Doom 3 Performance

As Doom 3 generally runs at very low frame rates, it is not surprising that our integrated tests turned out some pretty horrific performance numbers. Really, integrated hardware at low quality and 640x480 is still not acceptable. Doom 3 really necessitates a discrete card to be enjoyable. We will have to wait and see if this verdict applies to all games based on the Doom 3 engine as well. Hopefully, other developers will have figured out how to accommodate the worst case scenario while we wait for integrated performance to continue to improve.

Doom 3 Performance


Index Far Cry 1.3 Performance
POST A COMMENT

30 Comments

View All Comments

  • fishman - Monday, August 01, 2005 - link

    You can get these with either shared memory or dedicated memory - which configuration was used in the tests? Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, June 02, 2005 - link

    Sis and Via's integrated graphics solution is even more below Intel. They are more than one generation behind Intel's graphics. Even though Sis 660 or something had 2 pixel pipelines and hardware T&L, Intel's Extreme Graphics 2 beat it hands down, and IEG2 only has single pixel pipeline. Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, June 02, 2005 - link

    Apparently dual core doesn't help much if you look at other Intel GMA950 benchmarks. The only one helped is HL2 score, which went up by 30%, and 3dmark2005, which is multi-threaded so it doesn't count. Reply
  • ET - Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - link

    I'd find it interesting to see results with Intel's low end dual core CPU. Since the CPU is used for vertex processing, dual core might have a good effect on this. Reply
  • crucibelle - Saturday, May 28, 2005 - link

    #11,

    I agree with you completely!

    I particularly wish that the reviewer would have ran a benchmark for Sims 2. Perhaps they can do this in the near future? I certainly hope so.

    Reply
  • tbrooks40 - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    nice write up...

    i don't necessarily agree with akozak - memory is cheap enough now-a-days that seeing a basic system with 1gb of memory won't be all that surprising. i doubt that it's the norm but it's conceivable with memory prices continuing to drop.

    i have a question, one i'm sure akozak would roll his eyes to, would a dual core chip increase the performance of integrated graphics?

    i know an entry level system wouldn't likely have a dual core chip - i'm more curious than anything after reading the dual core performance article.
    Reply
  • ET - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    #19, I don't think it's useless. They're benchmarking the graphics, so seeing how fast it can perform given optimal conditions is helpful. With a slower CPU and less RAM you get other bottlenecks, so the graphics scores will have less of a difference, but this won't really give you a better feeling for the integrated graphics.

    BTW, I'd consider 1GB pretty much necessary for a system running integrated graphics, if they take RAM away from the system. 512MB may be too little in such a case.

    That said, an article about game performance on entry level machines (Semprons with integrated graphics or whatever) might be of some interest.
    Reply
  • flloyd - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Thanks #18 but I know about refresh rates. Unfortunately the 915G that I have is much more "stable" and clear at 75Hz than 85Hz so I have to deal with that for now. Reply
  • abakshi - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Well yes, comparisons to older standalone cards like an R8500/GF4 would interesting, but you'd have to test these integrated chipsets on the same platform to get any meaningful results, which isn't possible here (at least yet) -- PCIe instead of AGP... Reply
  • iwodo - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Can anybody check if they have updated the benchmark? I am sure it wasn't this bad last time i check. As my news reader inform me something in this article has changed. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now