Doom3 & UT2004 Benchmarked on Mac Mini Core Duo

[isgoed]

Results:

Doom 3 v1.0.0.1: timedemo demo1

10.7 FPS: 640x480 - Medium quality - first run

8.7 FPS: 800x600 - Low (Custom) quality - first run

9.0 FPS 800x600 - Low (Custom) quality - second run

11.4 FPS 640x480:windowed - Low Quality - first run

The second processor is hardly used when looking at the task manager. When looking at the FPS indicator it is pretty much all the time arround 8 FPS. As can be seen by the results, quality hardly matters.

Unreal Tournament 2004 Demo:

46.658787 FPS Average - Botmatch dm-rankin - (I believe in 800x600, since that was the last resolution I used, but I could not verify if the benchmark also ran at that resolution)

I played also online assault on the demo in ONS-Torlan and the FPS indicator gave a steady 20FPS+ on 800x600

System:

Mac Mini Core Duo 1.66Ghz - 1Gb Ram - Windows XP SP2

edit:
I ran some more DooM3 (V1.3) benchmarks with my own AutoExec.cfg file (see attachment (rename the extension to .cfg)). First I set it to standard medium quality and then I placed the AutoExec.cfg file in the "base"-directory. With this settings you can just barely play it (Performance wise on 512x386). The FPS will rarely drop below 12FPS. The Graphics quality however is far below how DooM3 should look (Shadows off).

the resolution can be set by changing r_mode to

-1 Use Custom resolution
0 320x240
1 400x300
2 512x386
3 640x480
4 800x600
5 1024x768
6 1152x864
7 1280x1024
8 1600x1200

I also set the option that the console can be accessed by pressing just ~. FPS can be displayed by pressing F10 and hide by pressing F11. The AutoExec file is best suited if you have 1Gb Ram or more. I have not tested every option if it benefits performance. The obtained results are (first run. 2nd run)

18.4 18.9 (320x240)
17.7 18.2 (400x300)
15.9 16.4 (512x386)
12.7 13 (512x386+Shadows)
13 13.3 (640x480)
7.8 (1024x768)

 

[aswitcher]

Results:

Doom 3 v1.0.0.1: timedemo demo1

10.7 FPS: 640x480 - Medium quality - first run

8.7 FPS: 800x600 - Low (Custom) quality - first run

9.0 FPS 800x600 - Low (Custom) quality - second run

11.4 FPS 640x480:windowed - Low Quality - first run

The second processor is hardly used when looking at the task manager. When looking at the FPS indicator it is pretty much all the time arround 8 FPS. As can be seen by the results, quality hardly matters.

Unreal Tournament 2004 Demo:

46.658787 FPS Average - Botmatch dm-rankin - (I believe in 800x600, since that was the last resolution I used, but I could not verify if the benchmark also ran at that resolution)

I played also online assault on the demo in ONS-Torlan and the FPS indicator gave a steady 20FPS+ on 800x600

System:

Mac Mini Core Duo 1.66Ghz - 1Gb Ram - Windows XP SP2

Hopefully the next model will have a graphics card of reasonable grunt and turn this around.

 

[FireArse]

UT2k4 is Universal

What about the universal binary of UT2k4? How does that fare in comparison?

 

[truz]

Was this completed on Windows or Mac OS?

 

[milo]

Nice results on Unreal, did you notice if it's using both processors?

Supposedly Aspyr is going to release a patch for Quake 4 to enable use of multiple cores and boost performance. Since it's the same engine, it would be nice to see it released for Doom 3 as well.

Strange that frame rate was worse with lower settings, I suspect something funny is going on there.

Were these all under XP? How do the games run under OSX?

 

[BlizzardBomb]

The second processor is hardly used when looking at the task manager. When looking at the FPS indicator it is pretty much all the time arround 8 FPS. As can be seen by the results, quality hardly matters.

Most games are not "dual-core aware". In fact, if Apple didn't make the Solo 1.5Ghz, they would have exactly the same gaming performance (still 0.16Ghz won't do much more).

As for graphics, a new IIG is coming out soon called the G965, which should boost performance by a noticeable amount.

 

[isgoed]

Most games are not "dual-core aware". In fact, if Apple didn't make the Solo 1.5Ghz, they would have exactly the same gaming performance (still 0.16Ghz won't do much more).

As for graphics, a new IIG is coming out soon called the G965, which should boost performance by a noticeable amount.

I read that the GMA950 did its hardware transform and lighting in software so I was hoping it was multi-threaded. Guess not.

 

[isgoed]

Was this completed on Windows or Mac OS?

Windows XP.

Nice results on Unreal, did you notice if it's using both processors?

Will check.

Supposedly Aspyr is going to release a patch for Quake 4 to enable use of multiple cores and boost performance. Since it's the same engine, it would be nice to see it released for Doom 3 as well.

Strange that frame rate was worse with lower settings, I suspect something funny is going on there.

Are you sure it were lower settings? I recall a Macworld test which scored about 12FPS@1024x768 High quality. I run at lower resolution and most settings on low. And indeed the Mac version of games run slower. I think a great part is due to the fact that it has better drivers.

Were these all under XP? How do the games run under OSX?

Yeah XP. And I don't have these games for MacOS and the demo's are not yet universal.

 

[isgoed]

Nice results on Unreal, did you notice if it's using both processors?

Hard to tell if it is on both processors, take a look at the attached settings image. Is windows swapping cores or am I severely GPU-limited? Do note that the 46 FPS average is on an indoor map and it matters greatly. The FPS indicator is very often in the 50FPS+ region.

 

[Nar1117]

Hard to tell if it is on both processors, take a look at the attached settings image. Is windows swapping cores or am I severely GPU-limited? Do note that the 46 FPS average is on an indoor map and it matters greatly. The FPS indicator is very often in the 50FPS+ region.

Whats the next resoultion setting you can put it on? Try one level up, and if you dont mind, id be interested to see how much of a difference it makes.

 

[dmw007]

Well the Mac Mini seems to do pretty well for UT2004, Doom 3 does not look very playable however.

 

[eXan]

Results:

Doom 3 v1.0.0.1: timedemo demo1

10.7 FPS: 640x480 - Medium quality - first run

8.7 FPS: 800x600 - Low (Custom) quality - first run

9.0 FPS 800x600 - Low (Custom) quality - second run

11.4 FPS 640x480:windowed - Low Quality - first run

The second processor is hardly used when looking at the task manager. When looking at the FPS indicator it is pretty much all the time arround 8 FPS. As can be seen by the results, quality hardly matters.

Unreal Tournament 2004 Demo:

46.658787 FPS Average - Botmatch dm-rankin - (I believe in 800x600, since that was the last resolution I used, but I could not verify if the benchmark also ran at that resolution)

I played also online assault on the demo in ONS-Torlan and the FPS indicator gave a steady 20FPS+ on 800x600

System:

Mac Mini Core Duo 1.66Ghz - 1Gb Ram - Windows XP SP2

lol thats funny results, cuz BareFeats has quite opposite results (OSX) - UT running slower than D3:

UT04 - 7 FPS
D3 - 13 FPS (paired RAM) 11 FPS (unpaired)

All with 1 GB RAM

 

[dmw007]

lol thats funny results, cuz BareFeats has quite opposite results (OSX) - UT running slower than D3:

UT04 - 7 FPS
D3 - 13 FPS (paired RAM) 11 FPS (unpaired)

All with 1 GB RAM

Well that is rather odd.

 

[isgoed]

Hopefully the next model will have a graphics card of reasonable grunt and turn this around.

I think this is good except for the most recent games. It will play everything else just fine (especially on windows).

lol thats funny results, cuz BareFeats has quite opposite results (OSX) - UT running slower than D3:

UT04 - 7 FPS
D3 - 13 FPS (paired RAM) 11 FPS (unpaired)

As you say, barefeats tested the OSX version. The 7FPS is rather low though, maybe they tested the PowerPC version?

Whats the next resoultion setting you can put it on? Try one level up, and if you dont mind, id be interested to see how much of a difference it makes.

I tested some more resolutions and I was rather surprised

Unreal tournament 2004 demo
dm-rankin (indoor map) medium quality botmatch
41.946438 FPS 640x480
41.513351 FPS 800x600
46.867180 FPS 1024x768
36.022610 FPS 1280x1024
27.733545 FPS 1280x1024 (highest quality)

ons-torlan (outdoor map) medium quality botmatch
39.724342 FPS 640x480
40.285778 FPS 800x600
38.560307 FPS 1024x768
36.325966 FPS 1280x1024
26.218378 FPS 1280x1024 (highest quality)

I get rather high framerates on all settings, which surprised me. Note the odd thing that some higher resolutions get higher FPS then the lower ones which I can't really explain. The medium settings were the same as before. The highest quality settings were those as can be seen in the attached image (I could set nothing higher). I wondered if these settings were correct, since I recall lower framerates from the first time I played it, so I played a internet game ons-toran @1280x1024 (highest quality). The FPS was lower then the botmatch. The indicator dropped sometimes to 13FPS but was very often in the 20FPS region. Regardless, the game was very playable and I was not bothered by this performance.

 

[FireArse]

UT2k4 Universal

Hey, My brother has a COre Duo with 1GB RAM, he also has a universal version of UT2k4. I'm gonna try to get him to follow the same testwork - isgoed, can you specify every detail for test? I think it can hold its on TBH - like you said, stick to indoor levels!!

I'm waiting for the universal of Generals.

Thanks

FireArse

 

[isgoed]

…isgoed, can you specify every detail for test?…

Just look at the attached images of the settings screen. That are the setting I used for medium quality and highest quality.

edit: oh maybe you mean the benchmark .bat files. I attached them to this post (I needed to change .bat to .txt though in order to get them accepted by the forum).

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

All mini needs is a real gpu, not the cheesy integrated stuff but it looks like this is what Apple will do to move folks up the product line. Since all the cpu's are sitting in the sockets a video handicap works. A modest gpu say 9600 class or just a modern low end real gpu would do wonders for this score. Cpus have just gotten fast, Gpu's can make all the difference these days in gaming. UT2K4 is really 2003 upgraded a lil. Its a 3 year old game at least. Any modern machine that cant run a 3 year old game should be given to Apple for demolition

 

[dr_lha]

Funny, one thing I get from this thread is that the Mini seems to be doing exceptionally well for UT2004, so probably is fine as a low end games machine. Doom3 is pretty high end, so the low FPS are expected.

The mini isn't supposed to be a kick ass games machine you know.