Doom 3 Performance

Game engine performance is not particularly important for the sake of gaming on workstation cards. It is, however, important for game developers. We wanted to benchmark some game development applications such as RenderWare Studio. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to come up with a suitable benchmark for such an application yet.

As luck may have it, though, game developers usually end up using development tools that run the game engine for display. This makes game tests a useful substitute for the quality of game specific development tools. In other words, developers who adopt the Doom 3 engine will need to be running a system that can perform acceptably under the Doom 3 game engine if they want their development tools to run well.

And so, we bring you Doom 3 running on workstation graphics cards for the game development professional.

As expected, the consumer level cards outperform the workstation class cards in this test. The Quadro FX 4000 is able to push very acceptable frame rates under Doom 3 at 1600x1200. The ATI FireGL X3-256 gets by with about 30fps, but the Wildcat Realizm 200 performs abysmally at 5.4 fps. The picture quality is perfect, but the speed is horrendous.

We had hoped that the Realizm 200 would be able to handle a game based around the OpenGL API. Doom 3 performance is likely pushing the z/stencil capabilities of the Realizm 200 beyond what it is able to handle.

Doom 3 Performance

Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 2.0 OCUS Performance Half-Life 2 Performance
POST A COMMENT

25 Comments

View All Comments

  • Jeanlou - Thursday, December 01, 2005 - link

    Hello,
    I just bumped into AnandTech Video Card Tests, and I'm really impressed !

    As a Belgian Vision Systems Integration Consultant (since 1979), I'm very interrested about the ability to compare these 3 cards (Realizm 200 vs FireGL X3 256 vs NVIDIA Quatro FX 4000).

    I just had a bad experience with the Realizm 200 (!)

    On a ASUS NCCH-DL motherboard, Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 2GB DDR 400, Seagate SCSI Ultra 320 HDD, 2 EIZO monitors (Monitor N°1= L985EX at 1600x1200 px), (Monitopr N°2= L565 at 1280x1024 px), Windows XP Pro SP2 x32bit partition C:\ 16GB, Windows XP Pro x64bit edition partition D:\ 16GB, plus Extended partions (2 logical E:\ and F:\). All NTFS.

    Using the main monitor for images analyses (quality control) and the slave monitor for tools, I was unable to have a stable image at 1600 by 1200 pixels. While the Wildcat4 - 7110, or even the VP990 Pro have a very stable screen at maximum resolution. But the 7110 and the VP990 Pro don't have drivers for Window XP x64bit.

    Tried everything, latest BIOS, latest drive for ChipSet...
    Even 3Dlabs was unable to give me the necessary support and do not answer anymore !

    As soon I reduced the resolution from the main monitor to 1280 by 1024, was everything stable, but that's not what I want, I need the maximum resolution on the main monitor.

    The specs from 3Dlabs resolution table is giving 3840 by 2400 pixels maximum!

    I send it back, and I'm looking for an other card.

    I wonder if the FireGL X3 256 will do the job ?
    We also use an other monitor from EIZO (S2410W) with 1920 by 1200 pixels !
    What are exactly the several resolutions possible with the FireGL X3 256 using 2 monitors ? I cannot find it on the specs.

    Any comment will be appreciated,

    Best regards,
    Jean
    Reply
  • kaissa - Sunday, February 20, 2005 - link

    Excellent article. I hope that you make workstation graphic card comparision a regular article. How about an article on workstation notebooks? Thanks a lot. Reply
  • laverdir - Thursday, December 30, 2004 - link

    dear derek wilson,

    could you tell us how much is the performance
    difference between numa and uma in general
    on this tests..

    and it would be great if you could post maya
    related results for guadro 4k with numa enabled..


    seasonal greetings
    Reply
  • RedNight - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - link

    This is the best workstation graphics card review I have read in ages. Not only does it present the positive and negatives of each the principal cards in question, it presents them in relationship to high end mainsteam cards and thereby helps many, including myself, understand the real differences in performance. Also, by inovatingly including AutoCAD and Gaming Tests one gets a clear indication of when the workstation cards are necessary and when they would be a waste of money. Thanks Reply
  • DerekWilson - Monday, December 27, 2004 - link

    Dubb,

    Thanks for letting us know about that one :-) We'll have to have a nice long talk with NV's workstation team about what exactly is going on there. They very strongly gave us the idea that the featureset wasn't present on geforce cards.

    #19, NUMA was disabled because most people running a workstation with 4 or fewer GB of RAM on a 32 machine will not be running with the pae kernel installed. We wanted to test with a setup most people would be running under the circumstances. We will test NUMA capabilities in the future.

    #20,

    When we test workstation CPU performance or system performance, POVRay will be a possible inclusion. Thanks for the suggestion.

    Derek Wilson
    Reply
  • mbhame - Sunday, December 26, 2004 - link

    Please include POVRay benchies in Workstation tests. Reply
  • Myrandex - Saturday, December 25, 2004 - link

    I wonder why NUMA was fully supported but yet disabled. Maybe instabilities or something. Reply
  • Dubb - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    http://newbietech.net/eng/qtoq/index.php

    http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?s=2347485b...
    Reply
  • Dubb - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    uhhh.. my softquadro'd 5900 ultra begs to differ. as would all the 6800 > qfx4000 mods being done by people on guru3d's rivatuner forum.

    I thought you guys knew that just because nvida says something doesn't mean it's true?

    they must consider "physically different sillicon" to be "we moved a resistor or two"...
    Reply
  • DerekWilson - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link

    By high end features, I wasn't talking about texturing or prgrammatic vertex or fragment shading (which is highend in the consumer space).

    I was rather talking about hardware support for: AA lines and points, overlay plane support, two-sided lighting (fixed function path), logic operations, fast pixel read-back speeds, and dual 10-bit 400MHz RAMDACs and 2 dual-link DVI-I connectors supporting 3840x2400 on a single display (the IBM T221 comes to mind).

    There are other features, but these are key. In products like Maya and 3D Studio, not having overlay plane support creates an absolutely noticable performance hit. It really does depend on how you push the cards. We do prefer the in application benchmarks to SPECveiwperf. Even the SPECapc tests can give a better feel for where things will fall -- because the entire system is a factor rather than just the gfx card and CPU.

    #14, Dubb -- I hate to be the one to tell you this -- GeForce and Quadro are physically different silicon now (NV40 and NV40GL). AFAIK, ever since GF4/Quadro4, it has been impossible to softquadro an nvidia card. The Quadro team uses the GeForce as it's base core, but then adds on workstation class features.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now