Doom 3 Performance

Doom 3 is known to favor the architecture of NVIDIA, given their "Ultra Shadow" technology and Doom 3's impressive use of it for lighting effects. Before you simply pass by these results because you don't like the game, remember that there are several titles coming out in the near future that will use the same engine. Quake 4 and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars look to take the technology demo known as Doom 3 and turn it into a truly great gaming experience. (Yes, many people loved Doom 3, and we're not trying to start that debate again.)

Doom 3

Doom 3

Doom 3

Doom 3

Again, we see that the Radeon X800 GT is at the bottom of the list; this time across the board. The 6600 GT does fairly well here at both resolutions without AA enabled. As we mentioned, Doom 3's abundant use of shadows combined with the use of OpenGL is a better fit for the NVIDIA architectures, so the 6600 GT win is pretty much expected.

You can see that once AA is enabled, the gap closes considerably, and the 6600 GT's framerate falls to levels that aren't really playable. X800 GT takes a smaller hit in performance with AA enabled by comparison – it's 40% slower at 1280x1024 where the 6600GT is 55% slower. Its much higher (nearly double the 6600GT) bandwidth helps, but it still comes out behind – and none of the cards other than the X800 XT are playable with 4xAA. Note that as with BF2, the framerate that the X800 GT gets is very playable at 1280x1024.

Battlefield 2 Performance Everquest II Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Leper Messiah - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    Hm. ATi is really sucking recently. My 9800pro gets some better results than that thing...the performance should be much better than a 6600gt, I mean only 30MHz less clock, more vertex shaders, 256-bit memory bus, etc...drivers? I dunno.

    Kinda funny to the 6800nu getting last though.
  • yacoub - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link


    For the majority of us who aren't able to go right out and pick up the most powerful card available for upwards of $400, finding the best option for your price range can be frustrating.

    BS! I mean maybe if you purposely ignore the 6800GT and X800XL that sell for around $250, sure you could pretend there's a reason to be frustrated and stuck between getting a $400 power card or a 9800Pro, but the reality is quite different.

    This card is clearly pointless and a year or two late at this price point. (And if it were released a year ago, you know it would have cost a lot more, meaning it would have been equally pointless then as well.)
  • yacoub - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    Would anyone honestly spend $160 on a brand new GPU that can't even push beyond 20-30fps in most modern games? What the heck's the point?? Spend $80 more and get an X800XL and at least be able to PLAY the games instead of slideshow them.

    Also, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the fps listed in Anandtech tests the PEAK fps and not the average fps? If so that means there's a good chance everytime there's any real action on screen your fps are dipping down to the teens or single digits. Yeah, that's worth paying $160 for. @___@
  • jkostans - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    The X800GT is actually a very capable gaming card. I just built a system with one and it ran everything i threw at it very nicely. Not much of a difference between this system and the last one i built with an x800xl. Definately not a slideshow on any game (doom3, farcry, f.e.a.r, hl2, all ran smooth).
  • wharris1 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    I realize that the release of the x1600/R530 won't be until December, but I was wondering what the chance of it being released in AGP form would be, and if so, how delayed that version would be. Are any of the next gen cards (7800/7600?, x1800/x1600) going to be released as AGP at any time. If not, I'll bite the bullet and get either a x800 XL or GTO; if they will have AGP versions of the newer cards, I'll probably wait until they come out
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    I am sorry I must have missed it where are the memory configurations of the cards you tested.

    Assuming you used the PCI-E versions of all cards due to motherboard choice.

    X800 Vanilla = 128MB or 256MB???
    X800 GT = 256MB???
    6800 PCI-E = 325/300,600MHZ Effective & 256MB???
    6600 GT this is obvious at least, 128MB.

  • OrSin - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    Can we get a benchmark for non-FPS. And don't say EQ2 because thats pretty close to one in terms of play style. We all don't play FPS, can we get a RTS or even RPG in the benchmarks. I can understand now using them in all test, but for the mid and low range cards that what people are playing more then Doom 3.
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    Hear, hear. They should if necessary to save time dump one or two of the FPS games and replace them with an RTS, a driving game, and a flight/space-sim in order to provide true variety.
  • jkostans - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    I think this is the first review I've seen where the the 6600GT was the better overall card. Every other review has them neck and neck in most games, with a few victories going to the x800gt and doom3 going to the 6600gt. This review seems a little off... but what do I know.
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    Hmm, they look fairly even to me still. Each has it's own stregths and weaknesses.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now