[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: doom3 slowness

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:46:01 +0200 (CEST), Thomas J. Zeeman
<tjzeeman@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > I'm getting 30-60 fps at 640x480 medium with my fx5600, opteron240s, and
> > 1G ram.  Is fx5200 that much worse than fx5600?
> In short, yes. See
> http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040809/doom3-06.html for a

The FX5200's are pretty poor cards, but he's still seeing an unusually
low framerate.  Immediately before I had my Athlon64 w/FX5900XT, I had
a AthlonXP 3200+ with one of these cards.

Doom3 wasn't out for Linux then, so I ran it under XP.  At 800x600,
medium graphics, shadows turned off, I was getting around the 25-30
fps mark in 'timedemo doom1'.  I usually don't overclock things, but
you can get the cards new for around AU$85 these days anyway, so I
pulled a fan off an old Pentium I CPU and screwed it into the heatsink
on mine, and managed to overclock the core/memory about 60% higher
than stock.  Got it up to around 45 fps, and the system seemed stable
(played about half of Doom III on it), surprisingly, so points go
towards overclockability for the cards.

If you want a new card, but haven't got a huge budget, get a FX5900XT
- great performance for the money, spent about a week researching (I
would have gotten the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro if the Linux drivers didn't
suck so badly).  Mine cost me around AU$300.  The difference between
the cards is huge.


Reply to: