A quick tweak guide for DOOM 3

I got my hands on DOOM 3 today, and I’ve discovered a few helpful tweaks for the game.


Update your drivers — Of course, the number-one thing you can do is go get the latest video drivers from ATI and NVIDIA. Get those installed before you start.


Careful with the dual displays — Now, I’m not sure if this problem is something everyone already knows about or what, but in the middle of tweaking my system for DOOM 3, I did something I hadn’t for quite a while: put an NVIDIA graphics card in it. (Yes, folks, the Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB card in there was running a little slower than I wanted, so I thought I’d go for the latest. I put in GeForce 6800 Ultra OC.) I was shocked to see performance drop massively with the move to the NVIDIA card. The thing would run OK in some places, but in others, it was literally a slideshow and wholly unplayable. After lots of checking settings, updating chipset drivers, and futzing about, I figured out that the problem was this: I have two monitors on my system. Turning off the output for second monitor (by unchecking “Extend my Windows desktop onto this monitor) immediately fixed the problem.

Several readers have also suggested a more elegant fix where you don’t have to turn off your second monitor. You can go to the “Advanced” config menu for the NVIDIA driver, go to the “Performance” section, and check the “Show advanced settings” box. Scroll down to “Hardware acceleration” and pick “Single display mode.” That should do the trick. If you get an all-white screen (or any single-color screen) when you start up DOOM 3, though, you have more work to do. Kill DOOM 3 in the Task Manager. Then switch the monitor inputs. The monitor showing DOOM 3 must be both the “primary monitor” in Windows and “monitor 1” on the graphics card. I went through this exact process myself, and it worked for me. (Thanks to Shane and AOEU for the tips.)

Some readers have suggested that ATI cards show similar performance problems with dual monitors enabled, which could explain my initial reaction to performance on the Radeon 9800 Pro. If you have an ATI card, you might try turning off the second monitor, as well.

Turn on vertical refresh sync — When you get into the game, the first thing you’re going to want to do is enable vertical refresh sync, or vsync. Without vsync enabled (and it’s disabled by default) you’ll see lots of tearing (a sort of screen fragmentation) in DOOM 3. In my experience, setting vsync to “always on” in the ATI and NVIDIA drivers doesn’t help. The game’s default setting overrides the drivers, no matter what.


To turn on vsync, use the Advanced Options menu. Alternately, you can hit ctrl-alt-~ to bring down a game console. At the console, type “r_swapinterval 1”. Then hit ~ to close the console. You should be all set, and the tearing should be gone. You can thank me later.

Tweak the gamma — If the game is too dark for you and cranking up the brightness slider doesn’t suffice, you might try playing with the gamma setting from the console. Again, pull down a console with ctrl-alt-~. Then type “r_gamma 1.2” and see what you think. The game’s default is “r_gamma 1”, and I’ve found something between 1.2 and 1.4 works for me. Any more than that, though, and you really risk destroying the game’s realistic lighting. Be careful with this setting, because you could lose the look the game’s designers intended.

A note about antialiasing — You may have read at the HardOCP and elsewhere that antialiasing isn’t necessary in this game—seems to be a near-universal opinion amongst those who have seen it. I don’t totally disagree. In DOOM 3, object edges often have jaggies, but interior edges usually do not. Of course, the antialiasing used in most graphics cards today is multisampling, which typically only affects object boundaries. That’s why you’ll see annoying jaggies on interior edges in games like Far Cry, even with AA enabled. DOOM 3 doesn’t have that problem, and I believe that it may be because id’s pixel shader programs are programmed to do some antialiasing, at least in the game’s “high quality” mode. So leave AA turned off, if you must. DOOM seems to kill interior edge jaggies anyhow.

Push your system — The game’s built-in routine to detect the best settings for your system appears to be very conservative. For instance, it chose “medium quality” for a GeForce 6800 on a test rig, while the GF6800 will run the game just fine at “high quality” at 1152×864 resolution. I suggest moving up to the “high quality” settings if your graphics card has 256MB of memory, regardless of what it picks. Also, the auto-detect routine picks some very low resolutions—640×480 for medium quality, and 800×600 for high quality. You may be able to get away with much higher screen resolutions than what the game has picked. I’d suggest cranking it up to 1024×768 or higher to see how it runs.

That’s all for now. If you have other suggestions, post ’em below.

Comments closed
    • blubje
    • 12 years ago

    Hi,
    thank you for the hint regarding the dual display configuration. After hours of researching and tweaking I finally found the solution for my inexplicably low fps in your tweak guide. :-))

    • Croc_1965
    • 15 years ago

    Everyone with Nvidia cards….. I recently bought a GT6600 Pro 128MB and my performance was much worse than my ATI 9800 Pro 128MB. I scoured forums for a week and tried every tweak suggestion out there with no luck. I was about to give up with I found a “Doom 3 Config” utility on the D3HQ web site. It’s a great GUI to all the advanced options most of which are only available via the console.

    I found the magic setting was to enable image caching and crank it up to about 60MB. Voila….. now it runs beautifully.

    Go here, follow instructions to load carefully………..

    §[<http://www.d3hq.com/download.php?cat=21&ref=0&subref=0<]§ Cheers, Kent.

    • FuNky-MuNky
    • 16 years ago

    Everybody with a ATI card, try this link:
    §[<http://www.megagames.com/news/html/pc/doom3enhancetheexperiencept2.shtml<]§ My setup: AMD 2800+ Asus A7N8X (Nforce 2 Ultra) 768 MB RAM WinXP sp1 (bit unsure to load sp2) Asus ATI 9600 XT 128MB (OC'd about 10% with ATItool) When I loaded Doom 3 I was running Catalyst 4.5 I reverted to the 4.3's because it was faster but less stable (game crashed at the loading of every second level or so) Running the 4.8 now with the tweaks from MegaGames's website. Anyway the point I wanted to make is that I ran the timedemo (vsync obviously disabled), got 36 FPS before the tweaks, I get 54 FPS now. (Can't remember if it was 1024*768 or 800*600, and I didn't bother to check again since I started playing nonstop after that) My settings in Doom 3 currently is: Medium 1024*768 Shadows - ON Specular - OFF (Don't like the look of it and it munches your FPS) High Quality FX - Off Bump mapping - ON (Saw that it doesn't make much difference on your FPS) VSync - ON No AA 2x Aniso (set in driver panel) Turned on the FPS indicator (drop console [ctrl] [alt] [~] and type "com_showfps 1") and get 60 FPS normally and 30 FPS in hectic battles (my vsync is on)

    • Egg
    • 16 years ago

    P4 3.0C overclocked to 3.4Ghz, Asus P4C800 Deluxe, 2 Gb KingMax DDR500 RAM, 900 FSB, stock ATI 9800XT, Catalyst 4.4, BIOS set AGP/PCI frequency at 80/40, AGP Gart set at 256

    This is a tweak for those who have a fairly beefy system and want to run DOOM 3 in Ultra mode. I know that id has stated that you need a 512 Mb video card to run this one, but I just remembered about the GART function. I won’t explain about this. You can look it up on the web.

    If you have a mobo capable of this, go into BIOS and change these settings: set AGP GART to 256, bring up AGP/PCI frequency from stock to highest level (80/40 on my Asus). After booting up, go into your Catalyst video settings and enable triple buffering in OpenGL (Sorry, don’t know about Nvidia cards – using Cat 4.4 because of texture problem in later versions)

    Next, load up Doom 3 and change the graphic setting to “Ultra” and exit the game. Finally, you have to edit the DoomConfig.cfg file in the Doom 3/base folder: Change the following settings:

    seta image_useCache “1”
    seta image_cacheMegs “512”
    seta image_cacheMinK “2048”

    Note: If you have 768 K of RAM or less, don’t bother with this tweak. If you have less than 2 Gb of RAM, the cacheMegs and cacheMinK numbers will have to be lowered. The cache settings can be changed dependant on how much RAM you have. Play with the numbers. id was right about overclocked video cards; don’t do it for this game.

    Load up the game again and be prepared to have your jaw drop again when you see the new visuals. Action may be a bit jerky during large scenes, but overall, the game is very playable in Ultra mode, at least on my system.

    • OutlawTornNMT
    • 16 years ago

    I don’t know what it is. I just updated some drivers and turned on vsynch in the game, and I’ve been able to play it at higher res, haven’t testing the advanced settings yet. I just figured that it should really be playable on this machine instead of the one running the Ti4200

    • OutlawTornNMT
    • 16 years ago

    I’ve got a AIW 9600, P4 2.4Ghz and 512Mb of DDR 400, and I can’t run the game in anything other than 640×480 on Low with all the advanced shit off… What gives.

      • Klamath
      • 16 years ago

      Go into your display settings -> Advance and choose the SMARTGART tab and make sure that your card is running in AGP mode. Sometimes it will default to PCI-Mode and that isnt good. If it wont let you change it, upgrade your mobo drivers and that should solve it.

      Beyond that, a good disk defrag or even a format/re-install might warrant. Check all your bios settings too and make sure that your RAM isnt defaulting to 333Mhz.

      Oh and your sound card can also f*ck up your frame rate. I always turn on Low Sound Quality on my 9600Pro sys whenever possible (like in UT2004) cos it gives a big boost.
      Your frame rate (or lack thereof) is pretty hardcore low so maybe pull out your sound card and try with no sound just to narrow it down.
      What sound card do you have?

      -Klamath

    • Klamath
    • 16 years ago

    Sorry i dropped this Q in a comment but i just wanted an opinion cos i think if i want more fps i would need a complete overhaul of my system.
    But im certainly not complaining about my current rigs performance in doom3…runs beautifully =)

    But just out of interest:
    Anyone reckon a boost from a 2400+ to a 3200+ would give significant gain?

    My Rig:
    AthlonXP 2400+
    Aopen XC Cube 230W PSU
    Radeon 9800Pro 128MB
    1GB DualDDR400 (2x 512mb)
    19″ ezLG Flatron T910B
    Maxtor Calypso 80GB ATA133 8MB Cache

    Oh and although setting cacheMegs to 96 (and then 128) in the cfg provided me almost no xtra frames, one thing i did do that drastically improved performance was to extract the .pk4 files into the base directory then delete the original .pk4 files so d3 isnt forever unpacking files…gave a sweet boost =)) hope that helps someone out there…

      • indeego
      • 16 years ago

      I estimate anywhere from 5-10 fps max on medium qualityg{<.<}g

        • Klamath
        • 16 years ago

        Cheers =)

        maybe worth the upgrade then

      • ricp11
      • 16 years ago

      How do I extract the .pk4 files in the base directory ?

        • Klamath
        • 16 years ago

        just use WinRar 3.3 or above, that can extract them =)

          • ricp11
          • 16 years ago

          Ok thanks I will do that.

    • jjmcute
    • 16 years ago

    HELP ME! My audio takes a dump every few minutes and I’m forced to play the game in stereo and not surround. I’ve got an Audigy ZS sound card (don’t know if that makes a difference). I can play for a while in surround, but if I quick save, or make any sudden moves, it stops all sound. I must then go to the main menu and re-set to stereo.

    Any suggestions? I have the most recent drivers as well.

    • heresyed
    • 16 years ago

    Help!!! i’m getting crashes left and right. i’ve tried a bunch of the tweaks, and various combinations of performance enhancers, or tweaking it down, and i’m still crashing about every 5 min. it seems.

    i’m running an amd athlon xp 1700+, 1GB ddr pc2100, and an ati radeon all in wonder pro 9600. not the best specs, i know, but it should still do the job.

    i’m trying to run the game at 800×600, anti-aliasing is off at the moment, anistropy is set to 0, and _cachemegs is set to 96 for now. i have vertical sync enabled, and everything else is checked in the advanced section.

    could someone give me some optimal settings. this is the first game that’s actually pushed my system so far, i normally just jack all the settings to the max and they’re fine, but this is not cool.

      • NeXus 6
      • 16 years ago

      Have you updated your video card drivers? I was having lockups with the 4.3s, and updating to the latest 4.7s fixed it.

        • yodoom3yo
        • 16 years ago

        driver 3.1 is better than 4.7 that decreased my fps. btw anyone else have like slowdowns looking on centain parts of the game? when i stafe and look @ a wall. it looks like it jumps/jitters not graphical error just like my guys causeing wall to look this way. anyone notice this? i have nothing running in my background just did fresh install of xp pro btw. catalyst 4.7 wheres the option to see if you have like multimoniters on or something?

          • lenzenm
          • 16 years ago

          Unless you have another physical monitor connected to your computer via a VGA or DVI cable, you are not using multi-monitor, and it sure sounds like you’e not. If you did, you would have two monitors sitting on your desk in front of you, with the windows desktop extended across both of them; this is something both ATI and nVidia support in their drivers, and they will auto-detect whether you have more than 1 monitor attached, and then ask you if you want to extend the windows desktop onto the second physical monitor. This tweak is only for people that actually have 2 physical monitors connected to their PC, and need to disable one of them in the driver settings to maximize their Doom3 hardware acceleration. Therefore, this setting does not concern you.

            • yodoom3yo
            • 16 years ago

            ok great but my performance still sucks .why do walls have trails look jittery? like edges of walls blurr when i strafe its like it bobs or something. weird stuff only games that do it is doom3 and halo. none of my other games seem to get jittery looking walls when i strafe and look @ them. then wtf is causing my performance to suck? i sure hope idsoft patches this mess cause it’s annoying. sometimes i get like 30 fps just looking @ a wall strafe looking @ it .then when im @ a part with lots of enemies and stuff happening its 60 fps this game is messed up or something.

            • heresyed
            • 16 years ago

            yeah, my drivers were the issue. turns out i was still using the stock drivers that came with the card. *duh* stupid mistake, i’m suprised at myself. but i’m still getting slowdowns here and there. like it seems to occur when monsters pop up, or right after a cut scene. i am running 800×600, with 4x anti-aliasing, anistropy on 2, and cachemegs at 96 now, it works great most of the time, but it still isn’t completely smooth. also it seems quite jittery when ever i use the elevator. any ideas?

            • jdevers
            • 16 years ago

            I doubt a 9600 really has the power to drive 800×600 with 4xAA.

            • heresyed
            • 16 years ago

            its worked fine for all my other games. and the specs on ati’s site seem to lean towards that assumption. i’m givin the pk4 unpackage thing a try to see if that clears things up tho.

            • Klamath
            • 16 years ago

            AA really isnt that necessary in Doom3, i set it to 16x and it only dropped a couple of fps but the image quality dif. wasnt really all that.

            My other system has a 9600Pro and it runs it med quality @ 1280×1024 fine (a little jerky in high action).

            • dukerjames
            • 16 years ago

            16X AA only couple fps drop?
            you meant 16X AF right?

    • yodoom3yo
    • 16 years ago

    i have a radeon 9800 pro people. how to do i check see if i have multimonitering enabled how do i disable or enable that option ? i think i might have 2 moniters on my pc slowing me down help. can you tell me where this option is located so i can turn it off. i look all through my catalyst 4.7 and couldnt find anything.

      • indeego
      • 16 years ago

      uh, the “monitor” tab, under display–>settings tab–>advanced

        • yodoom3yo
        • 16 years ago

        ummm there is no option only only thing that i see that has to do with moniter is schemes default single display and moniter in the drivers thats just for refresh rate. when i strafe and look @ a wall it looks very jump but im getting 40-60 fps only dips to 30 sometimes. but still it looks like im getting low fps. doom3 seems very unoptimized far cry runs like a dream .

    • Chung
    • 16 years ago

    okay here are my specs now this is what i want to run it at and i was wondering whats gonna be my lowest frame rate gonna be on like supposedly the laggiest level and also wuts do you guys think the percentage will be out of the entire game that i will get above 40 Frames per second?. Okay so if i run it at 1024X768 all High settings.

    ASUS K8V Deluxe K8T800 Mobo
    AMD 64 Athlon 3200+ 1mb Cache
    512 MB DDR-400 PC-3200 Kingston Hyper-X Ram
    80gb Western DIgital 8mb buffer Hard Disk
    128mb DDR Saphirre ATI Radeon 9800pro
    Sound Blaster LIVE 5.1

    • Goatspunk
    • 16 years ago

    What the hell…..

    AMD XP 2200+, 1.25gig DDR 2700, GF4 MX 440 128 8x, win2k, 200gig 8mb, blah blah blah… i get HORRIBLE framrates at lowest setting 640×480… WTFH!?!?

    I’ve attempted to turn everything off and only run d3 and my soundcard, still no fix. It’s just dumb to try and play. I see people with less that I have running it just fine. I’ve installed new drivers for everything.

      • indeego
      • 16 years ago

      MX dude. That is your achilles heelg{<.<}g

        • Goatspunk
        • 16 years ago

        really? stupid card, stupid doom 3. I’m avg. around 8fps which is not playable. I’ll borrow my neighbors card (GFTI 4600) and see if that fixes it, if it does, i’ll give him my GF MX 440. he wont know the difference.

          • indeego
          • 16 years ago

          Hehe, if he plays any games in 3d he will. all MX and “LE” cards are to be avoided like the plague– you can get *much* faster (used) cards for often less moneyg{<.<}g

            • Goatspunk
            • 16 years ago

            Then that would explain why BF1942 runs like pure crap. Ok i’ll try the TI 4600

        • Klamath
        • 16 years ago

        Yea i have a friend whos runnin it on the same card but with an Athlon 1800+ and its apparently woeful! like avg 10fps on low 640×480 :-/

        If u dont wanna spend too much get an ATI 9600 Pro/XT or GeForce 5600U. Thatll boost ya! or a bit xtra for a 9800pro/xt or 5950U cos my 9800Pro runs it sweet =)

        My Rig:
        AthlonXP 2400+
        Aopen XC Cube 230W PSU
        Radeon 9800Pro 128MB
        1GB DualDDR400 (2x 512mb)
        19″ ezLG Flatron T910B
        Maxtor Calypso 80GB ATA133 8MB Cache

      • Wrightstuff
      • 16 years ago

      yah, i have the same video card and im havin the same problems… is there anything i can do to it to boost my fps cuz its absolutely dreadful, i tried downloading a driver and it said something about not having a windows xp tag for compatability… is there anything i can do, video card settings tweak… game tweak, anything to up my performance. PLS SAVE MY GAME!!
      Also i have another computer with an excalibur radeon 9600 vivo edition. it runs pretty well at 800×600 high quality, but also is there anything i can do that would allow me to boost the resolution without losing its playability?

        • Klamath
        • 16 years ago

        Nothin can really boost it on your GF4 MX, but on your 9600 system your best off lowering to med quality and boosting to 1280×1024.

        My main sys runs a 9800Pro but my other one has a 9600Pro and it runs well on med quality 1280×1024 (mass action scenes get a bit dodge but its still playable). You can try the extracting of the pk4 files tweak to get a few xtra fps…i posted it here somewhere.

    • plonk420
    • 16 years ago

    when you say slideshow when using MultiMonitor, do you mean like a frame every 6-8 seconds at the menu alone? that’s what i’m getting on a Ti4200 on a 2400+ with 1GB memory… i’ve disabled it and even rebooted .. still didn’t fix it.

    i’ve updated to dx9b; updated drivers (to 61’s whql’d set); bios is at a recent, stable release (Asus mobo, so i’m good there); latest Hyperions; can’t figure it out! >=(

    • Chrispy_
    • 16 years ago

    Thought I’d make a new post because there are a few comments regarding the older genereation DX7 parts:

    People having awful performance with laptop graphics and Radeon 7xxx cards are wondering why when they see Doom3 running fine on something as old/poor as a GF4 MX. The reason that the MX can hack it is because nVidia have written software pixel shaders into the drivers for those MX’s. It is still a DX7 part in the flesh, but it has this DX8 emulation advantage over the GF2’s and the whole Radeon 7000 series. S3, Kyro and other similar performance cards will all suffer the same fate unless they have support for the pixel shaders that the Doom3 engine is built on.

    The low-end nVidia FX 5200/5600 series and the low end Ati 9xxx’s have pretty much proven their worthlessness when you can grab an old Geforce3 or Ti4200 for $10-20 on eBay. A

      • DukenukemX
      • 16 years ago

      I thought Doom 3 doesn’t require pixel shaders?

      You can turn off enough settings in Doom 3 to make it almost look like Quake 3. Including Bump maps and shadows.

      Doom 3 isn’t built on pixel shaders but instead it’s built on normal mapping. Which is really Dot 3 bump mapping.

        • Chrispy_
        • 16 years ago

        Pixel shaders are everywhere. The fire, the smoke from rockets and grenades, the plasma trails, and every shadow in the whole game is run on a pixel shader, if doomworld.com is to be beleived. The new engine completely discards the use of lightmaps, calculating the light value of every pixel in the screen at each frame. This means the lighting info´s never stored. The way these lights are rendered depends on the world´s condition and it’s done on a per-pixel basis, hence the need for pixel shaders, otherwise I thinkg the graphics card has to render the whole view once for every light source visible. That’s why performance might be so dire on DX7-class products.

        Pixel shaders are a DX8 term I think, and Doom is an OpenGL game so there’s always going to be some confusion but Doom3’s hardware requirements to do real-time lighting far surpass the DX7 transform & lighting on either a GF2 or a R7000. Carmack said that Doom3 would be coded on the technology of a GF3. That’s therefore the minimum spec becuase without GF3 shader support or better, it’s like trying to build a skyscraper with no foundations.

    • Willior
    • 16 years ago

    asdfj;lvb

      • Chrispy_
      • 16 years ago

      It’ll run fine.
      At 640×480 with low detail and no specular lighting you can expect 20-35fps.
      It’s not an amazing framerate, but Doom3’s not that sort of game. If you read around you’ll see that it still looks good at low-res.

        • Willior
        • 16 years ago

        what in the

    • monofurioso
    • 16 years ago

    The dual-display heads up was a lifesaver. I bought the game at 7PM last night, got home and spent the evening re-installing Windows XP, checking out my hardware, drivers, everything. I was pulling my hair out, as my uber system was performing miserably at 800×600.

    This from an Opteron 150, 6800GT, 1GB Corsair XMS DDR 400, Raptor 72GB SATA.

    Finally, I saw a link to this guide, saw the “disable secondary display” hint. I tried it, and now I am playing at 1600×1200 HQ, 2xAA and in heaven (and by heaven I mean the depths of Hell !!!! 😀 )

    Scott Wasson, if I was neither married, nor a man, I would have your babies.
    I love you.

    EDIT: BTW, I will have to try out MrWorf’s suggestion, but really, once the linux client is out, I’ll be gaming in Fedora Core 2, and I doubt I will have this issue with dual displays.

    • MrWorf
    • 16 years ago

    For the record, I use NVidia with dual screens, but with the spanning mode instead of windows crappy “extend my desktop”, and /[

    • Black-Op
    • 16 years ago

    i think hardcop doom3 system requirments are a lie , and even id software have suggested 512 video cards for ultra high setting and thats also a lie , just to get revenue ,sales,piece of the pie.

    ask why im saying this? well i will tell you why: I have been running Ultra high settings in doom 3 and am getting 40 to 60 fps , i will break it down.

    majority of the time im getting between 50 and 60 fsp [ 80% of the time ]

    im getting 40 to 50 fps 19% of the time

    i drop below 40 fps 1% of the time

    now to the good part , my sustem isnt top of the line , however i was smart about what i bought long before doom 3 came , plz dont try and tell me im a lair , if you dont believe me then to bad , but ive been playing on Ultra High settings at 1024 by 768 and having the time of my life.

    yes i have had some hitching whilst playing , usally it happens when a cyber deamon spawn in real close to me or when creatures are already inside a room when i open a door to enter a room or building, its not very often.

    anyways here are my system spec :

    V-Tech 465 watt Power Supply [ 2 fans , heavy item ]
    athlon xp3000+ fsb 333
    corsair xms ddr400 pc3200C2 [ cas latency 2] version 1.3
    gigabyte VT-KT600 L [cheap ass board but obviously runs well]
    7200 rpm maxtor 80 gig hardrive [ 8 meg cache buffer ]
    viewsonic proffesional series P95f+2 [black,aperature-grill,300mhz,2048 by 1980 res]
    Sapphire ATI 9800 PRO 128 meg card [ R350 Core]

    anyways im getting great performance with just a 9800 pro 128 meg card on Ultra High Settings ,this is why im calling Harcop and Id software a bunch of liars ,so far im doing what they said can’t be done , yes u prolly should have a 512 meg card to run on ultra , but why am i able to?

    nothing Oc’d and 4.7 cat drivers official , also i wanna add that i set the cachemegs in my config to 100 and turned vsync off

      • NeXus 6
      • 16 years ago

      It just automatically downgrades to compressed textures on the Ultra High setting if you’re running a video card with less then 512 MB RAM. There’s no reason to set it any farther than the High setting right now.

        • Toasty
        • 16 years ago

        Ouch, seems like Black-op wasted some time with that rant. At least he blew off some steam though! Anyway,Doom 3 is running choppy on my system, 20-30fps most of the time, but thats what you get with DX8 graphics cards…

        my system:
        northwood p4 1.6A@2.133
        Asus mobo w/SiS 645DX chipset
        512 MB corsair DDR 400 2-2-2-4-1
        128MB geforce4 ti4200 300/530
        SBLive (bleh)

        • Black-Op
        • 16 years ago

        no your wrong idiot i forced ultra high settings in my config , it didnt automatically do dick, nice try though

          • NeXus 6
          • 16 years ago

          My bad. Setting it to Ultra High does force it to use uncompressed textures, but those textures are the same low res textures making little impact on performance depending on your hardware config. It’s not like you’re getting super high res textures at the Ultra High setting. Screen shots of the game on various gaming forums seem to show little difference in IQ between those two settings.

          • Toasty
          • 16 years ago

          I sense much anger in this one…Ultra High settings CANNOT force a 128 MB card to take on 500+ MB of textures, it will still load high quality compressed textures, but it WILL enable extras like 8x anistropic filtering and the DX9 shader effects like heat haze. 512MB > 128MB, it don’t fit so good.

            • Aphasia
            • 16 years ago

            But that Heat Haze is also loaded in Medium Quality. At least i always see heat waves when i got past fires, etc.

            • Toasty
            • 16 years ago

            You must have a DX9 graphics card, because the heat haze is a DX9 shader effect which my lowly DX8 GF4 Ti4200 can’t execute 🙁

            • NeXus 6
            • 16 years ago

            I think it can load smaller uncompressed textures into video RAM. If you notice in the game on High or Ultra High setting, some textures are lower res than others. There’s almost no IQ difference between the two settings–a least on my 9800 Pro128 MB video card. My understanding is that it defaults to these lower res textures on 256 MB or less video cards.

            Either way, the game scales pretty well with all types of systems. It’s another well polished game engine from Carmack.

            • Aphasia
            • 16 years ago

            And one that will improve with age, just like the q, q2, and q3 engines.

      • dmanko
      • 16 years ago

      This is pure and simple BS. It has been proven time and time again that ultra high is NOT for 128 meg cards. I have similar/better specs:
      AXP 11×200, 2.2 GHz 3200+,
      NF7-S 2.0, latest firmware,
      1 gig pc4000 running at 2-3-3 @ 200,
      5900 non-ultra flashed to 5950,
      seagate 7200 RM 80 GB main drive, 8 MB cache,
      latest drivers across the board and all the latest firmware updates.
      There is NO way your system is running ultra high.

      I don’t see why so many people on the internet lie about their performance. WHO CARES! you run it well enough as it is at 1024 on high or medium so DON’T LIE about this crap. You will only get others’ hopes up spouting your BS.

        • ssego
        • 16 years ago

        You are misunderstanding how onboard memory effects performance. Just because a card only has 128MB of texture meory doesnt mean it cant play a game that needs 512MB. Thats why they developed the AGP bus. The game will use all of the vid card memory and spill over to the system memory through the AGP bus. I CAN play the game on ultra settings on my system. It runs smooth the majority of the time, but it does slow down to around 12FPS after a level first starts. That’s why I run in high mode.

        My specs:
        NF7-S 2.0
        Athlon XP 2100+ TBRED B @ 2100MHz (333FSBx12.5)
        768MB PC2700 DDR
        ATI Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB stock
        120GB Seagate SATA150 7200RPM 8MB buffer

      • Klamath
      • 16 years ago

      Well i for one can confirm that this is not a load of BS cos i get great results on High settings @ 1600×1200 on my rig.
      I get 27-50fps all the time.
      Avg 34fps, which is more than playable and with these details and this res it looks sweet =).
      So i dunno what everyone is winging about.

      My Rig:
      AthlonXP 2400+
      Aopen XC Cube 230W PSU
      Radeon 9800Pro 128MB
      1GB DualDDR400 (2x 512mb)
      19″ ezLG Flatron T910B
      Maxtor Calypso 80GB ATA133 8MB Cache

    • TheCollective
    • 16 years ago

    §[<http://www.forumplanet.com/planetdoom/topic.asp?fid=5733&tid=1438663<]§ Can we get some TR people to do some informal testing on this and post here? Please post resoultion, detail, and framerate if possible. Also, subjective commentary is good.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 16 years ago

      I tried it and played through Alpha Labs section 4 with it, and it did seem to help improve performance. I set it to 128. 256 didn’t do anything for me.

        • jobodaho
        • 16 years ago

        Have you tried using FRAPS to see if it helps? According to the other forum it didn’t help time demos.

    • adisor19
    • 16 years ago

    Tbird 1.2 + Radeon 7200 OC to 195Mhz = SLIDESHOW !!! :'( :'( :'(

    with the lowest resolution/settings imaginable 🙁

    Adi

      • LoneWolf15
      • 16 years ago

      Umm, forgive me, but, “Well, DUH!”

      The Radeon 7200 is an old graphics card not even designed for gaming when it was released. It’s DirectX7 compatible, and ATI intended it for business use. The Athlon Thunderbird is also below id’s minimum spec of a 1.5GHz CPU. If you cannot upgrade to an Athlon XP with your current mainboard, look for a high end Athlon (1.4GHz) or Duron CPU on Ebay, or even better, upgrade your graphics card to something cheap that was actually designed for gaming, such as a Geforce4 Ti 4200.

      P.S. I’m guessing you don’t have the minimum 384MB of RAM either. This might be the time to consider an Athlon XP 2500+, matching mainboard, 512MB of RAM, and an inexpensive but better graphics card. You should be able to get away with all of the above for under $250, especially if you get the graphics card on Ebay.

        • adisor19
        • 16 years ago

        Actually, i have 768M of RAM, so there was nothing missing there 😀

        As for the Radeon, this WAS designed for gaming. My card was originally called Radeon 64 DDR VIVO and it was the highest end model when released initially by ATI clocked at 183Mhz. Later on, they renamed it to a 7200. Anyways, i know it not adewuate but i was hoping it would be better then a slideshow in 640×480.. Guess i was worng..

        I’ll try the new Cat 4.9 and see what will happen.

        I’m not gonna upgrade my CPU cause i don’t find it worth it. I need to buy a new pc anyways and i’m just waiting for an Opteron dually mobo with PCI-e. 😀

        Thanks for the suggestions thought 🙂

        Adi

          • Chrispy_
          • 16 years ago

          Anything newer than a GF3 will do the trick. It’s just that the new engine is optimised for shader calculations because all the lighting is done on the fly now. The Ti4200 seems to be doing well in benchmarks, but if you’re really on a budget, the GF4 MX’s have software shader support in the drivers and seem to put out about 20-30FPS on a 1.5GHz P4.

        • yodoom3yo
        • 16 years ago

        i right clicked on my desktop went to properties> clicked settings tab>then clicked advanced now im inside my drivers i see nothing about dual displays except the displays tab and it shows only 1 moniter is connected. shows like a moniter to the right with a cable with x on it. below there’s a tv and fpd 4 box’s where is this so called option? maybe doom3 is just very poor made hmmm. my specs amd 64-fx53 939 socket 2.4 ghz 1gb pc3200 9800 pro.

    • d0g_p00p
    • 16 years ago

    Everyone who is saying that its a “Half-Life Story” is a damn fool. Have you guys even played the original Doom? Remember the story?, well its the same here. Yet another reason it’s called Doom 3.

      • Krogoth
      • 16 years ago

      Doom is a remake and retelling of the original Doom story it has nothing to do with Half-Life. Which Half-Life not only involues a conspired experiment going wrong. It featured the goveriment’s Marines/Speical Ops secretly killing and destroying all traces of the incident including the player. Then the player goes back to the alien’s dimeasion and kills the source of the problem.

      *[

      • FireGryphon
      • 16 years ago

      Just by looking st the screenshots, D3 looks like HL1 retold. I haven’t played the game yet, but that was my first impression from seeing all the screenies floating around the internet.

        • Krogoth
        • 16 years ago

        I have finally play Doom3, the begining is slimiar to HL1 but, there are some differences.

      • ildon
      • 16 years ago

      I think the problem is most people never played Doom or Quake or at least if they did they didn’t read the manuals to get the story lines. Half-Life’s basic story is actually a rip-off of the Doom/Quake stories (they’re pretty much exactly the same).

      Scientists experimenting with teleportation open a gate way to another dimension (hell in Doom’s case) and monsters start coming through the gate and you as the lone survivor (or at least the only competent survivor) must kill them all and defeat the boss. The End.

    • bozzunter
    • 16 years ago

    I agree with Scott, I don’t know how they can say that AA is unnecessary. As I have a 18” LCD, my only option is 1280×1024 and AA is absolutely needed.

    Anyway, apart from the technical considerations (I have a P4 3,6 GHz with Radeon X800PRO, so it runs fine), the game looks quite boring to me 🙁

    And the Half Life-like story is really unbearable, IMHO.

    • jbraslins
    • 16 years ago

    Anyone try to see if upgrading to DirectX 9.0c (Developer SDK avail from MS) makes any difference comparing to DirectX 9.0b?

      • dawurz
      • 16 years ago

      I was wondering that too, though if the CPU is handling the audio and the game is OpenGL, what is Doom 3 using DX but for input or anything that would have an noticeable impact on performance?

    • Ruiner
    • 16 years ago

    To those who have it, how costly, framerate wise, is the 8xAF that is automatically enabled at HQ?
    In other words, can you buy a level of resolution up by running HQ/no AF?

    • TheCollective
    • 16 years ago

    P4 3.0C
    1GB DDR400
    i875P
    Radeon 9600XT

    800×600 High Quality. I’m running 80Hz refresh rate on my Hitachi CM823FB. Vsync disabled.

    Game is pretty smooth with some slowdowns here and there. Overall very playable and fun.

    Haven’t tried 1024×768. Just having too much fun as it is :).

    • mech
    • 16 years ago

    Really sorry if someone posted this already, but the way the comments are set up on this I can’t be bothered checking through them all :/

    You can change the Vsync control in the menu, no need to go through the console. Go to video options, and then advanced. Bam. 🙂

    Oh, and having Vsync on looks much, much better for Doom 3 IMHO. It looked awful with the tearing.

    • Spotpuff
    • 16 years ago

    Is there any way to get this game working with a 4.1 setup in surround mode? ‘Cause like, stereo is good and all, but it’s not using my rear speakers at all.
    :T

    On-Board gf4 mx is struggling to say the least. Oh well, the 9800 Pro 128MB will be here soon to help 🙂

      • Klamath
      • 16 years ago

      What sort of mobo/rig u runnin Spotpuff?

    • DukenukemX
    • 16 years ago

    I have 3 PCs with Doom 3 installed and these are my experiences. Yes all PCs have ATI video cards.

    *[

      • derFunkenstein
      • 16 years ago

      You would think a 7500 would be able to do it on low, like the GF4, but I distinctly remember the Radeon 7×00 cards being left off the list when you go to install the game…You’re probably right about ATi’s OGL not being updated for the 7×00 cards anymore…

        • Glorious729
        • 16 years ago

        Wouldn’t that be because the 7500 is actually a directx7 part? I bet the geforce4 mx runs really slow too. Carmack DID say not to buy a geforce4 mx for doom3…

          • DukenukemX
          • 16 years ago

          On the Radeon 8500 I have used Omega’s older CounterStrike OpenGl driver for Doom 3. The performance was almost as bad as the Radeon 7500.

          The menu and video intro can’t be running at 1 FPS because it’s a Radeon 7500. Seems like ATI long forgot about the 7500.

          In game should run slow not the menu or video intro. This concerns me because I simply can’t upgrade the video card in my laptop. Unless someone knows someplace where I can buy a Clevo 5600P motherboard with a Radeon 9000.

          Doom 3 is running at 640X480 with low quality setting, no bump mapping, no shadows, and anything I forgot. Doom 3 is basically looking like Quake 3 yet runs at 1 FPS. ATI must have quit updating the 7500 openGL drivers.

          *[[EDIT]]*
          DX7 cards don’t use any pixel shaders. Doom 3 will run without pixel shaders. Doom 3 just uses a lot of normal mapping witch is just lots of bump mapping.

          A Geforce 4 MX will run Doom 3 because it has a vertex shader core but no pixel shader.

          So it’s possible to run Doom 3 on DX7 based cards just without shaders.

    • T_Dawg
    • 16 years ago

    Thanks for the head’s up on the dual monitors. Don’t know if you were saying it was only an Nvidia issue, but when I disabled the second monitor on my Radeon 9700, the framerates picked up considerably.

    Next point may be blindingly obvious to some. But if you have an LCD, and don’t get good enough framerates at it’s native resolution or some even fraction thereof, you’re better off grabbing a CRT. The first day of playing it, I was “wow this is way dark, and the PDA is all blurry” Well I was running my 1280×1024 native LCD at 640×480. And it looked awful. Swapped over to my old CRT, and now it looks great. Bumping up to 800×600 after finding out about disabling the second monitor helped as well. Getting decent frames most of the time on high detail.

      • indeego
      • 16 years ago

      Yes LCD’s have disadvantages on CRT’s with true color reproduction, and darkness. Oh, and refresh rates. Oh, and pixel death. Oh yeah, also fixed resolutionsg{<.<}g Did I mention the price premium of several hundred percentg{

        • PerfectCr
        • 16 years ago

        l[

          • 5150
          • 16 years ago

          Because he’s that damn good.

        • mattsteg
        • 16 years ago

        so where are these monitors that put out razor sharp 1600×1200 images for under 200 bucks? Hint: they don’t exist, and to get similar display quality to a nice LCD you often have to spend *more* on a CRT.

        Mercid: 1280×1024 needs to die. It’s a bastard resolution.

          • Saribro
          • 16 years ago

          1280*1024 is totally my favourite resolution actually. Not too small on a 17″, and great vertical range (I need that range for certain toolbars and my irc-channelbar :p)

          1280*960 may be the fancy 4:3 resolution, but it looks stretched to me…

          oh well, personal preference I suppose 🙂

            • Chrispy_
            • 16 years ago

            I agree, in windows, 1280×1024 is an ideal resolution, but fullscreen games support for it is plain sloppy, especially if it’s because a 5:4 TFT can’t run anything at it’s native ratio, let alone native resolution.

            Widescreen / narrowscreen’s a joke really, not just in PC’s, but in TV and DVD’s too. There are no standards, and if the news lady isn’t horse-faced, she looks like a 300lb midget. Then you can complain about the letterboxing on your DVD copy played through your widescreen TV. LOL , ROFL at the funny. (English sarchasm in action….)

          • indeego
          • 16 years ago

          Funny that you mention $200, because you can find them for under $300 quite easily. I have almost converted everyone to work to LCD, but got quite a lot of grumbling from some of the Purists, and some mandated that they keep their CRT’sg{<.<}g LCD: good for long hauls and working with pure text/web browsing. I myself now prefer a LCD for work. (but CRT for home) CRT: everything else, including any CAD/design work, games, etcg{<.<}g

            • mattsteg
            • 16 years ago

            200 is the maximum such a monitor could cost to meet your inaccurate “several hundred percent” criteria. You’re really not likely to get as nice of text unless you pay *more* than you would for an LCD.

          • Chrispy_
          • 16 years ago

          It’s obvious you like your LCD’s here, but if you can find an LCD that will give you a 1600×1200 image for under $200 then I need to know where you shop. My Diamondtron can be picked up for about $250 now, and it’s good enough to read size 6 font at 1600×1200.

          TFT’s may be good but if we’re going to do the whole “mine’s bigger than yours” when we’re talking about Doom3, here’s why NO TFT will do.

          -Stuck white pixels in a dark game are more annoying than they will ever be elsewhere.
          -Ghosting/lag especially because the game is all about black/white contrast
          -Doom3 is best described as dark/black/dim, the best LCD black I have found is grey.
          -Let’s not talk about native resolutions lest we embarass LCD fans even more.
          -Colour depth. Lots of plain textures in Doom3, 16-bit, or 18-bit LCD colour just fails.
          -Colour uniformity. Some TFT’s are better than others, but with a dark game it’s like having cataracts 🙁
          -Antialiasing in games is there to help TFT’s. CRT’s are softer focus by default.

          TFT’s are great for electricity bills, crystal clear text and space saving, but Doom3 shows their shortcomings more than anything else since AVP and AVP2 first made their rounds.

        • ieya
        • 16 years ago

        I have, here at work, a 19″ Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454, which is a Diamondtron screen that will do 1920×1440 at highest, and does 1600×1200 nicely.

        It cost slightly less than a generic 15″ LCD monitor …

    • rxc6
    • 16 years ago

    I already found the first easter egg in the game. This game really rocks.

      • Krogoth
      • 16 years ago

      was it the Dopefish?

        • rxc6
        • 16 years ago

        SPOILER SPOILER!!! o[< §[<http://www.martianbuddy.com<]§ <]o :wink:

          • TheCollective
          • 16 years ago

          SPOILER: Yea, its a code to the martianbuddy locker in the game. I think its cool how they integrate that.

    • Aphasia
    • 16 years ago

    P4 2.8GHz with 2GB ram and a 9800 Pro, 128MB.

    Running at 1024 in medium quality, there was some slowdowns at high quality. A tiny bit too slow. But now its running perfectly. But then, Direct X 9.0b and Catalyst 4.4 drivers. Are the catalyst 4.7 that much better? Else ill wait for the next iteration when they have redone their Open GL a bit more. Maybe i can bump it up to high.

    What can i say, its damn good looking, and those first demons that turned up, jumping on walls, and jumping on me was a pretty good scare.
    But yeah, a tiny bit too dark, so gamma raised abit, not too much, most things are supposed to be pitch black after all.

    He, compare this to Doom 1. This is what Doom was meant to be.

    • Prospero424
    • 16 years ago

    Ok, maybe I’m just overlooking something and I’m going to feel really stupid when someone points this out, because I haven’t seen anyone else complaining about this problem.

    But I can’t navigate in the PDA. I can highlight the different buttons like “Videodisk” and “email”, that is, they light up. But when I click on them, nothing whatsoever happens. Same with the names of people whose PDAs I pick up; nada.

    I’ve played through like 5 levels and I still haven’t been able to see a single email, video, or whatever. WTF? Otherswise the game runs better than I expected on a P4C 2.4, 1 gig DDR400, and a radeon 9700.

    I have tried both DirectX9.0b and c. I’ve updated my Catalyst and Intel chipset drivers to latest version and all of that jazz, but nothing seems to work.

    I don’t want to play any more of the game until I figure it out because I feel like I’m missing out on a big part of it. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

      • Prospero424
      • 16 years ago

      Ooooooooohhh good! (Carl voice)

      I knew I was going to embarrass myself. I figured it out the second I posted this; I didn’t realize, because of my funky control config, that you have to use the fire button to make your selection in the PDA.

      Jesus, the only button I didn’t try. I suck.

        • Spotpuff
        • 16 years ago

        Don’t feel too bad, I did the same thing.
        🙂

        I’m left clicking and going “wtf?”
        Same w/ the door controls.

        Man, I’m only like, 30 minutes in, after the zombies invade… and I’m scared out of my mind and I had to stop playing.

        I’ll pick it up tomorrow during the day 🙂

    • dolemitecomputers
    • 16 years ago

    So what about multiplayer? Any word on what it will be like?

      • Convert
      • 16 years ago

      Same question.

      • Jer1cho
      • 16 years ago

      I am surprised you see slowdowns….if you are willing to gamble try the <a href=”http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4547.html”>Catalyst 4.9 Beta drivers</a> (which are optimized for Doom 3)I did and I am running very smoothly at 1024 x 768 – High on my somewhat wimpy AMP Athlon 2400+ 768 MB of DDR 333 and Radeon 9600 Pro 256MB

        • Jer1cho
        • 16 years ago

        Weird..that posted on the wrong one…disregard above…

    • ExpansionSSS
    • 16 years ago

    I need the commands for increasing gamma…

    This game is supposed to be dark and all..but damnit its kinda going too far..

    *I* could make a “great” looking game if it were 75% pitch black too !

      • --k
      • 16 years ago

      DoomConfig.cfg
      seta r_gamma “2”

    • droopy1592
    • 16 years ago

    Just had my first crash. This game is pretty hot but I’ve had enough for tonight. Too many monsters coming around corners. The part where o[

    • AOEU
    • 16 years ago

    I had the same multimonitor issue. You can fix it by changing the multimonitor acceleration setting in the drivers from multimonitor performance to single monitor only.

    Even that may not be enough. If when you start the game you are presented with white/one colored screen. Access taskmanager and kill doom3 process, then change the primary monitor in display properties to the other one and physically switch the cabels.

      • yodoom3yo
      • 16 years ago

      where is this multimoniter option in the drivers i dont see it . i have radeon 9800 pro .can someone tell me where it’s located so i can see if i have 2 moniters running?

      • mwtb
      • 16 years ago

      Could you (or anyone) give a more precise description of where this setting is, please? I’ve looked through the NVidia settings about 5 times now and I can’t find the acceleration toggle for multimonitor support. I only got the latest NVidia drivers two days ago and I’m having this performance issue with my 6800GT.

      Thanks

        • yodoom3yo
        • 16 years ago

        what he said^^^^ we need to know how to get to it like properties>settings tab>advanced then what? where all you guys are saying owww turn this off. this gives a great explanation.

        • mwtb
        • 16 years ago

        For anyone who is hunting, the setting on mine was actually buried in the OpenGL area of performance. I have no idea what setting this article and TomsHardware were looking at as it doesn’t exist in my driver interface.

    • snikrep
    • 16 years ago

    I also ran into the EXACT same issue with the dual monitor support… hopefully there will be a fix for this, but disabling the second monitor works for now.

    I am running a 6800GT OC, so it’s definitely an Nvidia issue.

      • GunMod
      • 16 years ago

      Guys, 2 monitor set-ups are always going to be slower than a 1 monitor set-up.
      The graphics card has to send information to two monitors instead of one, of course it’s going to use up more resources. I don’t understand why people are acting surprised about this. Dual monitors (or more) was more for a workstation enviroment like 3D editing or video editing. It was never intended to be a gaming enhancement.

    • --k
    • 16 years ago

    I wonder how the benches will work if the fps is capped at 60? Does timedemo ignore the cap?

      • LJ
      • 16 years ago

      Of course it does.

    • LJ
    • 16 years ago

    As long as you’re running with shadows, bump mapping and high qualtiy special effects enabled, you’re getting most of the game. I run those settings at 640×480 in medium quality mode on a Ti4200 and my framerate dips a little below 30 during some of the worst battles, but generally runs higher (i’m at the boss where you have to kill the seekers). It’s not bad considering the newest component of my system is the Ti4200 which I got for $150 over two years ago.

    I spent a good deal of the weekend playing (most of Saturday and Sunday), but it seems like tweak guide is unnecessary. The built in settings are conservative, yes, but the game seems to get exceptionally good framerates considering how amazingly great the detail is. Carmack knows how to squeeze a lot out of hardware.

    Also, depending on your framerate I’d vote against vsync. Depending on the type of buffering you’re doing (ie: double or triple buffering) vsync can limit you to 30fps instead of 55fps, for example or 15 fps instead of 28 fps. Sure, you won’t experience any tearing but at 55fps the tearing you might see would be minimal.

    The difference in control is HUGE. The numbers i state above are for double buffering. The response rates you would get for given framerates is as follows:

    55 fps — 18ms to 36 ms (not bad)
    30 fps — 33ms to 66 ms (not good)
    28 fps — 36ms to 71 ms (not good)
    15 fps — 66ms to 133ms (terrible)

    Now, this is for double buffering — the jump from, say, 22ms average response rate (you move your mouse and the screen reflects it) down to a 40ms average response rate *is* noticable, but the jump from a 50ms average response rate to a 100ms average response rate is absolutely horrible.

    So, you may want to consider enabling vsync if you’re getting a lot of tearing and it is detracting from the visual appeal of the game for you. However, if the tearing isn’t that bad and/or you’re noticing input latency, I’d disable it. Better control is more important than removing slight visual anomalies for most players.

      • FireGryphon
      • 16 years ago

      So what’s the correlation here between fps, response time, and vsynch? I’m a bit confused.

    • Krogoth
    • 16 years ago

    What CPU are running there Damage? How much memory do you have? Doom 3 demands not only a powerful video card, it also needs a beefy CPUs and lots of RAM (512MB+).

      • LJ
      • 16 years ago

      Actually, people in the SA forums were reporting running it well on 1.4ghz tbirds with 256MB of memory. Fill rate is your primary enemy here — Carmack does a lot of great stuff with CPU optimizations, but even he can’t get around the fact that you have to draw the scene twice, effectively, if you want to use shadow volumes.

      • Damage
      • 16 years ago

      I’m running a Celeron 1.4GHz with 192MB of RAM, why?

        • PerfectCr
        • 16 years ago

        LOL. Ya right. You’re prolly running an FX-53 and 2Gb of Ram. lol

          • Damage
          • 16 years ago

          Shh! Don’t tell Krogoth!

            • PerfectCr
            • 16 years ago

            Your secret is safe with me!

            • Krogoth
            • 16 years ago

            LOL, you probably have a A64 3200+ rig 🙂

        • Sargent Duck
        • 16 years ago

        Are you mocking the celeron 1.4. That, in case you didn’t know, is exactly what I am running. I take great offense to your tone of mocking, and you’re going to hear from my lawers about this blatent disregard of other peoples computers.

        J/K. I’m actually running a celeron 1.1 oc’d to 1.4, 512mb or ram and a 9600Pro. As much as I’d like to upgrade, university calls (and so does car, and so does golf, and so does……..) They system is far from great, but I was able to beat far cry on low-medium settings at 1024×768 with no AA or AF just fine.

    • mercid
    • 16 years ago

    Ive been playing on 1280X1024, medium quality on my rad 9800 Pro without many slow downs. Am i missing anything by not going for high quality and dropping it to 1024×768? I plugged in my g400 and was going to play on there for a little bit but it cant hold a candle to my 2001fp

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 16 years ago

      You’d be better off at 1280×960 on your monitor, if that resolution is available. The 2001FP’s pixels will scale better if the 4:3 aspect ratio is maintained.

        • mercid
        • 16 years ago

        humm, i will give it a shot, i read in maximum pc that 1280×1024 would the next best one from 1600. Thanks for the tip!

          • nordo42
          • 16 years ago

          well, the more pixels you have on screen at a time (multiply, 1600×1200=1,920,000 vs 800×600=480,000) the better the game should look. in the example there, it’s packing 4x the “resolution”. while that tends to improve quality, lessen jaggies (not like anti-aliasing, but it does help this), etc. it is still using the textures and other settings that create certain effects (say, reflections in waters, or how shadows are handled) that the game lets it. if you use medium quality at a higher resolution, you may be getting more pixels and slightly better appearance, but you may find that you’d prefer to have more advanced “high quality” settings that stress the limits of the technology at a lower resolution.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This