Re: Can anyone tell me if this case was sold under a different brand?
Posted on 2020-09-17, 23:31
Thanks for all the info guys, I knew I wasn’t crazy, not entirely anyway! This really helps!
Can anyone recommend a low cost PSU from Amazon that would work well with retro hardware?
Posted on 2020-09-17, 23:31
I have an ATX to AT adapter that seems to be working well. I have enough components for another retro build and want to make it happen. As luck would have it, I’ve recently acquired an Amazon gift card. Not sure if anything modern still has the 4pin molex connectors or if I’d need an adapter to …
Can anyone tell me if this case was sold under a different brand?
Posted on 2020-09-17, 00:17
I had this exact case back in the 90s and trying to track it down again. I could of swore it had an Intel part number on it but here it is with a branding of Systium Technologies. Did anyone else, Intel maybe, sell a version of this case? https://www.ebay.com/itm/292705063555
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-17, 00:12
Upgraded to 512k single banked cache, didn’t quite get a whole frame improvement in software Quake but I did in vQuake! Up from 35.9. Software Quake is up to 25.8, with one tick away from full screen.
Re: Modern graphics on a 486
Posted on 2020-09-11, 02:40
Tried an EVGA Geforce 2 MX400 on my 8433 today, black screen unfortunately.
Re: Help with GOG MotoRacer on Pentium/Voodoo2
Posted on 2020-09-09, 00:12
filipetolhuizen wrote on 2020-09-09, 00:05: Try an earlier V2 driver as well. The latest ones tend to be buggy. Thanks for the reply! I thought I had followed up here but I had to use the following switches when launching the game. -3DFX -NoPal256 -Alpha Works without issue now! I hope this helps …
Re: Rendition Verite Thread
Posted on 2020-09-06, 20:57
Switched to a UMC based socket 3 board that appears to handle DMA much better than SiS. Hitting 35.9 FPS on my POD100! New question, is there a anyway to fix the dismal Doom and general poor DOS 2d performance on these cards?
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-06, 19:42
alvaro84 wrote on 2020-09-06, 18:21: Basically you won't get the exact same result on the same config if you run the benchmark a second time. Or a third time. My benchmarks have been quite consistent. Straying only 0.1 FPS running them back to back.
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-06, 16:58
I can also confirm a 0.1 FPS difference between Phil’s bench and just running it from command line. Phil’s DosBench is on top. I ran them each three times in a row with the same results.
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-06, 12:00
I never understood why Quake and other games were benchmarked with the sound turned off. Was it perhaps due to some soundcards causing issues and lowering performance compared to others? That's the only rational explanation I can think of. Benchmarking should be as close to real world as possible …
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-06, 11:58
feipoa wrote on 2020-09-06, 10:47: I ran the Biostar with only 256K double-banked and the score drops from 25.9 (512K double-banked) to 25.1 fps. I can confirm this speed based on same board, same cache, same Quake version, and the same screen size setting. Feeling better that I’m not that far off …
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-05, 12:32
Pleased to report the UMC chipset on this BioStar supports DMA transfer much better than SIS. My Verite 2200 is hitting 35.9 FPS in vQuake!
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-05, 11:50
I have got 26.8fps with V1.08. with the system in my signature. With SIS496 PCI setup i have got 26.6fps and with a UMC8881 setup 26.3fps - all with 1024kB cache. But the SV2GX4 had DMA issues with L1WB and some Windows 95 issues with transparent mode - so i switched back to L1WT and synchronize …
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-05, 01:20
Hey you were right, WT mode for L2 cache was faster on this Biostar board. Gained another half frame!
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-05, 00:46
The cards performed about the same. I think the CPU is holding back the scores. I only tested what I have in my drawer. There's some others that I have boxed or in systems that would be nice to add to the list as well, but it is too much work for me to dig them out. I did notice that on this board, …
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-04, 18:06
Using v1.06 is the norm, not v1.08. Now that you mention it, I recall Quake being fairly selective to L2 cache size. Some nice charts showing how it scales from 256K up to 2048K. https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?p=842547#p842547 That’s pretty cool data! I went ahead and ordered sram to bump up …
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-04, 18:05
feipoa wrote on 2020-09-03, 13:22: I ran about 2 dozen PCI graphics cards on my MB-8433UUD with a POD at 100 MHz. The best score I could achieve in Quake v1.06 was 25.9 fps. In Quake v1.08, that's 27.9 fps. That’s a great score! What PCI Graphics cards would push the best scores? I’m testing with a …
Re: Biostar MB-8433UUD-A
Posted on 2020-09-03, 01:18
Brings up a point though, I’ve only tested disk performance in dos. Is there is standard benchmark tool for Win9x?
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-03, 00:21
The variance in DOS results is due to a few factors. a) Some people use v1.08 instead of the v1.06 demo version. v1.08 returns higher results. b) Some people are using Phils benchmark pack, which if I recall right, has made some adjustments to settings which alters results. c) Other installed …
Re: Improving Quake performance on POD83.
Posted on 2020-09-03, 00:20
I have got 26.8fps with V1.08. with the system in my signature. With SIS496 PCI setup i have got 26.6fps and with a UMC8881 setup 26.3fps - all with 1024kB cache. But the SV2GX4 had DMA issues with L1WB and some Windows 95 issues with transparent mode - so i switched back to L1WT and synchronize …
Page 47 of 52