Memory for Doom 3
From all the comments that have been posted, there seems to be the unquestioned assumption that more memory will improve Doom 3 performance. The reality is that we have not been able to confirm objectively that assumption. The built-in benchmark for Doom 3, accessed from the console, was used to test common memory amounts on an Intel 875 platform, an Athlon 64 Socket 939 platform, and an A64 Socket 754 platform.
It was surprising that there were no real performance differences between 512MB, 1GB, and 2GB of memory in our benchmarks with the built-in Demo1. The only memory amount that shows lower performance is 256MB on the Socket 754 platform.
Perhaps the built-in Demo1 does not stress the system enough to really reveal performance differences in total memory. We did check memory usage in the console and found Doom 3 used memory up to about 1.5GB if it was available, so we are puzzled why smaller memory amounts did not impact measured performance.
We are looking for more sophisticated methods to test the impact of total memory on Doom 3 performance. For now, the best we can say is that 512MB or higher seems to be effective. If you have 256MB, upgrade to 512MB. We can also say from a purely subjective point that a Doom 3 system seems more responsive with at least 1GB of memory. Loading Doom and switching back to the screen is much faster with 1GB than 512MB.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
52 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
#41 - This is a Buyers Guide for Doom 3. I doubt your friend would go out to buy a Ti200 system to play Doom 3. If $278 is too much video card for you then you could save $78 with a 9800 PRO and have half the framerate at 1024x768. Or you could save $140 by getting a 9600XT or 5700 Ultra and still get playable (over 30FPS) frame rates at lower quality at 640x480 and 800x600.Value means best performance for the buck as I see it. The two options above gave up too much perfomance for the savings in my opinion, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Perhaps I should have added a 4th Category called CHEAP Doom 3 System - if it can boot the game it is A-OK by me :-)
brian_riendeau - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
$1000 value system? I thought I went to AnandTech, not Dell.com.Not everyone needs a $300 video card to be happy. You are WAY to caught up in "...another $100 you can get 40% more performance". Do you actually need that 40% more to enjoy the game? No. The game runs fine on cards much slower than a 6800. I have a friend who plays the game on a GF3 Ti200. I am not sure what his settings are, but the game runs fine for him. Maybe the difference is that he actually spends his time playing the game, not staring at textures on the walls and looking for 10 more frames per second to help kill those zombies.
//Editted
brian_riendeau - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
$1000 value system? I thought I went to AnandTech, not Dell.com.Not everyone needs a $300 video card to be happy. You are WAY to caught up in "well another $100 you can get 40% more performance". Do you actually need that 40% more to enjoy the game? No. The game runs fine on card must slower than a 6800. I have a friend who plays the game on a Ti200. I am not sure what his settings are, but the game runs fine for him. Maybe the difference is that he actually spends his time playing the games, now staring at textures on the walls and looking for 10% more frames.
Zebo - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
I always thought "value" was the highest point in the price to performance curve.If the Fx-53 were 8X faster than the A64 2800+ it would constitute a value as well. But since it's only about 30% faster for 700% more money it's a horrendous value.
This is why a lot of builders above are correct in recommending the 9800pro instead of the generic 6800. In fact, either the more expensive 6800 GT or the 9800pro repersent the best "value" of all video cards out right now since thier price to performance curve is the highest.
Anyway I agree with you guys, get the 9800 then a real nice monitor, which will make a huge diff:
9800pro OC $190
A64 2800 OC to 2.4 $140
ChainTech $70
Cheapest branded 512 cas 2.5 $75
NEC diamondtron DP930SB-BK 19" $280
Antec case Slk3700w 350W $65
Sony combo drive $40
Samsung 80 giger $63
Logitech Z640 5.1 $55
=980
link130 - Sunday, August 8, 2004 - link
reply to #32 Wesley Finkyou forget that we are talking about "Value PC" which is synonymous with "Buget PC" I also said you can upgrade the 9800pro to a 6800 with $80. with a 6800 the difference btw a 2800+ A64 and a 2.4ghz barton are very small if you refer to the charts on this site.
Murst - Sunday, August 8, 2004 - link
The review seems to make some good reccomendations... except I really cannot see why you would reccomend a 3400+ over a 3500+ when the difference in price is 75$ and the socket 939 has a future. I suppose if its ONLY to play Doom3....mickey - Sunday, August 8, 2004 - link
What I would really like to see in future articles especially based on a single game (no doubt the same will be done for hl2) is benchmarks of the corresponding systems so that we can make a decision as to whether or not going for a better system is worth the extra $$$$Wesley Fink - Sunday, August 8, 2004 - link
Yes, it is a bit freaky, pliers. I would also personally choose the 2800+ at just $27 more for twice the cache and 64-bit architecture. The 2800+ is also a decent overclocker.pliers - Sunday, August 8, 2004 - link
freaky that twice now youre like a few mins a head of me.pliers - Sunday, August 8, 2004 - link
So now your price is around $782. It a nice system but I would still lean more towards the anandtech system with the 2800+ a64 cpu which totals $1025. If you look at the two systems for $240 more youre getting a geforce 6800, a 19" monitor, and a 64bit processor. Thats insane for $240 more.