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

  • drinkmorejava - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    But how does the 6600gt compare in SCCT with SM3.0 on. It's not an unbiased test if you're not using the cards to the best of their abilities. SM3 was built to give a performance boost that would encourage people to by cards with it, no sense in leaving this out.
  • lifeguard1999 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    Remember the 6800 Strength lies in situations where AA & AF are applied. it's overall pixel fillrate is only 3.9GPixel compare to the 6600 GT 4.0GPixel, if not memory bandwidth limited, there is potential for 6600 GT to outperform 6800 Vanilla. Vertex Shader power doesn't matter also all that much as the amount 6600 GT has seems to be sufficient. Pixle Shader fillrate is one of the most important indicators of performance when comparing across the same architecture.
  • Cybercat - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    I was wondering about this myself. I've seen a number of benchmarks from other sources showing the 6800 to be the better performer. I hope Josh used a genuine NV41/42 6800 rather than just taking a NV45 and cutting it down.
  • Kagjes - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    hmm, could someone plz tell me what's the overclocking like with 6800s? is it worth buying at all?
  • DerekWilson - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link

    they have different strengths
  • jkostans - Sunday, September 25, 2005 - link

    I just built a computer for a buddy a X800 GT 256MB card plus a A64 3500+ in it. The 3500+ overclocked to 2.63GHz prime95 stable, and the video card was running solid at 580Mhz Core 595Mhz Memory and looped 3dmark tests all night without a single problem. Probably the best bang for the buck system I've built so far. Performance wise better than the 3800+ and X800 XL system I built prior to it (stock speeds) and a lot cheaper.
  • Thatguy97 - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link

    dont see how the x800 gt was a quality mid range solution as the x800 xl and x800 were much better cards

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now