Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-27-04, 10:35 PM   #1
Greg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,177
Default 3DMark vs Doom3

Now that 3DMark2003 is old and the new 3dMark2005 just around the corner, we can look back and decide if 3DMark correctly informed, or misled consumers.

This will naturally be a contentious topic. In my mind, 'new/current generation' games are those with per pixel lighting and shadows, no matter what the method is used, such as bump mapping for lighting and stencil or texture shadows. I'm sure others will argue that new games would have to use floating point color/texture formats, or other features, perhaps not available in older video cards.

We could compare a few games like FarCry, Doom3, DeusEx, Theif 3, Battlefield Vietnam with the results from 3DMark game tests.

This test is 3DMark Battle of Proxycon vs Doom3:

System 1
GeforceFX 5800 (@485/970)
Athlon64 3200+
1gb PC3200

3DMark2003 GT2 800x600: 48.7 fps
3DMark2003 GT2 640x480: 58.9 fps
3DMark2003 Default score: 5641

Doom3 800x600xMed: 68.2 fps
Doom3 640x480xMed: 81.2 fps

System 2
Geforce3 ti200 (@220/480)
Athlon XP2100+
512mb PC2100

3DMark2003 GT2 800x600: 11.9 fps (Expect ~17.3fps)
3DMark2003 GT2 640x480: 14.0 fps (Expect ~22.8fps)
3DMark2003 Default score: 1297 (Expect ~1975)

Doom3 800x600xMed: 24.3 fps
Doom3 640x480xMed: 31.0 fps


I would say the 3DMark frame rate score and the overall score which is all most people would see is a little misleading but not that bad. Unfortunately I don't have the Duron machine up to compare video and cpu mixes. What is interesting is that a fast CPU combined with a old video card allows current games be be played quite well, though at reduced resolution. Since the rendering cost has increased per pixel, this makes sense. This is not obvious from the 3DMark scores.

The method I used to compare scores was to compare the performance difference between the real game scores on each machine and compare then to the expected difference between 3DMark scores. The expected 3DMark overall score is based on the default setting of 3DMark which anyone can download, and the settings Doom3 was designed to run at. Of course that logic is purely my perception and not as accurate as the FPS scores.
Greg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-04, 06:40 PM   #2
quik_2_win
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 205
Default Re: 3DMark vs Doom3

Well, that's a difficult comparison. Extrapolating the 'expected performance' correction factor using one openGL and one DX9 application on two totally different platforms employing two different graphics boards can be misleading at best. I do, however understand your logic. It's interesting that you chose GT2 from 3DM03 as I believe it looks very similar to Doom3- look closely at the textures and lighting...however D3 obviously runs much faster. Interesting
quik_2_win is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-04, 09:07 PM   #3
Greg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,177
Default Re: 3DMark vs Doom3

It is a difficult comparison. The makers of 3DMark had to use some guess work as to what a future game would look like and what technologies would be used. I notice that Doom3 doesn't use self shadowing characters but 3DMark does. Thief and DeusEx use self shadowing, but no obvious specular lighting. From my and other peoples experience, the CPU plays a significant role in real games but very little in 3DMark. I didn't show a Duron 1.3 with the FX5800 vs a Athlon64 with the FX5800, but I am sure the results would be dramaticaly different.

The only way a better comparison could be made is with a whole bunch of modern games compared relative to 3DMark. My thought was that two years ago, people might have used the 3DMark Battle of Proxycon test to see how their computer might run Doom3 which had been previewed at that time and was much anticipated.
Greg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-04, 11:47 PM   #4
MUYA
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 6,795
Send a message via MSN to MUYA
Default Re: 3DMark vs Doom3

THE GT2 is dx 8.1 IIRC and uses a whole load of bump mapping...i dunno how much more or less compared to Doom III.

well Doom III is OpenGl game whereas 3Dmark2003 is a DX benchmark. So not entirely comparable. 3dmark is for reference as to "potential" capabilties of a GPU.

I always look for real game benches rather than synthetics when I read review really.
__________________
I5-2500k@4.7GHz - MSI Z77A-GD65 - 4GB X2 A-DATA DDR3 1600 - Corsair H100 - Antec Quatro 850W
Gigabyte Windforce X3 GTX 680 OC - Dell 24" IPS
Intel 320 300 GB SSD - 1 TB Hitachi HDD - 2x 250 GB WD HDD
Corsair K90 - Corsair Venegance 2000 Headset - Razer Naga Epic
Corsair 600T Case
MUYA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-04, 09:02 AM   #5
Greg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,177
Default Re: 3DMark vs Doom3

Never mind.

Last edited by Greg; 08-29-04 at 09:08 AM. Reason: Deleted comment on DX and OGL because it was boring.
Greg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-04, 09:19 AM   #6
MUYA
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 6,795
Send a message via MSN to MUYA
Default Re: 3DMark vs Doom3

ya nevermind...wrote that when i was drunk too..
__________________
I5-2500k@4.7GHz - MSI Z77A-GD65 - 4GB X2 A-DATA DDR3 1600 - Corsair H100 - Antec Quatro 850W
Gigabyte Windforce X3 GTX 680 OC - Dell 24" IPS
Intel 320 300 GB SSD - 1 TB Hitachi HDD - 2x 250 GB WD HDD
Corsair K90 - Corsair Venegance 2000 Headset - Razer Naga Epic
Corsair 600T Case
MUYA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-04, 11:27 AM   #7
Woodelf
I should be gaming.
 
Woodelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ferelden
Posts: 908
Default Re: 3DMark vs Doom3

Quote:
Originally Posted by MUYA
ya nevermind...wrote that when i was drunk too..
Been there.
__________________
i7920 @ 4.0 DO - Gigabyte ud4p - g.skill trident 6x2 ddr3 2000 @1600 7.7.7.18.1 - Cogage true spirit/sythe kaze 2000 - 2x Raid "0" WD 500GB (black) - xfi fatal1ty pro - Asus 5970 900/1200 - Corsair 1000HX - Samsung px2370
Woodelf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(PR) New 3DMark Trailer Shows Stunning DirectX 11 Graphics News Archived News Items 0 06-21-12 09:30 AM
Computex: 3DMark Announces Windows 8 Benchmarking - First Screenshots News Archived News Items 0 06-05-12 07:30 PM
poor 3Dmark score wysiwyg Benchmarking And Overclocking 4 09-27-02 05:25 AM
3dmark reports my fsb is 66? Gator Benchmarking And Overclocking 7 09-21-02 11:10 PM
3DMark, Fastest Webmasters and Me. intercede007 Benchmarking And Overclocking 4 08-17-02 11:49 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.