| Sempron 3000+ and Celeron D 331 Review | ||||||||||
| By Daniel Barros on December 4, 2006 | Page 9 of 15 | |||||||||
Doom 3 Using the resolution 1024x768x32 High Quality, we ran demo1 four times and wrote down the obtained number of frames per second. The first result we discarded at once, since it is far inferior to the other results. This happens because at the first time we run the demo the game must load all textures to video memory, fact that doesn’t happen from the second time we run the demo on. From the three results left, we consider as our official result the middle result, i.e. we discard the highest and the lowest values. Curiously almost all times the values obtained at the second round on were the same. A very important detail that we must mention is that Doom 3 has an internal FPS lock: it is only capable of generating 60 frames per second, even if your board is able to produce more frames per second than that. This is done in order to make the game to have the same "playability" sensation independently from the video card installed on the PC. This lock, however, is disabled in the game benchmarking mode. Check out the results below.
Once again Sempron proves to be the best option for those who enjoy gaming. It was 73.95% faster than Celeron D 331 on Doom 3. | ||||||||||
| Originally at http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/404/9 | Pages (15): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » ... Last » | |||||||||
© 2004-8, Hardware Secrets, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Total or partial reproduction of the contents of this site, as well as that of the texts available for downloading, be this in the electronic media, in print, or any other form of distribution, is expressly forbidden. Those who do not comply with these copyright laws will be indicted and punished according to the International Copyrights Law. We do not take responsibility for material damage of any kind caused by the use of information contained in Hardware Secrets. | ||||||||||