How does Quake run on a P133?
Jeremy Thom
Hi Quakers =)
I was wondering to all you P133 users out there, just how does Quake run?
I'd like to know because I'm planning on obviously upgrading my P75 to a
P133. What kind of difference can I expect? What video mode will I be able
to run smoothly? BTW my system is an IBM Aptiva P75 24MB RAM, Trident (I
know, I know, I need a new card) 1MB video RAM, 28.8K modem. I now play in
320x200 and it gets painfully slow to watch sometimes. I'd just like to
actually be able to have good enough performance so that Quake will become
fun to play (already is though...just to damn S L O W)
Thanks =)
yu chai lee
Jeremy Thom (tho...@nbnet.nb.ca) wrote:
: Hi Quakers =)
well, if you are upgrading from p75... then you will be more than happy to
play quake on a p133 with a NICE video card. 320x200 slow? no way! Too FAST,
maybe to some ppl.
--
----
*********************************/\|\||/\/\E**********************************
_________/\/\ARCO Y LEE__________\ |*S /_____...@UX5.CSO.UIUC.EDU______
computer-engineering \ CooL! / Univ. of Illinois at Urbana
A!MEGAMISAMA*ROLW*GUNDAM*KOR*MI*DBZ\_____/SAINTSEIYA*BGC*RANMA*KOKOWAGREENWOOD
******************************************************************************
Robert M Lowrey
yu chai lee <yc...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<55u50l$c...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> Jeremy Thom (tho...@nbnet.nb.ca) wrote:
> : Hi Quakers =)
> : I was wondering to all you P133 users out there, just how does Quake run?
> : I'd like to know because I'm planning on obviously upgrading my P75 to a
> : P133. What kind of difference can I expect? What video mode will I be able
> : to run smoothly? BTW my system is an IBM Aptiva P75 24MB RAM, Trident (I
> : know, I know, I need a new card) 1MB video RAM, 28.8K modem. I now play in
> : 320x200 and it gets painfully slow to watch sometimes. I'd just like to
> : actually be able to have good enough performance so that Quake will become
> : fun to play (already is though...just to damn S L O W)
> : Thanks =)
>
> well, if you are upgrading from p75... then you will be more than happy to
> play quake on a p133 with a NICE video card. 320x200 slow? no way! Too FAST,
> maybe to some ppl.
I have a P133 and an Intergraph Reactor (verite)....320x200=60fps! Any more
questions?
(above given by using Qbench)
I was getting 40fps from a Diamond 3D 2000 (S3 virge).
I also had a Trident 9680, it was 1/2 or worse the speed of the Diamond card.
Robert L.
Jeroen E R Kuijlen
Jeremy Thom <tho...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in article
<01bbcd0a$a2910280$2504...@thomdc.nbnet.nb.ca>...
> Hi Quakers =)
> I was wondering to all you P133 users out there, just how does Quake run?
> I'd like to know because I'm planning on obviously upgrading my P75 to a
> P133. What kind of difference can I expect? What video mode will I be
able
> to run smoothly? BTW my system is an IBM Aptiva P75 24MB RAM, Trident (I
> know, I know, I need a new card) 1MB video RAM, 28.8K modem. I now play
in
> 320x200 and it gets painfully slow to watch sometimes. I'd just like to
> actually be able to have good enough performance so that Quake will
become
> fun to play (already is though...just to damn S L O W)
> Thanks =)
>
The performance of Quake is determined mainly by the video-card you're
using.
I played it on an 90 MHz Pentium and an 166 MHz. Guess what, hardly no
difference. But with an excellent video-card (2 MB memory or more), you CAN
experience the difference.
BTW, look at http://www.scitechsoft.com/sdd.html. They sell a really nice
product (Display Doctor 5.3) to upgrade your video-performance via
software.
JK
steve cronin
Do you really want top play quake at 320x200..LOW RES.. Hell no, Christ
play duke3d at 640x480. Quake is not the game you want upgrade for . Trust
me please. Jedi Knight or Unreal is the game to upgrade for. Save your
money, bise your time and wait a little longer for a Pentium Pro. I ahev a
freakin fast Pentium 133 with a fast video card. I am going to use this
until the prices on the Pentium Pro 200 drops(Dell already has a great
price.)
yu chai lee <yc...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<55u50l$c...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> Jeremy Thom (tho...@nbnet.nb.ca) wrote:
> : I was wondering to all you P133 users out there, just how does Quake
run?
> : I'd like to know because I'm planning on obviously upgrading my P75 to
a
> : P133. What kind of difference can I expect? What video mode will I be
able
> : to run smoothly? BTW my system is an IBM Aptiva P75 24MB RAM, Trident
(I
> : know, I know, I need a new card) 1MB video RAM, 28.8K modem. I now play
in
> : 320x200 and it gets painfully slow to watch sometimes. I'd just like to
> : actually be able to have good enough performance so that Quake will
become
> : fun to play (already is though...just to damn S L O W)
> : Thanks =)
>
to
> play quake on a p133 with a NICE video card. 320x200 slow? no way! Too
FAST,
> maybe to some ppl.
>
Eric T. Busch
On my slow P120 (Zappa MB) and a Reactor vidcard, I get timedemo scores
in the mid to upper twenties (24-28 fps depending on the demo used)
using the VQuake 1.06 beta2 at 512x384. This is running through Win95
with sound and music enabled. The next beta is said to be even faster.
I don't think you'll find a better performance increase for $150.
--
Eric Busch <ebu...@emory.edu>
Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/
steve cronin <smc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bbcd93$e504bc40$30d5b7c7@smcron>...
Michael McCollum
"Jeremy Thom" <tho...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>Hi Quakers =)
>I was wondering to all you P133 users out there, just how does Quake run?
>I'd like to know because I'm planning on obviously upgrading my P75 to a
>P133. What kind of difference can I expect? What video mode will I be able
>to run smoothly? BTW my system is an IBM Aptiva P75 24MB RAM, Trident (I
>know, I know, I need a new card) 1MB video RAM, 28.8K modem. I now play in
>320x200 and it gets painfully slow to watch sometimes. I'd just like to
>actually be able to have good enough performance so that Quake will become
>fun to play (already is though...just to damn S L O W)
>Thanks =)
I have a Triton II mb, Award bios (flash), Intel p133 (on this MB I
CAN use the PentPro 200!) 32 megs EDO ram, 512k pipeline burst cache
and a CHEAP but workable ATI Mach64 2 meg PCI vid card. It's passable
in 360x480 running Quake. I can recommend a rig like this, but DO get
a faster video card, THAT is where my bottleneck is now. Oh yeah, how
much ram do you have? I run Quake from W95 DOS box, use the command
line parameter -winmem 20 and Quake behaves MUCH nicer online now than
with the standard 8 megs it defaults to while running under W95.
Even a P90 with a GOOD vid card is a pretty good Quake platform. More
ram is very useful too. So the P133 isn't a bad idea...just make sure
you have the faster video and at least 16 megs ram.
MSM
Grandpa
spam
In article <01bbcd6e$ff925f60$dcae...@Jeroenk.atf.cmg.nl>, Jeroen E R Kuijlen,
(jeroen....@cmg.nl) babbles...
>The performance of Quake is determined mainly by the video-card you're
>using.
>I played it on an 90 MHz Pentium and an 166 MHz. Guess what, hardly no
>difference. But with an excellent video-card (2 MB memory or more), you CAN
>experience the difference.
wrong wrong wrong.. quake is cpu intensive, not graphically intensive
i have a p60 (packaged hell)
my start map timerefresh was 13.5 with the 1MB cirrus logic...
now its 14.5 with a hercules dynamite 128
duke3d on the other hand (which i deleted a while ago to make room for quake
mods:)
i was gettin ~30fps in 320x200, 8 bit, 16khz stereo sound on the cirrus logic
with the hercules dynamite 128 its ~35 fps, 320x240, 16 bit 22khz stereo sound
(40-45 fps at the same settings as the cirrus logic's 30-35 fps)
now lets see... quake.. 1 fps boost, duke3d 10 fps boost
u tell me which is the graphically intensive game...
>BTW, look at http://www.scitechsoft.com/sdd.html. They sell a really nice
>product (Display Doctor 5.3) to upgrade your video-performance via
>software.
i have no need to do this.. sdd 5.3 give me *fewer* vesa 2.0 modes, and none at
as low res as the rom in my card,,, so its just a waste of ram and hdd space in
my case
spam
Todd Smith
"steve cronin" <smc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I get 27 fps 320x200 on my P133, Diamond Stealth 64 4MB, 64 MB ram,
Sound Blaster 16 sound card, 4x CD.
I like it, but I really want a 3D card which will allow me to run
640x480 16-bit color at a decent speed of 25 fps. I'm not sure my P133
will do this even with a 3D card. So I would wait unitl someone with a
good P133 gets ~25 fps @ 640x480 16-bit from a 3D card. Then get a
P133 and the appropriate 3D card, otherwise wait and get something
faster.
Brian A. English
On 8 Nov 1996, Jeremy Thom wrote:
> Hi Quakers =)
> I was wondering to all you P133 users out there, just how does Quake run?
> I'd like to know because I'm planning on obviously upgrading my P75 to a
> P133. What kind of difference can I expect? What video mode will I be able
> to run smoothly? BTW my system is an IBM Aptiva P75 24MB RAM, Trident (I
> know, I know, I need a new card) 1MB video RAM, 28.8K modem. I now play in
> 320x200 and it gets painfully slow to watch sometimes. I'd just like to
> actually be able to have good enough performance so that Quake will become
> fun to play (already is though...just to damn S L O W)
> Thanks =)
>
>
When my 16 megs EDO (60 ns) system has a P-75, I got 13.55 fps in
vid_mode 0 using the standard TIMEREFRESH procedures. I swapped the CPU
for a Pentium-133 chip, and my score went up to 21.35 fps. I now play at
360x240 (VESA) and get about 20 fps, even though it still runs slow in
spots. This is due to my system's lack of level 2 cache and crap CL-5434
32-bit video... with 256k-512k level 2 and a decent 64-bit video card,
you'll likely be able to hit 25-27 fps at 320x200... YMMV.
Still, you will get a MAJOR boost with a 133 versus a 75. Doom and
Heretic are smooth as glass now. Theme Park runs almost a little too
fast now... :)
Brian English aka "Captain Camshaft"
====================================
bx...@freenet.buffalo.edu
Life begins at (Pentium) 133!
Never underestimate the limits of human stupidity.
A human never stands as tall as when stooping to help a small computer.
-old Infocom motto
Robert M Lowrey
Brian A. English <bx...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote in article
<E0K9s...@freenet.buffalo.edu>...
> On 8 Nov 1996, Jeremy Thom wrote:
>
> > Hi Quakers =)
> > I was wondering to all you P133 users out there, just how does Quake run?
> > I'd like to know because I'm planning on obviously upgrading my P75 to a
> > P133. What kind of difference can I expect? What video mode will I be able
> > to run smoothly? BTW my system is an IBM Aptiva P75 24MB RAM, Trident (I
> > know, I know, I need a new card) 1MB video RAM, 28.8K modem. I now play in
> > 320x200 and it gets painfully slow to watch sometimes. I'd just like to
> > actually be able to have good enough performance so that Quake will become
> > fun to play (already is though...just to damn S L O W)
> > Thanks =)
> >
> >
> When my 16 megs EDO (60 ns) system has a P-75, I got 13.55 fps in
> vid_mode 0 using the standard TIMEREFRESH procedures. I swapped the CPU
> for a Pentium-133 chip, and my score went up to 21.35 fps. I now play at
> 360x240 (VESA) and get about 20 fps, even though it still runs slow in
> spots. This is due to my system's lack of level 2 cache and crap CL-5434
> 32-bit video... with 256k-512k level 2 and a decent 64-bit video card,
> you'll likely be able to hit 25-27 fps at 320x200... YMMV.
>
> Still, you will get a MAJOR boost with a 133 versus a 75. Doom and
> Heretic are smooth as glass now. Theme Park runs almost a little too
> fast now... :)
>
P133/512KPB/64MB EDO/Triton II/Reactor Verite/VQUAKE beta 8
320x200 w/antialiasing = 56 fps
512x384 w/antialiasing = 38.5 fps without = 42.8 fps
640x480 w/antialiasing = 28.2 fps
Above running under Win95 with sound & CD playing using the Qbench benchmark
available on Stomped.
Robert L.
Eric T. Busch
The timerefresh command really isn't a very good way to estimate
framerates because it is a static test. While you can compare systems
with it, it tells you little of how the game will play. If you have
version 1.06, try using the timedemo command. Quake will run one of
the specified demos, and then report back the average fps. This is a
much more accurate representation of the performance you can expect
during normal gameplay.
Usage: 'timedemo demoX' where X is 1, 2, or 3.
--
Eric Busch <ebu...@emory.edu>
Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/
Peter Guidry <gui...@nortel.ca> wrote in article
<3284922a...@47.80.11.122>...
>
> I have the same setup (p133 ATI) and I find that the speed is the
> same in 360x480 as 640x400. Give it a try. It is adequate in 640x400.
> I get about 13 fps in timerefresh.
>
> I think fps numbers are somewhat arbitrary. I dont notice any
slowdown
> until lots of enemies are on screen (CPU limited, not vidcard). While
> I find 13 fps perfectly adequate, I get 10-11 at 640x480 and find
this
> unplayable.
spam
In article <01bbce6e$334b06e0$78f3...@ebusch.dialup.emory.edu>, Eric T. Busch,
(ebu...@emory.edu) babbles...
>The timerefresh command really isn't a very good way to estimate
>framerates because it is a static test. While you can compare systems
>with it, it tells you little of how the game will play. If you have
>version 1.06, try using the timedemo command. Quake will run one of
>the specified demos, and then report back the average fps. This is a
>much more accurate representation of the performance you can expect
>during normal gameplay.
not only that timerefreshes are a bit lopsided.. timerefreshes slow down *alot*
with the presence of even 1 mdl... for example. start map i get ~14.5 fps..
if i set r_drawentities 0 and r_drawviewmodel 0.. that fps jumps to about 22 or
23 fps...
(i have a p60, 16 meg normal 70ns ram, hercules dynamite 128)
spam
Peter Guidry
Hi,
I have the same setup (p133 ATI) and I find that the speed is the
same in 360x480 as 640x400. Give it a try. It is adequate in 640x400.
I get about 13 fps in timerefresh.
I think fps numbers are somewhat arbitrary. I dont notice any slowdown
until lots of enemies are on screen (CPU limited, not vidcard). While
I find 13 fps perfectly adequate, I get 10-11 at 640x480 and find this
unplayable.
Peter
On Fri, 08 Nov 1996 22:32:13 GMT, mmc...@blkbox.com (Michael
McCollum) wrote:
>"Jeremy Thom" <tho...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>>Hi Quakers =)
>>I was wondering to all you P133 users out there, just how does Quake run?
Peter Stahl
Hi
Off course you shall upgrade for Quake. It's the best game ever ever! I
have a P133 and a Mach64 Pro Turbo 2Mb Wram + 32 Mb Ram. It gives just
20 fps 320*200 and that suxxx. A lot is in the graphics card. I have
just ordered a Matrox Mystique, a Cyrix 166+ and 64Mb Sdram. The Matrox
card will also support a new 3D-version of Quake which will come soon,
so buy it.
Peter
-- =
****************************************************
* *
* "Better a bottle in front of me *
* than a frontal lobotomy" *
* *
* Ancient words of wisdom... *
* *
* From: Peter St=E5hl *
* E-mail: Jur9...@lustudat.student.lu.se *
* Tel: +46-040-187541 (Tel/Voice/Fax) *
* "http://www.student.lu.se/~jur91psl/Peter.htm" * =
* *
****************************************************
spam
In article <3285CD...@lustudat.student.lu.se>, Peter Stahl,
(Jur9...@lustudat.student.lu.se) babbles...
>Hi
>Off course you shall upgrade for Quake. It's the best game ever ever! I
>have a P133 and a Mach64 Pro Turbo 2Mb Wram + 32 Mb Ram. It gives just
>20 fps 320*200 and that suxxx. A lot is in the graphics card. I have
>just ordered a Matrox Mystique, a Cyrix 166+ and 64Mb Sdram. The Matrox
>card will also support a new 3D-version of Quake which will come soon,
>so buy it.
>Peter
i hate to break it to ya but a cyrix p166+ will be at most as fast as a p133 in
quake... quake uses *alot* of fpu, and cyrix's floating point *sux* in
comparison to the pentium cpu... u shoulda went with an intel p166 or p200...
spam
Eric T. Busch
Not to mention the fact that the Mystique he's getting isn't a very
stellar Direct3D card either (it doesn't even support bi-linear
filtering which is a huge improvement in the current VQuake). Sounds
like someone should have done a bit more research before placing their
order.
--
Eric Busch <ebu...@emory.edu>
Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/
spam <sp...@bu.edu> wrote in article
<56551s$e...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Alex Peckover
Jeremy Thom wrote:
>
> Hi Quakers =)
> I'd like to know because I'm planning on obviously upgrading my P75 to a
> P133. What kind of difference can I expect? What video mode will I be able
> to run smoothly? BTW my system is an IBM Aptiva P75 24MB RAM, Trident (I
> know, I know, I need a new card) 1MB video RAM, 28.8K modem. I now play in
> 320x200 and it gets painfully slow to watch sometimes. I'd just like to
> actually be able to have good enough performance so that Quake will become
> fun to play (already is though...just to damn S L O W)
> Thanks =)
It runs slow ? How ? I run it at 360 X 400 quite happily on my P75 (with a meagre 8mb of
RAM). Do you have a processor cache ? A P133 won't make much difference if you don't.
Alex.
Aries
On 8 Nov 1996 00:17:37 GMT, "Jeremy Thom" <tho...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>Hi Quakers =)
>I was wondering to all you P133 users out there, just how does Quake run?
Beautifully. :-)
ccw...@teleport.com
mts...@solidconcepts.com (Todd Smith) wrote:
-=>"steve cronin" <smc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
-=>I get 27 fps 320x200 on my P133, Diamond Stealth 64 4MB, 64 MB ram,
-=>Sound Blaster 16 sound card, 4x CD.
-=>I like it, but I really want a 3D card which will allow me to run
-=>640x480 16-bit color at a decent speed of 25 fps. I'm not sure my P133
-=>will do this even with a 3D card. So I would wait unitl someone with a
-=>good P133 gets ~25 fps @ 640x480 16-bit from a 3D card. Then get a
-=>P133 and the appropriate 3D card, otherwise wait and get something
-=>faster.
Check out these scores with my P133, this is WITH all the smoothing and
filtering ON. With some of the features of the 3d chip turned off Ito make
Quake look like regular unaccelerated Quake, it runs even faster: 38fps in
640x480.
Hardware:
Intel P133 / 256K-PB / 32MB 60ns EDO and 8MB 70ns Dram
SoundblasterPro Clone from MAD (don't ask)
Intergraph Reactor (Verite 4MB)
Intel motherboard (Trition 82430 PCI chipset)
Software:
VQUAKE beta 8 utilizing QUAKE 1.06
Rendition Win95 drivers 4.03.00.2104
Qbench from www.stomped.com to do the benchmarks
Quake settings:
all Rendition cvars at default values
Environment:
Running under Win95
Command line: D:\QUAKE\VQUAKE.EXE -winmem 16 -nojoy -nolan -game qbench +map
start
Sound on & CD playing
Results:
Vid_mode FPS Auth Code
0 320x200 52.7 131751
1 320x240 49.6 124001
2 384x288 52.1 130251
3 400x300 45.7 114251
4 512x384 34.5 86251
5 640x400 36.2 90501
6 640x480 27.8 69501
7 720x480 23.2 58001
8 768x576 18.3 45751
I have no explaination for the Up and Down nature of the results
Jeremy Thom
Alex Peckover <kp...@westminster.ac.uk> wrote in article
<328719...@westminster.ac.uk>...
> Jeremy Thom wrote:
> >
> > Hi Quakers =)
> > I was wondering to all you P133 users out there, just how does Quake
run?
> > I'd like to know because I'm planning on obviously upgrading my P75 to
a
> > P133. What kind of difference can I expect? What video mode will I be
able
> > to run smoothly? BTW my system is an IBM Aptiva P75 24MB RAM, Trident
(I
> > know, I know, I need a new card) 1MB video RAM, 28.8K modem. I now play
in
> > 320x200 and it gets painfully slow to watch sometimes. I'd just like to
> > actually be able to have good enough performance so that Quake will
become
> > fun to play (already is though...just to damn S L O W)
> > Thanks =)
>
> It runs slow ? How ? I run it at 360 X 400 quite happily on my P75 (with
a meagre 8mb of
> RAM). Do you have a processor cache ? A P133 won't make much difference
if you don't.
>
> Alex.
>
Actually no I don't have a processor cache (is that what cache memory is?).
BTW, what's your fps using TIMEDEMO DEMO2?
Jeff G.
Peter Guidry wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have the same setup (p133 ATI) and I find that the speed is the
> same in 360x480 as 640x400. Give it a try. It is adequate in 640x400.
> I get about 13 fps in timerefresh.
>
> I think fps numbers are somewhat arbitrary. I dont notice any slowdown
> until lots of enemies are on screen (CPU limited, not vidcard). While
> I find 13 fps perfectly adequate, I get 10-11 at 640x480 and find this
> unplayable.
>
> Peter
>
megs ram,
I get about 28 fps in vid 0. I play Quake in 512x384, looks great and
runs pretty
smoothly, I get about 14 fps at start on that mode. I played with the
turtle on
just to see if it would slow down to less than 10 and it only happened
in very detailed
areas or when there is a lot going on in the screen. BTW if you play
Quake in a good
vid mode like 512x384 then try using 320x200 again, you simply won't
believe you could
ever play that way again, it just looks terrible in comparison. For the
ultimate Quake
hell try using my old system, 486-66, 20 megs ram, 1 meg cirrus logic
crap vid card, I
got about 4.7 fps on vid_0, with the screen size reduced. I think 14 or
so fps is fine,
I don't understand why some people need to get 30 or so to be happy.
Jeff
Vesa Raiskila
> BTW, what's your fps using TIMEDEMO DEMO2?
(I'm intervening here.) I've used the timedemo command, but the game
only runs the demo without displaying any FPS figures afterwards. ??
Vesa
spam
In article <328880...@tukki.jyu.fi>, Vesa Raiskila, (rai...@tukki.jyu.fi)
babbles...
>(I'm intervening here.) I've used the timedemo command, but the game
>only runs the demo without displaying any FPS figures afterwards. ??
use the 1.06 version.. the patch is at ftp.cdrom.com (im sure u can find it ;)
the timedemo command dont work on 1.01
spam
James Jeffrey Benjamin
Brian A. English (bx...@freenet.buffalo.edu) wrote:
: On 8 Nov 1996, Jeremy Thom wrote:
: > Hi Quakers =)
: When my 16 megs EDO (60 ns) system has a P-75, I got 13.55 fps in
: vid_mode 0 using the standard TIMEREFRESH procedures. I swapped the CPU
: for a Pentium-133 chip, and my score went up to 21.35 fps. I now play at
: 360x240 (VESA) and get about 20 fps, even though it still runs slow in
: spots. This is due to my system's lack of level 2 cache and crap CL-5434
: 32-bit video... with 256k-512k level 2 and a decent 64-bit video card,
: you'll likely be able to hit 25-27 fps at 320x200... YMMV.
: Still, you will get a MAJOR boost with a 133 versus a 75. Doom and
: Heretic are smooth as glass now. Theme Park runs almost a little too
: fast now... :)
I'm running a P133 32megs EDO ram (66mhz bus with fast timings). I get
around 30fps in 320x200. (higher resolutions, though look nice, are slow.
But then, high resolutions do not do much for action games)
Tomb Raider high resolution (which is has not been optimized) runs as fast
as a PPro 200. :-) interesting but true.
--
******************************************************************************
Stewardess: Welcome to Air Pacific--the Jolly Airline!
Our deluxe 757 is equipped with a number of
safety features to use in case of an emergency,
such as our fuel tanks explode, and we crash
like a fiery ball into the sea.
...
You'll find life jackets under your seats. In
the event of a water landing, they will keep
you afloat, unless you are seized by a giant
squid, and dragged screaming beneath the waves.
...
Thank you for choosing Air Pacific. You have
well over a forty percent chance of landing
safely. Enjoy your flight!
-"Plane Pals", Animaniacs
Matthew Lowth
>I also have a P133 with an ATI 3D expression video card (2 meg EDO), 32
>megs ram,
>I get about 28 fps in vid 0. I play Quake in 512x384, looks great and
>runs pretty
>smoothly, I get about 14 fps at start on that mode. I played with the
>turtle on
>just to see if it would slow down to less than 10 and it only happened
>in very detailed
>areas or when there is a lot going on in the screen. BTW if you play
>Quake in a good
>vid mode like 512x384 then try using 320x200 again, you simply won't
>believe you could
>ever play that way again, it just looks terrible in comparison. For the
>ultimate Quake
>hell try using my old system, 486-66, 20 megs ram, 1 meg cirrus logic
>crap vid card, I
>got about 4.7 fps on vid_0, with the screen size reduced. I think 14 or
>so fps is fine,
>I don't understand why some people need to get 30 or so to be happy.
>
>Jeff
I'll second that... I have a p133, 16mb ram, 4mb millenium, and I run
quake at 512x384, and get 17fps... works and looks great.
My old dx2-66 with 8mb ram and a Cloud9 video card only gets 6 fps at
vidmode 1 which is a bit of a joke tho!
cam macintosh
> I have a Triton II mb, Award bios (flash), Intel p133 (on this MB I
CAN use the PentPro 200!) 32 megs EDO ram, 512k pipeline burst cache
and a CHEAP but workable ATI Mach64 2 meg PCI vid card. It's passable
in 360x480 running Quake. I can recommend a rig like this, but DO get
a faster video card, THAT is where my bottleneck is now. Oh yeah, how
don't mean to be rude, but video card ain't yer bottleneck, man. it's
still (even with pentium133 - hell, even with pentium200) your cpu.
there is very little performance difference between graphics cards with
quake
> Even a P90 with a GOOD vid card is a pretty good Quake platform. More
i would have to say that even a PPRo200 is not a "good" quake platform,
it's just that quake is so good, we play it anyway!!!
cam macintosh
> >just ordered a Matrox Mystique, a Cyrix 166+ and 64Mb Sdram. The Matrox
> >card will also support a new 3D-version of Quake which will come soon,
where exactly did u hear there would me a mystique version of quake?
unless you are referring to the direct3d version, which would run better
on a reactor/creative - verite board or an orchid/diamond 3dfx board -
both of which are cheaper than the mystique
> i hate to break it to ya but a cyrix p166+ will be at most as fast as a p133 in
> quake...
as fast as a p133? are you kidding????
i traded in my cyrixp150+ for an intel p133, and just by changing the
chip i had a 106% increase in framerate using timerefresh. before the
intel i had 14fps - which is actually slower than my roommates p100 at
quake. the p100 gets about 20fps. that is about what i would expect
from a 6x86-p166+. pentium100 performance.
sad but true.
p.s. - i really don't like intel at all, but there sure is something to
be said for the performance of they're chips!!!!!!!!!!
spam
In article <328A1A...@qlink.queensu.ca>, cam macintosh,
(3cj...@qlink.queensu.ca) babbles...
>as fast as a p133? are you kidding????
>i traded in my cyrixp150+ for an intel p133, and just by changing the
>chip i had a 106% increase in framerate using timerefresh. before the
>intel i had 14fps - which is actually slower than my roommates p100 at
>quake. the p100 gets about 20fps. that is about what i would expect
>from a 6x86-p166+. pentium100 performance.
note: i said *at most* as fast as a p133... there are some p133s out there with
poor performance... ive heard of a couple p90s/p100s gettin about as low fps as
my p60 in quake (i get 14.5 fps start map timerefresh)
for the most part the pentium (and pentium pro) blows amd and cyrix chips outta
the water when it comes to quake... (and anything that utilizes heavy fpu)
spam
spam
In article <328A1C...@qlink.queensu.ca>, cam macintosh,
(3cj...@qlink.queensu.ca) babbles...
>i would have to say that even a PPRo200 is not a "good" quake platform,
>it's just that quake is so good, we play it anyway!!!
umm i consider 50fps a god quake platform (i dont need high res.. as long as
the game performs well :)
spam
Stephen Moore
Just a quick note to point out something I saw in the british magazine
PC Format. An advert at the back of the mag was advertising a 'Quake
Computer' which was a P133, 16MB, VX 256PB, 2MB S3. It then said
that this machine got 80fps!!!
Feck me...how can these people get away with putting this utter
cack on an advert? Jeezus H Corbett...
80fps if you put the screen size right down, and stand in the smallest
cubby hole you find perhaps...
Makes me soooo mad!!!!!!!!
BTW I put my screen right down and noclipped right out until the map
couldn't be seen and I got 700+fps! Ho ho. Pointless but funny. Well,
not even funny, but definitely pointless.
Steve.
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Steve Moore - aka Granny Killer |
| Punishment Squad Quake Clan |
| mailto:*st...@shpcorp.dnet.co.uk* |
| WWW: http://www.niweb.com/dnet/dnetKhbw |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Remove *'s before replying by email!! |
| SEX MURDER ART |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Dave Glue
cam macintosh <3cj...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote in article
<328A1C...@qlink.queensu.ca>...
> > I have a Triton II mb, Award bios (flash), Intel p133 (on this MB I
> CAN use the PentPro 200!) 32 megs EDO ram, 512k pipeline burst cache
> and a CHEAP but workable ATI Mach64 2 meg PCI vid card. It's passable
> in 360x480 running Quake. I can recommend a rig like this, but DO get
> a faster video card, THAT is where my bottleneck is now. Oh yeah, how
>
> don't mean to be rude, but video card ain't yer bottleneck, man.
If he gets a Verite-based board, a new "video" board will work wonders. Of
course, it's 3d accelerated- but at $150 for 4 megs, you're not exactly
paying a premium. Nice frame rate boost into PPro-200 territory while
looking far better as well.
Paul Wilkins
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:51:44 +0200, Vesa Raiskila <rai...@tukki.jyu.fi> wrote:
>> BTW, what's your fps using TIMEDEMO DEMO2?
>
>(I'm intervening here.) I've used the timedemo command, but the game
>only runs the demo without displaying any FPS figures afterwards. ??
>
>Vesa
Are you doing the timedemo with version 1.06?
From what I understand, 1.01 displays the time as a short message at the top of
the screen, 1.06 gives the result to the console.
Paul
jarvinen
>> > I have a Triton II mb, Award bios (flash), Intel p133 (on this MB I
>> CAN use the PentPro 200!) 32 megs EDO ram, 512k pipeline burst cache
>> and a CHEAP but workable ATI Mach64 2 meg PCI vid card. It's passable
>> in 360x480 running Quake. I can recommend a rig like this, but DO get
>> a faster video card, THAT is where my bottleneck is now.
>If he gets a Verite-based board, a new "video" board will work wonders. Of
>course, it's 3d accelerated- but at $150 for 4 megs, you're not exactly
>paying a premium. Nice frame rate boost into PPro-200 territory while
>looking far better as well.
>
Funny, the system described above almost is exactly what I plan to upgrade to,
but I'm having trouble deciding which Video Card to buy. Have almost decided
on the STB Lightspeed 128, but if a Verite board will will give me 3D AND
provide good dos/VGA/2D performance, I think I would go for it.
Any specific suggestions?
Thanks.
Robert M Lowrey
jarvinen <jarv...@proaxis.com> wrote in article <56mdng$c...@news.proaxis.com>...
Go visit http://www.stomped.com/performance.html and check where P133's with Verite
chips fall in the list vs. PentiumPro200's. If that doesn't convince you, nothing
will! (at least as far as Quake is concerned :) )
Robert L.
Dave Glue
Robert M Lowrey <ur...@southwind.net> wrote in article
<01bbd46b$447db9a0$af535fcc@truncheon>...
> Go visit http://www.stomped.com/performance.html and check where P133's
with Verite
> chips fall in the list vs. PentiumPro200's. If that doesn't convince
you, nothing
> will! (at least as far as Quake is concerned :) )
Of course, that doesn't say how Quake _looks_ on the Verite in addition to
the frame rate boost. :)
Dave Glue
jarvinen <jarv...@proaxis.com> wrote in article
<56mdng$c...@news.proaxis.com>...
> Funny, the system described above almost is exactly what I plan to
upgrade to,
> but I'm having trouble deciding which Video Card to buy. Have almost
decided
> on the STB Lightspeed 128, but if a Verite board will will give me 3D AND
> provide good dos/VGA/2D performance, I think I would go for it.
2D Windows speed is good with newer drivers, not in LS128 territory but for
most tasks you'll be please- Sierra so far has the fastest drivers. SVGA
DOS speed is excellent, just a shade below the fastest VESA DOS cards, ones
based on the ET6000 chipset. VGA DOS performance however is awful, _but_,
there is a patch which allows you to run 320*200 games in VESA 320*240
mode, making them fly. Mode-X games that are already in 320*240 like Doom
however, don't work and run very slowly, unless you use the Win95 version.
After you've played VQuake and Indycar //, most tell me it's hard to go
back to regular SVGA. Unless high-resolution/high colour depth blazing
Windows speed is critical and you play a lot of VGA games, I would suggest
a Verite-based card at this point- the Sierra Screamin' 3D has a nice
software bundle with it for $199, or the Reactor has a couple less games
for $149.
Ron Shaw
passable? Dog, im running a Triton II Award Bios,intel 133 512k l2
cache, 32megs 60ns ED0, Wd 2.5 gig hd, and Diamond Stealth 3D 2000
video cardand it flys! my ole lady liked it so much she bought after
shock for quake (new levels) she doesnt even play, just watches me.
It Hawls butt! And i have never been one to do a lot of game playing.
jarv...@proaxis.com (jarvinen) wrote:
>>> > I have a Triton II mb, Award bios (flash), Intel p133 (on this MB I
>>> CAN use the PentPro 200!) 32 megs EDO ram, 512k pipeline burst cache
>>> and a CHEAP but workable ATI Mach64 2 meg PCI vid card. It's passable
>>> in 360x480 running Quake. I can recommend a rig like this, but DO get
>>> a faster video card, THAT is where my bottleneck is now.
>Any specific suggestions?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Dick
>jarv...@proaxis.com
>
Medical Marijuana Advocate and user.
Terminally ill/BedRidden NASA EE
I designed your cars & Space Shuttles!
dwatts
I don't know that much about Quake - but I'll tell you what - unless you
change your video card don't expect much improvement at all - even if you
change your CPU. Your video card is absolutely killing you!
Jeremy Thom <tho...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in article
<01bbcd0a$a2910280$2504...@thomdc.nbnet.nb.ca>...
BuzMack The Terrible
Erm... I'm running Quake 1.01 on a P120 (Intel, *not* Cyrix), 32MB EDO,
512k Async cache (damn mixup wiv suppliers!) 2MB S3 Virge chipset at
640*400 with no probs... very playable actually. Pushing it up to
800*600 does show lag tho... of about 13fps. So my guess would be that a
P133 would be better?
Just my $0.02
BuzMack
Fars...@gibsrus.com
Guy here at work following my recommendations just built a P133 w/512k
pipeline burst cache and 32 Mb of EDO DRAM, and a Intergraph Reactor video
card with 4 Mb of EDO DRAM with the vaunted Rendition Verite chipset on it
(which is a steal at $149 until 12/31/96, btw). I had him run some benchmarks
using Quake on it - I had him start the DM2 level and do a Timerrefresh at
different resolutions, using both regular Quake and VQuake (which is an
optimized version of Quake for the Rendition Verite chip). Here's the
results - oh, and some of those resolutions down there aren't typos -
for some reason, both Quake and VQuake give him weird ones like 720x480,
768x576, etc.
Normal Quake under DOS:
640x480 16.85 fps
720x480 16.54 fps
Normal Quake under Win95:
640x480 16.67 fps
720x480 15.40 fps
VQuake under DOS:
640x480 29.72 fps
720x480 29.29 fps
VQuake under Win95:
640x480 29.54 fps
720x480 29.31 fps
Given the small discrepencies between DOS and Win95 (I expected at least a
1-2 fps drop) I sort of suspect that he only "thinks" he's running under DOS
(I bet he's actually just clicking on the "MSDOS" icon and running Quake or
VQuake instead of actually booting to MSDOS) either way, though, compared to
normal Quake, that card rocks.
The only review I've seen of the Rendition cards has been on Blue's page, and
it's less than useful to me because they're comparing it to an STB Lightspeed
128 card, which is a very powerful video card to go up against. I'd much
rather see a comparison with a Diamond Stealth64 w/2Mb of DRAM as this is a
much more generic type of card (and not coincidentally, the card I'm currently
using in my P100). If I do bite the bullet and get a Reactor, I'll do some
benchmarks on my P100/Stealth64 and then rip that card out, put the Reactor
in, and perform the same benchmarks - I'll E-Mail them to Blue to publish if
he wants to.
--Farslayer
In article <32921E...@nam.lia.net>,
Bob Tieman
On 19 Nov 1996 20:23:29 GMT, "dwatts" <dwa...@mnsinc.com> wrote:
>I don't know that much about Quake - but I'll tell you what - unless you
>change your video card don't expect much improvement at all - even if you
>change your CPU. Your video card is absolutely killing you!
This is in response to the original post...
I have a Gateway P5-133 and I get a qbench score of 39.9 - 40.0 fps in
320x200. I only have 16MB EDO memory, but I doubt there'd be much of a
performance increase if I upgraded to 32MB. Here are a few more qbench
scores I got with my system (all scores taken from DOS):
360x350 (I use this video mode when I play multiplayer Quake): 23.2
360x400 (I use this video mode when I play a one player game): 20.9
360x480 (I never play in this video mode): 17.8
Bob
Dorsai
Fars...@gibsrus.com wrote:
<snip>
> I'd much
>rather see a comparison with a Diamond Stealth64 w/2Mb of DRAM as this is a
>much more generic type of card (and not coincidentally, the card I'm currently
>using in my P100). If I do bite the bullet and get a Reactor, I'll do some
>benchmarks on my P100/Stealth64 and then rip that card out, put the Reactor
>in, and perform the same benchmarks - I'll E-Mail them to Blue to publish if
>he wants to.
>
Thats similar to my config - P100, 512Kb RAM, Diamond Stealth64 DRAM,
24Mb RAM.
I only get about 17fps (timedemo demo2) under W95 @ 300x200, and about
21fps in DOS. Forget the higher resolutions.
I would be interested in your benchmarks.
Thanks
Dorsai
-------------------------------------------------
To e-mail me, remove the $ symbol from my address
(trying to trick automatic unsolicited e-mail)
kelly
On my P133 w/ 64 Meg RAM
running at 640x400
i get ~15.35-15.9ish.
I did the "timerefresh" at
the start of new game.
MADwand
it runs beautifully at that speed with only 32 megs ram...