This turned out to be a bit boring! 😁

No need for Geforce 7900 GTX SLI or changing CPU to the X2 6400+

I still have the A64 X2 6000+ Asus M2N-SLI AM2 system I used for benchmarking for the list many years ago (with the slower v1.3 Doom 3 version) intact as I have used it for some other projects. I only reinstalled Doom 3, v1.0 this time, added an X-Fi XtremeMusic sound card and changed out the memory kit for a better one. This system runs Windows XP Pro SP3 with most of the bloat still active as it's a system I used for some Internet gaming such as WoW "vanilla" a few years ago.

Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.0), Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe nForce 570, 2Gb DDR2 750 3-3-3-8, Geforce 7900GTX, 92.91, X-fi XtremeMusic, XP SP3

Doom 3 v1.0 1024 Ultra: 190.1 FPS

Athlon 64 X2 6000+ @3.5 14x250, Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe nForce570, 2x1GB DDR2 1000 4-4-4-12, 7900GTX 720/1800, 92.91, X-Fi, XP SP3

Doom 3 v1.0 1024 Ultra: 221.4 FPS

The voltage in CPU-Z is shown as 0.2V lower than it really is, both @stock and overclocked.

DDR2 750 MHz is what you actually get when you choose DDR2 800 MHz using the 15x multiplier with Athlon 64 AM2 CPUs running at stock 200 MHz reference clock. This is because the wanted memory multiplier is 2x as in (2x200)x2 (for DDR) = 800 but as the memory multiplier is tied to the CPU multiplier the nearest we can get is 15/8 = 1.875x and the memory speed comes from ((15/8)x200)x2 = 750. This can also be presented as CPU/8 (x2 for DDR) or (3000/8)x2 = 750.

At even multipliers the 800 MHz memory setting works as intended as all even numbers can be divided by 2 without the result beeing a fraction. For example 16/2 = 8 and to get 800 Mhz memory speed ((16/8)x200)x2 = 800 or (3200/8)x2 = 800.

If you think of the memory clock as the CPU speed divided by the most suitable integer or the reference clock multiplied by the CPU multiplier divided by the most suitable integer dosn't really matter as it's exactly the same thing.

Now that I'm running this beast of a PIII machine at 1628MHz, I thought I'd rebench my 9800 Pro. 😀
Don't bother adding this result to the list, as I used the High preset. The 9800Pro only has 128MB of VRAM, and indeed there was a bit of stuttering on Ultra.

PIII-S @ 1628MHz (155 FSB), 2GB DDR @ 310MHz 2-2-2-5, QDI Advance 12T (Apollo Pro 266T), Radeon 9800 Pro (Cat 4.12), X-Fi Platinum, XP MCE 2005 SP3
1024x768 High:

Looking at the Toplist, this machine with a mere 9800 Pro actually managed to beat my old TUV4X/6800GT score! That machine only got 41.5 fps, which speaks volumes about how much slower the 694T chipset is!

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Now that I'm running this beast of a PIII machine at 1628MHz, I thought I'd rebench my 9800 Pro. :) Don't bother adding this res […]
Show full quote

Now that I'm running this beast of a PIII machine at 1628MHz, I thought I'd rebench my 9800 Pro. 😀
Don't bother adding this result to the list, as I used the High preset. The 9800Pro only has 128MB of VRAM, and indeed there was a bit of stuttering on Ultra.

PIII-S @ 1628MHz (155 FSB), 2GB DDR @ 310MHz 2-2-2-5, QDI Advance 12T (Apollo Pro 266T), Radeon 9800 Pro (Cat 4.12), X-Fi Platinum, XP MCE 2005 SP3
1024x768 High:

PIII-1628, 9800Pro-D3High.png

Looking at the Toplist, this machine with a mere 9800 Pro actually managed to beat my old TUV4X/6800GT score! That machine only got 41.5 fps, which speaks volumes about how much slower the 694T chipset is!

I don't notice any stuttering with the FX5900SE 128mb (I'm using the pre caching command 1), 1GB of ram and 128mb AGP aperture size on ultra,

but when I tried the same PC a while back with 768MB of ram and a 9500PRO 128MB it had bad stutters, but increasing the aperture size to 256MB seemed to fix it, well at least on the second run.

in any case, it definitely feels "smooth" with the 5900se 128mb on ultra (in terms of not having freezes, but the average framerate is not that great anyway)

Here's your first PowerPC Mac result.

PowerMac G4 MDD, dual G4 1.25GHz (166MHz FSB, 256K on-die L2 cache, 2MB external L3 cache per CPU), 2GB PC2700 DDR, GeForce 7800GS AGP, OS X 10.4.11
1024x768 Ultra:

Yeah, that's pretty bad. I don't know if it's a sloppy port or if the G4 just plain sucks at gaming. Of course, there could be something else at play here. Perhaps the Motorola chipset has poor memory or AGP performance. Kinda hard to measure these things on a Mac. Still, my 1.63GHz PIII-S managed over twice the frame rate with a 6800GT. Remember this?

EDIT: I just ran Quake 3 on the Mac, and it actually outperformed the PIII-S! I'm just gonna conclude that Doom 3 for OS X is a lazy, unoptimized port. 😵
EDIT 2: But Unreal Tournament 2004 is another game that runs faster on the PIII-S box, so who knows? Could it be that both Doom3 and UT2K4 are crappy ports, or does the G4 simply fall flat in certain games/workloads?
EDIT 3: I was running the timedemo again today and noticed that the OS X version of Doom 3 is not multi-threaded. If you run the timedemo on a dual-core Windows system, you get near 100% CPU usage. However, on the Mac I was only getting 50% CPU usage, so that 2nd G4 was just sitting there doing nothing. If it was multithreaded, this system probably would've been able to hit 40-45 fps. Which is still slower than the single overclocked PIII-S, but at least it would be somewhat playable.

Standard Def Steve wrote:

EDIT 3: I was running the timedemo again today and noticed that the OS X version of Doom 3 is not multi-threaded. If you run the timedemo on a dual-core Windows system, you get near 100% CPU usage. However, on the Mac I was only getting 50% CPU usage, so that 2nd G4 was just sitting there doing nothing. If it was multithreaded, this system probably would've been able to hit 40-45 fps. Which is still slower than the single overclocked PIII-S, but at least it would be somewhat playable.

Actually I think that Doom 3 never was multithreaded, at least not in any advanced way. Quake 4 though is SMP out of the box, which is a tad newer engine of Doom 3. Doom 3 BFG is SMP though.

EDIT: Source - https://fabiensanglard.net/doom3_bfg/threading.php

308.9 FPS, DosFreak, Q9650 @ 3.87GHZ , Gigabyte X38-DQ6, 16GB DDR2 800@862 CL5-6-6-17, Zotac Geforce GTX 980 Ti 6GB AMP! Extreme 436.30, Realtek, Win10 x64 1903

Seems like the fastest C2Q DDR2 system on the list so far.

DosFreak wrote:

308.9 FPS, DosFreak, Q9650 @ 3.87GHZ , Gigabyte X38-DQ6, 16GB DDR2 800@862 CL5-6-6-17, Zotac Geforce GTX 980 Ti 6GB AMP! Extreme 436.30, Realtek, Win10 x64 1903

Seems like the fastest C2Q DDR2 system on the list so far.

Yea so far all really high scores with C2Q systems were made with DDR3 boards. 😀

I managed 340.3 FPS with a C2D X6800 P965 DDR2 system from mid 2006 using a Geforce 8800GTX so the potential for high scores are there even with DDR2. Your system would probably get at least 350 FPS if benched with Windows XP.

The list is up to date.

I think driver version is important too. New drivers are more bloated.

The Serpent Rider wrote:

I think driver version is important too. New drivers are more bloated.

But sometimes older drivers are less optimized. It's best to go thought them all until you find the best one if you want the best score.

Skyscraper wrote:

Yea so far all really high scores with C2Q systems were made with DDR3 boards. :) […]
Show full quote

DosFreak wrote:

308.9 FPS, DosFreak, Q9650 @ 3.87GHZ , Gigabyte X38-DQ6, 16GB DDR2 800@862 CL5-6-6-17, Zotac Geforce GTX 980 Ti 6GB AMP! Extreme 436.30, Realtek, Win10 x64 1903

Seems like the fastest C2Q DDR2 system on the list so far.

Yea so far all really high scores with C2Q systems were made with DDR3 boards. 😀

I managed 340.3 FPS with a C2D X6800 P965 DDR2 system from mid 2006 using a Geforce 8800GTX so the potential for high scores are there even with DDR2. Your system would probably get at least 350 FPS if benched with Windows XP.

The list is up to date.

I think he has a lot of room on the table for more FPS. If he switched to a dual core and less ram (2 sticks) he could get a much higher overclock out of that x38 board. There is also faster ram out there too. And that is on top of switching from windows 10 to XP.

dan86 wrote:

I think he has a lot of room on the table for more FPS. If he switched to a dual core and less ram (2 sticks) he could get a much higher overclock out of that x38 board. There is also faster ram out there too. And that is on top of switching from windows 10 to XP.

Yea but the challange with overclocking a Socket 775 quad is alot of fun!

Skyscraper wrote:

dan86 wrote:

I think he has a lot of room on the table for more FPS. If he switched to a dual core and less ram (2 sticks) he could get a much higher overclock out of that x38 board. There is also faster ram out there too. And that is on top of switching from windows 10 to XP.

Yea but the challange with overclocking a Socket 775 quad is alot of fun!

Very true. I do like the 775 platform because it can be a bitch to overclock to the max sometimes.

Same machine tested with XP 32bit

351.0 FPS, DosFreak, Q9650 @ 3.87GHZ , Gigabyte X38-DQ6, 16GB DDR2 800@862 CL5-6-6-17, Zotac Geforce GTX 980 Ti 6GB AMP! Extreme 368.81, Audigy 2, XP SP3

Same machine tested with Windows 2000
354.0 FPS, DosFreak, Q9650 @ 3.87GHZ, Gigabyte X38-DQ6, 16GB DDR2 800@862 CL5-6-6-17, Zotac Geforce GTX 980 Ti 6GB AMP! Extreme Edition 359.06, Audigy 2, 2000 SP5 w/BlackWingCat Extended Core and Kernel

Currently building an '04 rig (year I built my first computer) so this was fun to do!

Stock Settings:
A64 FX55 (Clawhammer), Gigabyte K8NSNXP-939, 2x512MB DDR400 2-2-2-5 1T, 6800 GT OC 66.93, Onboard audio, XP-SP2

Overclocked:
A64 FX55 (Clawhammer), Gigabyte K8NSNXP-939, 2x512MB DDR500 2.5-2-2-5 2T, 6800 GT OC 66.93, Onboard audio, XP-SP2

Couldn't really push the CPU further with this build. Tried a 4000 (San Diego) but was roughly the same as the FX in terms of max stable speed. The Crucial Ballistix surprised me with those timings at DDR500.

Hi.
I'm sorry if i missed it it but what should the advanced options be to establish a direct comparison with the scores on the first page?
The original poster only specifies resolution and quality category (ultra in that case). No reference to shadows or AA...

Thanks.

Q6600 , Asus P5Q Deluxe, 800 Mhz DDR2, 8600GTS (orig 675/1450/1000) underclocked to minimum (155/310/325), Windows 7 64-bit, Nvidia Drivers 341.44

1024x768 Ultra - 37.4 fps (~ Geforce 6600)

So maximally underclocked 8600GTS/GT is on speed about Geforce 6600. (Geforce 6600 had around 35 fps from previous benchmarks in this thread)

Ran 3 times divided by 3 = 668

Nothing overclocked
Windows 10 20H2
CPU: Ryzen 9 5950x
CPU Cooler: Corsair iCUE H150i
Motherboard: MSI Meg X570 Unify Motherboard
Memory: G.Skill 32GB DDR4 PC4-28800 3600MHz Ripjaws V for Intel CL16 (16-19-19-39) Dual Channel kit (2x16GB)
NIC: Asus 10GBE
GPU: ASUS ROG GeForce GTX 1080 Ti DirectX 12 STRIX-GTX1080TI-O11G-GAMING 11GB
Audio: Realtek® ALC1220
Monitor 1: Acer XB271HU 27" 2560x1440 "Acer Predator XB1"
Monitor 2: LG 38GN95B
DVD: Blu-ray LG WH16NS60
SSD: 1x Samsung 970 EVO Plus 2TB
PSU: CORSAIR RMx Series, RM1000x, 1000 Watt, 80+ Gold Certified, Fully Modular Power Supply
Case: Corsair 600C Black ATX Full Tower Computer Case

Hello everyone.

I am looking for a patch for ATI graphics cards to improve performance in doom 3.
All links on google are dead.
If suddenly someone has this file:
doom3PerformanceTweak.rar
Please share here.

Some information about the patch here:
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/doom-3-ati- … m-humus.102580/

Thank you in advance!

dizzydevil wrote on 2021-07-10, 06:27:

Hello everyone. […]
Show full quote

Hello everyone.

I am looking for a patch for ATI graphics cards to improve performance in doom 3.
All links on google are dead.
If suddenly someone has this file:
doom3PerformanceTweak.rar
Please share here.

Some information about the patch here:
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/doom-3-ati- … m-humus.102580/

Thank you in advance!

It appears the download has been archived:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070103160013/htt … rmanceTweak.rar
I only checked wether the download starts when opening the link. I haven't verified the file. If you download it please give some feedback on wether it's the right one.