can OC it well till u reach the speeds of a GTX, and how big the gap after this?

And about OpenGL, 101.41 gave already OpenGL improvements, but I guess we gonna see a lot more in the future.

G80 works with unified shaders and is very complex (read it somewhere), so I guess in 6 months G80 is more or less up to speed

XxDeadlyxX
03-13-07, 06:10 PM
Hmmm its just 38fps --> 90fps seems waay too big a gap from GTS --> GTX...

More hmm...

I'll mess around with trilinear opt etc and see if they make any difference. Or run without AA... then the fps averages about 45-50 @ 1920x1200. Arg but then it looks bad. Also I'll try Vista when I install it again when next driver release when DV for 8800 is supported. Not that I'll expect anything there... fps will probably go down into 20s then.

And people say I'm stupid for not running 8xAA on everything with 8800 :rolleyes:

Argh it seems like every game I'm pulling out has some issue or another... the only game which sofar has NO issues is Riddick.. that runs a bit better at 40fps+ @ 1920x1200, 2xaa.

Madpistol
03-14-07, 01:54 AM
I don't know why, but the 8800 GTX has so much more horsepower behind it at higher resolutions.

I'm really glad I got one. If they'd fix the issued on Source games, I wouldn't have a single quarrel about it.

L33t Masta
03-14-07, 02:14 AM
If they would fix some of the intermittant crashes I would be much happier and could live with the minor graphical quirks.

Wolfhound
03-14-07, 02:48 AM
In windows XP SP2, CPU at 2500Mhz, doom 3 Ultra quality,1280x1024, 8xAA in control Panel, 16xAF in control panel it gaves me 97fps, I donīt see any slowdown

XxDeadlyxX
03-14-07, 04:05 AM
In windows XP SP2, CPU at 2500Mhz, doom 3 Ultra quality,1280x1024, 8xAA in control Panel, 16xAF in control panel it gaves me 97fps, I donīt see any slowdown

When I run the timedemo at those exact settings I get 50fps score.. this is with Vsync off too (peaked at around 110fps in the timedemo). It kept dipping down to ~30fps constantly when there was action.

Sigh half your performance and the only real difference is you have dual core? Does dual really make that much of a difference ?? :(

grimreefer
03-14-07, 06:38 AM
When I run the timedemo at those exact settings I get 50fps score.. this is with Vsync off too (peaked at around 110fps in the timedemo). It kept dipping down to ~30fps constantly when there was action.

Sigh half your performance and the only real difference is you have dual core? Does dual really make that much of a difference ?? :(
the game is really old, and actually isnt multithreaded.
ultra quality mode uses uncompressed textures and is probly eating more video ram than u have. play it on the next highest setting.

XxDeadlyxX
03-14-07, 07:44 AM
the game is really old, and actually isnt multithreaded.
ultra quality mode uses uncompressed textures and is probly eating more video ram than u have. play it on the next highest setting.

Hmm that makes next to no difference at all... 1-2fps. Unless of course I put it at Medium or low, but that would be stupid. Also having the 640MB version it shouldnt make a difference anyway.

XxDeadlyxX
03-14-07, 08:06 AM
Ok at 1280x1024, 2xAA, 8xAF my timedemo goes up to 60fps score. Argh I'll completely uninstall it and re-install.. see if it makes any difference.

Madpistol
03-14-07, 08:19 AM
You're using the 640mb version. I would think that would have headroom to spare. I wonder what the real difference is.

SlieTheSecond
03-14-07, 12:42 PM
Doom 3 only uses 512 vram on ultra high. That was stated when the game was released. You are defiantly not maxing out your vram if you have 640 megs unless you are running some kinda texture mod.

I ran the time demo with the setup in my sig. I ran the timedemo twice. First time, then a second time as everything is cached.
1280x1024 (lcds max) ultra high, 4xAA
Video card stock, Cpu 3400mhz:
First run: 94.2 fps
Second Run: 117.8 fps

Video card stock, Cpu 2000mhz:
First run: 78 fps
Second run: 110 fps.



So at 2000mhz I get 18 fps more than you do. And thats a C2D at 2Ghz vs your amd 3000 at 2.5ghz. Could be your cpu causing slow downs during loading times.
What do you get on the second run?

XxDeadlyxX
03-14-07, 09:48 PM
Ok phew false alarm. I uninstalled D3 and wiped the folder, reinstalled.

Now I get 79fps @ 1920x1200, 2xAF, 8xAF on second run. It's WAY smoother than before playing too.

I knew something was up with those scores before... must have just been a bad install. Thanks guys.

mustrum
03-15-07, 07:12 AM
Ok phew false alarm. I uninstalled D3 and wiped the folder, reinstalled.

Now I get 79fps @ 1920x1200, 2xAF, 8xAF on second run. It's WAY smoother than before playing too.

I knew something was up with those scores before... must have just been a bad install. Thanks guys.

Hehe yeah made no sense. The GTX has 128 over the 92 shader units of the GTS. Also more memory bandwith. The performance advantage should never be more then 30%.

grey_1
03-15-07, 07:44 AM
Ok phew false alarm. I uninstalled D3 and wiped the folder, reinstalled.

Now I get 79fps @ 1920x1200, 2xAF, 8xAF on second run. It's WAY smoother than before playing too.

I knew something was up with those scores before... must have just been a bad install. Thanks guys.
How's your IQ? I'll give this a try also.