Is this really possible?!

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Specs:
3200+ Venice @ 2.5ghz (250x10)
MSI Neo4 Platinum @ 1000 (250x4)
2x512MB Corsair ValueSelect PC3200 @ 416mhz
Gigabyte 6600GT @ stock speeds

I was at a LAN party last night, and my friend installed Doom III on my computer so they could test my rig out. He set it to the quality listed above, and it ran perfectly fine with like no lag, just occasionally hiccuping a tiny bit. Is that really possible, or did I not like set the quality specs right? I was under the impression that the 6600GT was a midrange card and could never play Doom III with this kind of quality, and that you would instead need like an X800XL or some other high end card...

 

[coomar]

the x800xl can't do it at that res and aa/af

 

[coomar]

1600x1200 4AA/16AF

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

It says that a 6600GT would get ~20FPS. Is 20FPS playable level? It was pretty playable for us, but there was a slight hiccup occasionally...

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: coomar
1600x1200 4AA/16AF

That's actually a really interesting graphic. It shows that in almost all cases, regardless of CPU, it's the GPU doing most of the work and matters far more than the CPU.

I'm really curious why there's such a noticeable difference in the framerates between difference procs for the 6800 Ultras in SLI. Is it because at that point, with that amount of GPU processing capability, the CPU starts to become the bottleneck?

 

[ixelion]

20 FPS is not playable, to me anyway. The minimum FPS I will accept is 60 which my 6800 can do just fine on 1024x764 with 2x AA and 8xAF

 

[coomar]

yes essentially the lower a64's can still bottleneck a 6800 ultra

 

[theMan]

it actually is playable, i have a similar system, same video card but overclocked, and higher clocked 3200+. i could play doom3 at those settings, and only if i looked really really closely could i tell that it wasnt completely smooth.