DOOM 3 Benchmarks @ LinuxHardware.org
October 13th, 2004 by CrusaderLinuxHardware.org has posted a performance analysis of DOOM 3 on a Linux box with four NVIDIA cards: GeForce 3, GeForce 4 Ti 4600, GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, and a GeForce 6800GT; the OS utilized for comparison is Windows XP. LinuxHardware.org also received some clarification from id Software’s Timothee Besset on their results:
You’ll probably notice that on Linux Doom III will be more CPU bound than card bound. I can see several factors, mostly the fact that the SSE2 code is not used in the current binary, and maybe because gcc doesn’t optimize as well as VC.net does. I will be spending some time in the upcoming months optimizing the builds for more speed. I don’t expect to get more than a 5-10% fps gain though.
October 13th, 2004 at 11:15 am
They really didn’t put a lot of effort into this linux binary. I’ve complained about this before, and well, I’m at work and I have nothing better to do so… they should have got icculus to do it! This bins rule.
–SD
October 13th, 2004 at 11:21 am
Duel boot system.
Windows: 32bit 6.1.7 driver XP pro
Linux 64bit 6.1.1 -Fedora core 2 64
64bit AMD 3000 Nforce 3
1Gig OCZ 3400
BFG 6800 GT OC
Settings 1600×1200 Ultra
timedemo1
Linux: 63 fps
Windows 53 fps
October 13th, 2004 at 11:27 am
trying the Intel compiler?
October 14th, 2004 at 7:58 am
If you want to complain about something, It’d be the fact that the release came 6 weeks after the windows release, otherwise I don’t see any reason for complains.
And if the FPS raises 5-10% after optimization, that’ll be fine. It seems to me that the differences in FPS mostly comes from not being optimized and perhaps lacking Nvidia optimizations for linux…
Anyway, there’s no god damn reason to blame ID for this release without having a fucking idea about why your specific configuration is slower! It’s really playable, play it..!
October 14th, 2004 at 4:24 pm
…is how does UT2K4 performance on Linux stack up against Windows performance? Looking solely at this review of Doom3 for Linux, it looks an awful lot like modern games run slowly on Linux. I don’t think that’s true, I think it’s just Doom. Are there any good articles on this somewhere?
October 15th, 2004 at 11:11 am
It seems to me that the mentality of a lot of posts here are that they’ll apreciate any little thing given to the linux community. I don’t feel its worth my money to buy D3 until it has the same support for linux as it had for Windows out of the box.
Why should I act like a hobo on the street happy to get some change from someone else who has money?
Well I’m not a hobo and neither is my OS. In almost every way its superior then Win32 so why should I get an inferior product for the same price.
I’m glad that D3 is native but should we really be that apreciative over the quality of this product? or should we demand something a little more fair for our money.
And its true, if other (some smaller) companies can release cross platform games out of the box (Savage, UT2k4) then why can’t id? Why did we have to wait 6 weeks and get something that only supports OSS Stereo sound. Correct me if I’m wrong. Isn’t OSS quite old? and ALSA is prety much standard for sound under Linux? And isn’t Doom3 suppose to be ‘bleading edge technology’? Seems like they took an old Q3′s sound engine and droped it in Doom 3 to get the linux release out the door?
*sigh*
/endrant
October 15th, 2004 at 12:36 pm
i loved quake, i’m lost in doom3, i admire ID, and i dont want a bunch of kids to talk bad about anything of this.
thx for the hard work, ID, and keep it up!
We all love you!
October 19th, 2004 at 5:32 pm
i can tell you the reason for the sound being OSS, the dev who ported it to linux uses debian. though you can use ALSA in debian, debian uses OSS by default.