Games Benchmarks - Doom 3 (OpenGL)
Doom3 is the long awaited revamp of the original Doom title from id Software. Doom3 finally brings a fully shader enabled environment to OpenGL, utilising the newer functionality of OpenGL1.3 and above. Although the title makes use of elements made available in "DirectX 9 class" hardware, Doom3's primary rendering characteristic, being its unified lighting model, requires plenty of stencil fill-rate and a lighting shader that can be achieved in a single pass per light in DirectX8.1 equivalent hardware.
| Doom3 (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1600x1200 |
| 6600 GT AGP | 126.7 | 118.3 | 91.6 | 63.7 | 46.9 |
| 6600 GT PCIe | 102.8 | 99.9 | 91.3 | 67.3 | 49.4 |
| 5700 Ultra | 62.9 | 45.8 | 31.5 | 20.7 | 14.8 |
| 5800 Ultra | 97.4 | 73.7 | 51.4 | 30.5 | 25.0 |
| 6600 GT AGP % Faster Than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1600x1200 |
| 6600 GT PCIe | 23.2% | 18.4% | 0.3% | -5.3% | -5.1% |
| 5700 Ultra | 101.4% | 158.3% | 190.8% | 207.7% | 216.9% |
| 5800 Ultra | 30.1% | 60.5% | 78.2% | 108.9% | 87.6% |
Under our Doom 3 test the AGP 6600 GT is only 5% behind the PCIe version. Again, with the high detail settings we used, the performance differences between the 6600's and the the FX boards are fairly large, with up to 109% performance advantage over the 5800 Ultra and 217% over the 5700 Ultra.
| Doom3, 4x FSAA + 8x AF (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1600x1200 |
| 6600 GT AGP | 89.0 | 65.6 | 46.4 | 31.2 | 17.8 |
| 6600 GT PCIe | 91.7 | 71.0 | 50.2 | 33.7 | 21.5 |
| 5700 Ultra | 37.5 | 27.8 | 19.3 | 13.0 | 9.5 |
| 5800 Ultra | 54.3 | 40.9 | 28.7 | 19.8 | 11.9 |
| 6600 GT AGP % Faster Than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1600x1200 |
| 6600 GT PCIe | -2.9% | -7.6% | -7.6% | -7.4% | -17.2% |
| 5700 Ultra | 137.3% | 136.0% | 140.4% | 140.0% | 87.4% |
| 5800 Ultra | 63.9% | 60.4% | 61.7% | 57.6% | 49.6% |
With 4x FSAA and 8x AF enabled, prior to 1600x1200 the performance deficit the AGP 6600 GT has to the PCIe version is only around 7%; this increases to 17% at 1600x1200 as the frame-buffer requirements are such that some data has to be addressed across the host to graphics interface, and the PCIe board obviously has more bandwidth available to it here. The performance differences between the 6600's and then FX boards are reduced a little as the performance becomes a little more reliant on bandwidth due to the demands of FSAA.
| 6600 GT AGP(FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1600x1200 |
| Normal | 126.7 | 118.3 | 91.6 | 63.7 | 46.9 |
| 8x AF | 124.0 | 111.8 | 84.2 | 59.4 | 44.2 |
| 4x FSAA | 95.7 | 70.1 | 49.1 | 32.6 | 20.0 |
| 4x FSAA + 8x AF | 89.0 | 65.6 | 46.4 | 31.2 | 17.8 |
| % Diff from Normal | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1600x1200 |
| 8x AF | -2.1% | -5.5% | -8.1% | -6.8% | -5.8% |
| 4x FSAA | -24.5% | -40.7% | -46.4% | -48.8% | -57.4% |
| 4x FSAA + 8x AF | -29.8% | -44.5% | -49.3% | -51.0% | -62.0% |
Under normal rendering in our Doom 3 test the performances of the AGP 6600 GT are fairly high, with an average FPS a above 60 FPS at 1280x1024, and falling a little below this with 8x AF enabled. We can see that the performance impact for 4x FSAA is much larger in Doom 3, with the average performances just above 30 FPS at 1280x1024.
