Just for lulz)))

Athlon XP-M Barton 2320MHz (145x16)
VIA KT133A
512MB PC133 CL3
ATI Radeon X800 (500/1000MHz GPU/DDR3)

1024x768 Ultra high - 37.1 fps

Every other resolution (up to 1280x1024) with high, medium, low profiles gives me 51-54fps (not high, not low). So i choose 1280x1024 high details at 51fps.

It looks like chipset/fsb/cpu/ram limit.

Babasha wrote on 2026-10-14, 19:27:

Just for lulz))) Athlon XP-M Barton 2320MHz (145x16) VIA KT133A 512MB PC133 CL3 ATI Radeon X800 (500/1000MHz GPU/DDR3) 1024x768 […]
Show full quote

Just for lulz)))
Athlon XP-M Barton 2320MHz (145x16)
VIA KT133A
512MB PC133 CL3
ATI Radeon X800 (500/1000MHz GPU/DDR3)
1024x768 Ultra high - 37.1 fps
Every other resolution (up to 1280x1024) with high, medium, low profiles gives me 51-54fps (not high, not low). So i choose 1280x1024 high details at 51fps.
It looks like chipset/fsb/cpu/ram limit.

This is what I got years ago when I played around with my old system. Im quite certain sdram bandwidth is a big limiting factor here. These chipsets
were really designed for cpu's before the Athlon XP and Barton.
26. 34.6 FPS, Imperious, Athlon XP-M(Barton)@2.244GHz, ATI 9800XT@412-742 Cat 6.11, 512MB PC133/CL2, Abit KT7-Raid, Yamaha YMF-724 Pci, XP-SP3

Replaced my 8800 with an X1600 Pro, as the 8800 would freeze in KotOR2, which I'm playing at the moment. Here are the specs and results for Doom 3 (v1.3).

Athlon64 X2 3800+ 2GHz (200x10)
Nvidia Nforce 4
2GB DDR400 CL2.5
ATI Radeon X1600 PRO (500/405) Catalyst 6.12
Windows XP SP3

1024x768 Ultra - 50 fps
1024x768 High - 54.4 fps

I'm positively surprised by the X1600, especially when running games at 1024x768. Many benchmarks I found seem to target 1280x1024 for this card, maybe it was a popular resolution back when it released but I think the card is too weak for it. Which could explain the bad reviews it got back then. Its sweet spot really seems to be 1024x768.