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


View All Comments

  • Houdani - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Whoah. Deja vu. Reply
  • akozak - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Once again you are benchmarking entry level systems with 1GB of RAM

    This review is useless for someone looking to purchase an entry level system. Guess I'll check out the other sites.

  • gibhunter - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    #13 you get headaches from the 75HZ refresh rate. Change it to 85Hz and the headaches will go away. 85Hz is the bare minimum in my opinion, unless you're on an LCD which runs on a different technology and thus can be run at 60Hz with no headaches. Reply
  • ET - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    > Also throw in games that people with such dated hardware are more likely to play

    I disagree that people who have older hardware stick only to older games. I tend to use older hardware until performance is unacceptable. My brother in law is playing Half Life 2 on a GeForce3. In fact, Valve specifically put a GeForce2 rendering path into the game. My brother in law would not touch Warcraft 3 or Sims2 with a ten foot pole. Seems to me that HL2 runs well enough on the Xpress 200 -- better than the GeForce3 (and certainly with higher quality).
  • Calin - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    flloyd, I can testify that going from an old PCI Matrox video card (4MB) to an GeForce2 MX400 (built by Palit-Daytona), the difference in quality is like day and night. Not to mention the G200 I used some time ago :(
    This is not a problem only for integrated graphics
  • ksherman - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    still amazes me that Intel wases the fab on their video cores... seems like a waste of silicon. they should have just gone to the experts to get their integrated video Reply
  • cryptonomicon - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    damn. on board chips just beat my ti4200. guess i'll have to upgrade now im so ashamed. Reply
  • flloyd - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    I think these integrated graphics chips makers should stop trying to be weak 3D chips and instead work on having top-notch 2D graphics, a la Matrox. Most computer users who use integrated graphics are most interested in a clear, bright, high resolution image rather than playing 3D games at 15 fps. I personally got a GMA 900 as I only use my computer for text, photo editing, video editing and movie watching but am going to have to get a separate graphics card because the image quality is so bad. Even at 1024x768 and 75Hz the image is fuzzy and gives me a headache. I regret the day I upgraded my mobo and can no longer use my Matrox G450, the difference in qulaity is like night and day. Reply
  • yacoub - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Totally agree - compare these integrated solutions to past generation GPUs like Ti4200 and Radeon 8500, etc. Also throw in games that people with such dated hardware are more likely to play. Sims2, CounterStrike (not Source), WarCraft3, online MMORPGs, etc. Reply
  • iwodo - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    May be Anantech can do a more details Review on Intergrated GFx? Becoz so far i find none on the web and are currently very disapointed with the current reviews.

    Why would anyone want to play Doom3/HalfLife2/FarCry with IGFX? I suppose include one or 2 of these bechmark is ok. But Most people who buy IGFX are cacsal gamers. They play may be games like Sims2. How about online games like WOW?

    And Since most of use have been following computer for at least 3 - 5 years. It would be good to known what GMA950 is equal to. Radeon 9000? Geforce2MX? Of coz they are not Dx9 HW but it will still be interesting to know.

    And did they intentionaly saved the GMA915 vs GMA950 fight?

    And i think Intergated GFX serve another purpose like now. You don't want to buy a GFX becox you may want to wait for ATI next update of GFX, which the lowest gfx will be at least 8 pipline.....

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now