Doom3 quality settings

[Maxspeed996]

Video Card wise....I have an AGP 8x slot on my board. Will the X800 be enough.
Or will the x1600 with a Zalman on it , and overclocked be the way to go? They are around $150 for the x1600.....

 

[Thorny]

IIRC Doom3 needs 512Mb of video ram to run on ultra, not sure how much gpu power is required though

 

[lavaheadache]

I got away using ultra with a 6800 GT fine with no problems.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Thorny
IIRC Doom3 needs 512Mb of video ram to run on ultra, not sure how much gpu power is required though

This has been proven multiple times to be false.

A 9800 Pro 128MB runs Doom 3 perfectly well at 1024x768 at ultra settings with no aa/af other than the automatically enabled af in the game itself.

 

[Acanthus]

Ultra and High quality look identical, im not joking.

Ultra just doesnt compress the textures, which in theory increases the image quality, but in practice, it looks identical.

 

[Bull Dog]

Its like lossless JPGs vs BMP files. No visible difference, much smaller/larger file size.

 

[Thorny]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Thorny
IIRC Doom3 needs 512Mb of video ram to run on ultra, not sure how much gpu power is required though

This has been proven multiple times to be false.

A 9800 Pro 128MB runs Doom 3 perfectly well at 1024x768 at ultra settings with no aa/af other than the automatically enabled af in the game itself.

Am I wrong or does resolution not jump to 1600*1200 when you click on ultra? I was assuming a higher resolution was going to be used, which would require more memory. I'm sure my old 9200se would work fine on ultra if you lower the res enough.

Edit Link to AT's Benches

Edit #2

I do agree that high settings look just as good as ultra and the game looks awsome at lower levels and resolution. The first time I played was actually on my old 9200 and it looked good at medium settings at 1024*768, but had crappy framerates. My 800xl played it very well and my 800xtpe has no probs at all

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: Thorny

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Thorny
IIRC Doom3 needs 512Mb of video ram to run on ultra, not sure how much gpu power is required though

This has been proven multiple times to be false.

A 9800 Pro 128MB runs Doom 3 perfectly well at 1024x768 at ultra settings with no aa/af other than the automatically enabled af in the game itself.

Am I wrong or does resolution not jump to 1600*1200 when you click on ultra? I was assuming a higher resolution was going to be used, which would require more memory. I'm sure my old 9200se would work fine on ultra if you lower the res enough.


Edit Link to AT's Benches

It may change the resolution to that but it's not like you can't select your own

 

[evolucion8]

I ran Doom 3 at 1280x1024 (monitor limit) with Ultra High Quality and 4x FSAA and 8xAF and it runs as fast as the High Quality, I do sometimes see some hiccups, but is because of the game being swapped to the Page File, it uses more than 700MB of RAM.

 

[Skunkwourk]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
I got away using ultra with a 6800 GT fine with no problems.

what processor, mine stuttered at times, running a 6800GT and A64 3700 (s754 though), oh and what res?

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ultra and High quality look identical...

 

[BFG10K]

This has been proven multiple times to be false.

No it hasn't. It's a fact that Doom 3's uncompressed textures exceed 500 MB in certain scenes. That certain individuals have no clue as to what texture swapping is doesn't change said fact.

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

This has been proven multiple times to be false.

No it hasn't. It's a fact that Doom 3's uncompressed textures exceed 500 MB in certain scenes. That certain individuals have no clue as to what texture swapping is doesn't change said fact.

BFG, I don't see how they could exceed 500megs at 1024x768 and not exceed a gig at 1600x1200. Shouldn't the size of the texture be dependent on the resolution?

 

[BFG10K]

Shouldn't the size of the texture be dependent on the resolution?

Nope, texture size and resolution have nothing to do with each other. They are completely separate.

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Shouldn't the size of the texture be dependent on the resolution?

Nope, texture size and resolution have nothing to do with each other. They are completely separate.

Ok

 

[dguy6789]

You are right they don't(referring to texture size scaling with resolution). However, show me one benchmark ANYWHERE where it shows a benefit moving to a 512MB card of the same speed in Doom 3. Just because ID says something, does not make it true.(I also recall ID saying Doom 3 will be a good game ) Every single benchmark with a 256 and 512MB card say otherwise. Would I goto Intel.com to get reliable information on how Pentium 4s perform compared to Athlon 64s?

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Thorny
I'm sure my old 9200se would work fine on ultra if you lower the res enough.

The first time I played was actually on my old 9200 and it looked good at medium settings at 1024*768, but had crappy framerates.

I dont know how that is even possible given that my Radeon 8500 can barely sustain 20 frames average at 640x480 at medium settings. Maybe you have 4x 9200SE in Crossife mode? Because at 1024x768, doom 3 is a slide show with 9200 guaranteed.

Benchmarks

At Ultra quality, it seems no previous generation cards can play doom 3 at 4AA/16AF 1600x1200
LINK
With no AA, it's not a problem though.

 

[Thorny]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: Thorny
I'm sure my old 9200se would work fine on ultra if you lower the res enough.

The first time I played was actually on my old 9200 and it looked good at medium settings at 1024*768, but had crappy framerates.

I dont know how that is even possible given that my Radeon 8500 can barely sustain 20 frames average at 640x480 at medium settings. Maybe you have 4x 9200SE in Crossife mode? Because at 1024x768, doom 3 is a slide show with 9200 guaranteed.

Benchmarks

At Ultra quality, it seems no previous generation cards can play doom 3 at 4AA/16AF 1600x1200
LINK
With no AA, it's not a problem though.

I suppose I could pop the card back in a take a screenie for you if you want. I would average 18-22 fps at medium settings, no AF/AA of course, but it was actually playable to an extent. I never actually tried ultra settings at a low res, but tried at 1024*768 and it was a 4 fps slideshow.

I don't know what your guarantee is worth, but since your wrong don't you owe me something? I'll settle for a cookie, I prefer chocolate chip

 

[rstrohkirch]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
You are right they don't(referring to texture size scaling with resolution). However, show me one benchmark ANYWHERE where it shows a benefit moving to a 512MB card of the same speed in Doom 3. Just because ID says something, does not make it true.(I also recall ID saying Doom 3 will be a good game ) Every single benchmark with a 256 and 512MB card say otherwise. Would I goto Intel.com to get reliable information on how Pentium 4s perform compared to Athlon 64s?

Your FPS shouldn't change much as it's simply swapping textures it needs for the scene in and out. It may stutter some but that doesn't seem to show up on the timedemo.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: rstrohkirch

Originally posted by: dguy6789
You are right they don't(referring to texture size scaling with resolution). However, show me one benchmark ANYWHERE where it shows a benefit moving to a 512MB card of the same speed in Doom 3. Just because ID says something, does not make it true.(I also recall ID saying Doom 3 will be a good game ) Every single benchmark with a 256 and 512MB card say otherwise. Would I goto Intel.com to get reliable information on how Pentium 4s perform compared to Athlon 64s?

Your FPS shouldn't change much as it's simply swapping textures it needs for the scene in and out. It may stutter some but that doesn't seem to show up on the timedemo.

Any and all swapping in Doom 3 occured due to lack of memory. With more than 1GB, swapping didn't occur. If swapping occured due to lack of vram, it would hurt performance to the point where the game would not be playable. Try playing Battlefield 2 at maximum settings in a 64 player server with 512MB of ram. Saying your fps won't be hurt by it is rather rediculous.

 

[rstrohkirch]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: rstrohkirch

Originally posted by: dguy6789
You are right they don't(referring to texture size scaling with resolution). However, show me one benchmark ANYWHERE where it shows a benefit moving to a 512MB card of the same speed in Doom 3. Just because ID says something, does not make it true.(I also recall ID saying Doom 3 will be a good game ) Every single benchmark with a 256 and 512MB card say otherwise. Would I goto Intel.com to get reliable information on how Pentium 4s perform compared to Athlon 64s?

Your FPS shouldn't change much as it's simply swapping textures it needs for the scene in and out. It may stutter some but that doesn't seem to show up on the timedemo.

Any and all swapping in Doom 3 occured due to lack of memory. With more than 1GB, swapping didn't occur. If swapping occured due to lack of vram, it would hurt performance to the point where the game would not be playable. Try playing Battlefield 2 at maximum settings in a 64 player server with 512MB of ram. Saying your fps won't be hurt by it is rather rediculous.

I'm not extremely familiar with the doom3 engine...but iirc most games do not dump all used textures for a level into VRAM on load, they are loaded in when needed for the specific rendered scene. Some games even have commands to view dynamic usage of vram.

Could the doom3 "engine" show a difference on ultra quality with the same card but 256 vs 512, I bet yes. Unfortunately, to test this you'd have to have a rendered scene with so much content that it exceeded the 256mb card. I highly doubt you'll find many retail levels that actually do this hence your whole "show me a benchmark thing" makes it slightly difficult.

Someone could easily make a map for the engine that did this, especially if they used their own custom hi-res textures instead of the low-res crap in the current game. A 10x10 TGA is 3mb...use all uncompressed hi-res TGA for the d/b/s textures and you're looking at 9mb for a single textured brush. Neat

This can easily scale down as well, the noted 9800pro 128mb DEFINITELY swaps yet...you say it runs fine? Your above post says swapping would completely kill performance

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Thorny
IIRC Doom3 needs 512Mb of video ram to run on ultra, not sure how much gpu power is required though

This has been proven multiple times to be false.

A 9800 Pro 128MB runs Doom 3 perfectly well at 1024x768 at ultra settings with no aa/af other than the automatically enabled af in the game itself.

no. it doesnt.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Thorny
IIRC Doom3 needs 512Mb of video ram to run on ultra, not sure how much gpu power is required though

This has been proven multiple times to be false.

A 9800 Pro 128MB runs Doom 3 perfectly well at 1024x768 at ultra settings with no aa/af other than the automatically enabled af in the game itself.

no. it doesnt.

It depends on what you define as perfect. I could say that x1900xtx crossfire does not run quake3 perfect because my definition of perfect is beyond what it runs the game at. You could go in circles all day long. 40-50fps constant and never ever dropping below 30 even in the most intense scenes is what I would consider playing the game quite well, and that is exactly how well a 9800 Pro runs Doom 3 at 1024x768 at ultra settings.

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: Maxspeed996
Video Card wise....I have an AGP 8x slot on my board. Will the X800 be enough.
Or will the x1600 with a Zalman on it , and overclocked be the way to go? They are around $150 for the x1600.....

Wow, lack of consensus here. But I think most would agree, with either of those cards, it would probably be better to go with "high" settings and get better framerates. You could try enabling AA or a little higher resolution for better quality, that would look better than going to "ultra" quality and not kill your framerate. Frankly you should run HQ, 1280*1024. If you're limited to a smaller CRT or something, run 1024*768, HQ, maybe with 2X or 4X AA.

 

[VIAN]

Ultra quality doesn't look that great anyway.

Heck, even High Quality isn't worth it.

It's better to use Medium Quality and enable 8xAF in control panel.