what the hell.. how does one open the console? tilde doesn't seem to work.. no mention of how in the game controls.. this is a bit odd..... 
Ctrl-Alt-Tilde combo - in there type "timedemo demo1.demo" (without the quotes)Originally posted by: CraigRT
what the hell.. how does one open the console? tilde doesn't seem to work.. no mention of how in the game controls.. this is a bit odd.....
Originally posted by: Robor
Ctrl-Alt-Tilde combo - in there type "timedemo demo1.demo" (without the quotes)Originally posted by: CraigRT
what the hell.. how does one open the console? tilde doesn't seem to work.. no mention of how in the game controls.. this is a bit odd.....
Hey thanks Rob
Lonyo, your results are at Medium? I've been wondering how you were getting higher FPS than me and I have a system basically 1 small step up from yours.
My specs:
Mobo: ASUS P4P800 Deluxe
Power Supply: Antec True430 ATX
Processor: P4 2.8ghz 800 mhz FSB w/ HyperThreading
Graphics: ATI Radeon 9800 Pro w/ 256mb ram
RAM: Corsair 1GB TwinX 3200 XMS Series
Hard Drive: WesternDigital 120GB 8MB cache
Sound: Soundblaster Audigy 2
I've been running the timedemo on high, and I got about 27fps until I upped the cachemegs to 256, where I then got 31fps. So a 4 fps or so increase. I'm also using vsync. I can't stand games without vsync, so I don't care if turning vsync off would give me a 100fps boost heh, I wouldn't play it. Are your tests with or without vsync?
I haven't tried the new Cats yet, nor tripple buffering, but I will tomorrow when I get my bought copy. My downloaded copy is currently uninstalled.
My specs:
Mobo: ASUS P4P800 Deluxe
Power Supply: Antec True430 ATX
Processor: P4 2.8ghz 800 mhz FSB w/ HyperThreading
Graphics: ATI Radeon 9800 Pro w/ 256mb ram
RAM: Corsair 1GB TwinX 3200 XMS Series
Hard Drive: WesternDigital 120GB 8MB cache
Sound: Soundblaster Audigy 2
I've been running the timedemo on high, and I got about 27fps until I upped the cachemegs to 256, where I then got 31fps. So a 4 fps or so increase. I'm also using vsync. I can't stand games without vsync, so I don't care if turning vsync off would give me a 100fps boost heh, I wouldn't play it. Are your tests with or without vsync?
I haven't tried the new Cats yet, nor tripple buffering, but I will tomorrow when I get my bought copy. My downloaded copy is currently uninstalled.
The cachemegs tweak did nothing for me. I get 31.9 @ 1024*768 medium with or without.
AMD64 3400+
1 GB PC3200
FX 5900XT @ 425/800
Cachemegs @ 128
vsync on
AMD64 3400+
1 GB PC3200
FX 5900XT @ 425/800
Cachemegs @ 128
vsync on
Thanks DarkKnight... Will try that tomorrow. Just got done playing a couple more hours. Now I've got to try and go to bed.
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
Interesting thread. I assume that changing the cachemegs changes how much of the textures are cached in your system memory...? If that is the case, you might have to increase your AGP aperture size in the BIOS as well. Just a guess here, but that may be why Lonyo is getting results that no one else seems to be able to duplicate.
I don't see how to get average fps rating. I did the change to the cfg file to show the fps but it changes so much and so quickly. How do you guys get average fps?
Before I did the cachemegs change, the game was moderately choppy. Occassionally there would be complete laggs in video rendering. After the cachemegs change to 256, there were no laggs and the choppiness is almost gone.
I have a 9800pro and a64 2800+. I still see some choppiness on High video settings. With my specs, are these typical results?
EDIT: I figured out how to do the time demo. Unfortunately the demo makes doom 3 crash in cachmeg 20 and 256. Actually playing the game in cachemeg 20 caused doom3 to crash. Changing it to 256 doesn't crash my doom3...at least not so far.
Before I did the cachemegs change, the game was moderately choppy. Occassionally there would be complete laggs in video rendering. After the cachemegs change to 256, there were no laggs and the choppiness is almost gone.
I have a 9800pro and a64 2800+. I still see some choppiness on High video settings. With my specs, are these typical results?
EDIT: I figured out how to do the time demo. Unfortunately the demo makes doom 3 crash in cachmeg 20 and 256. Actually playing the game in cachemeg 20 caused doom3 to crash. Changing it to 256 doesn't crash my doom3...at least not so far.
All this change .cfg file, uncompress paks, is bs. The only thing that smoothed me out was to turn on v sync in the advanced menu of the game system settings while leaving v sync set to default off in the video control panel then enable triple buffering in the video card gl control panel under compatability.
I haven't tried triple buffering, but I tried a lot of other things.
System:
A78NX-E
Athlon 2400+ xp (266mhz - long story don't ask)
768mb PC-2700
Audigy 2 zs
Radeon 9700pro
Windows XP sp1
Catalyst 4.7 (to start)
Test 1: 640x480 baseline = 39.9 fps
Before test 2, I noticed that I had my ati card set towards quality over performance. I figured doom3 didn't need this and turned it one to the left of maximum performance.
Test 2: 800x600 baseline (slider towards performance) = 39.9 fps
Test 3: Cachemegs set to 128 = 39.9 fps
Test 4: Cachemegs set to 256 = 39.9 fps
Test 5: Set "EnableCache" to 1 (shot in the dark) = game wouldn't run
Test 6: Unrar the pak files = 39.9 fps
Test 7: Set desktop resolution to 800x600 (heard this helps for othe games) = 39.9 fps
Test 8: Catalyst 4.9 betas = 41.9 fps
So the only thing that made a difference here were the catalyst drivers, even then only 5%
System:
A78NX-E
Athlon 2400+ xp (266mhz - long story don't ask)
768mb PC-2700
Audigy 2 zs
Radeon 9700pro
Windows XP sp1
Catalyst 4.7 (to start)
Test 1: 640x480 baseline = 39.9 fps
Before test 2, I noticed that I had my ati card set towards quality over performance. I figured doom3 didn't need this and turned it one to the left of maximum performance.
Test 2: 800x600 baseline (slider towards performance) = 39.9 fps
Test 3: Cachemegs set to 128 = 39.9 fps
Test 4: Cachemegs set to 256 = 39.9 fps
Test 5: Set "EnableCache" to 1 (shot in the dark) = game wouldn't run
Test 6: Unrar the pak files = 39.9 fps
Test 7: Set desktop resolution to 800x600 (heard this helps for othe games) = 39.9 fps
Test 8: Catalyst 4.9 betas = 41.9 fps
So the only thing that made a difference here were the catalyst drivers, even then only 5%
System:
2.4C @ 3.0GHz
512mb DCDDR500 (PC4000)
6800GT
800x600 High Quality
cachemegs @ 20 = 70.9 fps
cachemegs @ 128 = 71.5 fps
...no help for me
2.4C @ 3.0GHz
512mb DCDDR500 (PC4000)
6800GT
800x600 High Quality
cachemegs @ 20 = 70.9 fps
cachemegs @ 128 = 71.5 fps
...no help for me
It's not BS, it's apparently just giving different results for different people. Changing cachemeg bumped me from 27fps to 31fps. It's possible I had done something else to cause it to increase and didn't make note of it, but I will test again tonight and then we'll see.
Maybe it's like someone else mentioned, maybe it is effected by the aperture in BIOS. *shrug*
Maybe it's like someone else mentioned, maybe it is effected by the aperture in BIOS. *shrug*
I figured that this was the place to post this sort of thing, so check out this tweak guide I found. I have yet to try the tweaks but it looks pretty thorough.
I'm actually finding 1280x1024 fairly playable on my 9700PRO running at high quality settings. I'm benchmarking at 27.4FPS. It's fine for the most part. If it were multiplayer I would want much higher performance, but as it stands I can live with the way it's running. Hopefully with some tweaking I can hit 40FPS without too much visual loss.
I tried turning "specular" off in the game's advanced options, but it made the characters look terrible. I didn't want to turn off shadows because they are what make this game so great IMO. I'm not sure what kind of impact bump mapping has on performance.
The 6800NU is catching my eye as it would more than double my performance in this game.
I'm actually finding 1280x1024 fairly playable on my 9700PRO running at high quality settings. I'm benchmarking at 27.4FPS. It's fine for the most part. If it were multiplayer I would want much higher performance, but as it stands I can live with the way it's running. Hopefully with some tweaking I can hit 40FPS without too much visual loss.
I tried turning "specular" off in the game's advanced options, but it made the characters look terrible. I didn't want to turn off shadows because they are what make this game so great IMO. I'm not sure what kind of impact bump mapping has on performance.
The 6800NU is catching my eye as it would more than double my performance in this game.
What exactly does 24-bit Z buffering do? Does it compromise graphics quality? Enabling triple buffering gave me a nice bump of about 5-7 FPS, but the cachemegs tweak has shown no benefit for me.
AFAIK 24 bit z-buffering allows more precise HSR (hidden surface removal), which could mean, less part of an object (or more
but that doesn't seem the case) is drawn because it's unnecessary (i.e already have something in front of it), which in return, increases performance
Avalon
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2001
- 7,571
- 178
- 106
I tried both unpacking the pak4 files and trying the cachemeg increase tweak. Neither did anything for my performance on my Radeon 9700 AXP mobile system. Ah well, it was worth a shot. My performance in the game is good enough anyway.
*Edit*
Doesn't running the game on high detail make the game run with 8X AF? Or something?
That's what I had always thought, but when I was benching the game on medium detail with 8X AF in my control panel to see what the difference between high and medium was, my frames were significantly lower.
*Edit*
My medium detail framerates are no different than my high detail framerates now...wtf?
*Edit*
Doesn't running the game on high detail make the game run with 8X AF? Or something?
That's what I had always thought, but when I was benching the game on medium detail with 8X AF in my control panel to see what the difference between high and medium was, my frames were significantly lower.
*Edit*
My medium detail framerates are no different than my high detail framerates now...wtf?
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
Has anyone bothered to try out different AGP aperture sizes. I have neither Doom3 or an ATi card, so I can't do it, but I'm curious. It just makes sense to me that if your AGP aperture is smaller than what you have set as the cachemegs value, the change would have no effect.
The cachemegs tweak was proven to have no impact on performance. Altering those settings can make Doom3 fail to load and can produce image anomalies.
I have my AGP aperture at 256mb, but I've been doing that since Far Cry and the ATi Ruby demo. Any lower and I get worse performance.
I'm running a R9700PRO 128mb.
This is pretty silly.
Lonyo have you made sure that this line:
seta image_useCache
is set to "1"? Because if it's not, changing the cachemegs has no effect at all. On top of that, I guarantee that if you enable the useCache option it will cause Doom3 to fail to load up.
This tweak has been proven to do nothing, even if you can enable useCache (you have to change seta image_cacheMinK to at least "2048" for Doom3 to even load up).
I went through my tweak guide and nothing really sped things up substantially. The biggest boost I got was from the Cat. 4.9b drivers; I gained 10% at 1024 and 6% at 1280 over the 4.7's.
The triple buffer thing may have done something, but I always benchmark w/ vsync on so I have no way to verify this.
What does vsync do that prevents the benchmark from showing the effect of triple buffering? Just curious.
The unpacking pak files is bs. The changing cachemegs alone is bs. BUT if you make these changes below you WILL have a smooth frame rate. I could not run 1024x768 on high due to a severe chopping, (a virtual slide show) when many monsters or action was present. After doing this I play very fluid and smooth at high on 1024x768 High. It will not boost fps in timedemo and it will not boost fps in game but it will be very smooth.
I have 1 gig ram, xp2400, 9800p Timedemo fps: 35
seta image_useCache "1"
seta image_cacheMegs "256"
seta image_cacheMinK "20480"
Next in advanced system settings menu of the game turn on v-sync.
Now in your gl display control panel enable triple buffering by cliking on the compatability button and leave v-sync to the default setting of "default off".
Now if you had a choppy game go try it now but DONT BE LOOKING AT DEMO OR GAME FOR A MASSIVE FPS INCREASE.
I have 1 gig ram, xp2400, 9800p Timedemo fps: 35
seta image_useCache "1"
seta image_cacheMegs "256"
seta image_cacheMinK "20480"
Next in advanced system settings menu of the game turn on v-sync.
Now in your gl display control panel enable triple buffering by cliking on the compatability button and leave v-sync to the default setting of "default off".
Now if you had a choppy game go try it now but DONT BE LOOKING AT DEMO OR GAME FOR A MASSIVE FPS INCREASE.
got curious so decided to start tweaking...
my system: 2.4@3.3/1gb/5900w128
i was playing on high/1024 with everything on except vsync/AA
according to the timedemo my scores with 56.55 drivers were:
22+,24+,25+ (ultra/high/medium) 434/850card speed
although this was extremely surprising because the timedemo seemed >extremely< choppy to me, while gameplay up to this point was pretty smooth to me, at least nowhere near the crap i saw in teh timedemo.
played around with the 20->128/256 tweak and that didn't help any.
so decided to try the newest drivers 61.77 or whatever they are. plus upped the card to 445/875, and the timedemo suddenly jumped to 36.2fps. very visually noticeable difference in timedemo play. i went to play the game in one of my saves and was shocked how much smoother it feels compared to my previous settings, all because of the driver update, strange, feels like a completely new card.
i'm guessing the timedemo is extremely worst case scenario performance, because i know for a fact that if my gameplay was as choppy/crappy as the timedemo was i woudl've dropped resolution to make it better.
anyway, now its super silky, feels much faster then the 36.2 teh timedemo suggests.
thanks guys
timedemo sudden
my system: 2.4@3.3/1gb/5900w128
i was playing on high/1024 with everything on except vsync/AA
according to the timedemo my scores with 56.55 drivers were:
22+,24+,25+ (ultra/high/medium) 434/850card speed
although this was extremely surprising because the timedemo seemed >extremely< choppy to me, while gameplay up to this point was pretty smooth to me, at least nowhere near the crap i saw in teh timedemo.
played around with the 20->128/256 tweak and that didn't help any.
so decided to try the newest drivers 61.77 or whatever they are. plus upped the card to 445/875, and the timedemo suddenly jumped to 36.2fps. very visually noticeable difference in timedemo play. i went to play the game in one of my saves and was shocked how much smoother it feels compared to my previous settings, all because of the driver update, strange, feels like a completely new card.
i'm guessing the timedemo is extremely worst case scenario performance, because i know for a fact that if my gameplay was as choppy/crappy as the timedemo was i woudl've dropped resolution to make it better.
anyway, now its super silky, feels much faster then the 36.2 teh timedemo suggests.
thanks guys
timedemo sudden
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter