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

  • Chadder007 - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    I'd like to see some older cards thrown in to compare....like an ATI 8500 or 9600 and Nvidia 4200ti or something. Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Plus, including of Doom 3 for benchmarking means that compatibility must have improved, I remember Anandtech didn't for the GMA900 benchmarks. Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    >Another thing is that I remember the GMA 900 >having quite a few graphical glitches when >originally reviewed. I'd have liked a comment >about current compatibility and some comparison >of image quality.

    They do.

    Here: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427...

    "Unlike the last time that we tested Far Cry with Intel graphics, we were greeted with the visual quality that we expected to see. This is due to the driver revisions that Intel has made over the course of time."
    Reply
  • BPB - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    My daughter's system uses an MSI RS480M2-IL setup. This socket 939 (Athlon 64 3000+) setup runs great. She doesn't run anything like HL2, so she's very happy. Down the road we'll slap an All in Wonder in there once ATI comes out with a PCI-e version that's worth getting. From what I read their current PCI-e All in Wonder is not worth the cost. Reply
  • ET - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    #2, I agree. I was wondering a couple of weeks ago if the X200 will be a good upgrade for a GeForce3.

    Still, I appreciate Anandtech taking the time to compare integrated chipsets.

    Another thing is that I remember the GMA 900 having quite a few graphical glitches when originally reviewed. I'd have liked a comment about current compatibility and some comparison of image quality.
    Reply
  • Calin - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    I think that choosing an integrated graphics solution makes sense only when the presence of a discrete video card is not an good option. In every other case, one can buy a mainboard that is having everything one desire (or a much more easy to find one). I thought about buying a micro ATX mainboard with integrated graphics for a very small computer. I would still choose one over a discrete solution, but for every other use I would choose something else.
    Or I would use integrated graphics as a stop gap measure until money for a real graphic card become available
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Do you have any comparable benchmark numbers available for other integrated graphics past and present? Such as Nforce2, K8M800, SIS 760GX, Intel 915G, 865G?

    Myself, I'm specifically interested in a replacement for the NForce2, as I've got a customer who uses low-cost NForce2 IGP boxes for light OpenGL stuff on their shop floor (MasterCAM and AutoCAD); I want to move them up to A64 and S754 Semprons, but I don't trust the performance or drivers of any of the other integrated graphics available.
    Reply
  • ShadowVlican - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    the ati xpress200 will be a good platform for my uncle, who does mostly office based work and plays the occasional CS.. good stuff ati Reply
  • Cosmic_Horror - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    shame you guys didn't run any benchmarks with an older stand alone cards (eg ti4200, or something with similar feature set) so we could get a comparison of how well they are performing. Reply
  • UzairH - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    More powerful integrated graphics hardware is good as long as the cost is not increased beyond a couple of dollars. The whole poing of integrated graphics is OK performance at the lowest possible cost. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now