VOGONS


Reply 40 of 97, by F2bnp

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Exactly! Thanks for the downloads Phil, 2.41 seems to work, however I found out that my HDD is operating rather slowly, thanks to the VIA chipset. UDMA2 (ATA 33) instead of UDMA5 😵 . I'll see if I can fix it at some point, but I'd have to mess around with VIA 4in1 black magic and I ain't really in the mood. In the meantime, here are some results:

PC specs:

PIII-S 1.4GHz + Thermalright SLK-800 cooler
512MB RAM CL3
QDI Advance 10T
3Dfx Voodoo 5 with latest non-beta drivers
Aureal Vortex 2 with 2041 drivers
Western Digital 250GB HDD (138GB usable)
WinME

GLQuake

640x480:329.4 FPS
800x600:247.3 FPS
1024x768:164.5 FPS
1280x1024:106.9 FPS
1600x1200:76.4 FPS

Quake 2

640x480: 228.4 FPS
800x600: 204.9 FPS
1024x768: 156.9 FPS
1280x960: 107.9 FPS
1600x1200: 65.3 FPS

Unreal

640x480: 156.45 FPS
800x600: 136.62 FPS
1024x768: 109.33 FPS
1280x1024: 72.37 FPS
1600x1200: 50.81 FPS

Unreal Tournament

640x480: 94.85 FPS
800x600: 93.68 FPS
1024x768: 90.61 FPS
1280x1024: 72.85 FPS
1600x1200: 53.17 FPS

Forsaken

640x480: 383.69 FPS
800x600: 313.19 FPS
1024x768: 237.74 FPS
1280x1024: 164.21 FPS
1600x1200: 117.47 FPS

Reply 42 of 97, by calvin

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

440BX? i815? You wimps should consider i820, with Rambus(t)!

2xP2 450, 512 MB SDR, GeForce DDR, Asus P2B-D, Windows 2000
P3 866, 512 MB RDRAM, Radeon X1650, Dell Dimension XPS B866, Windows 7
M2 @ 250 MHz, 64 MB SDE, SiS5598, Compaq Presario 2286, Windows 98

Reply 44 of 97, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
F2bnp wrote:

Agreed! There was someone here that bought one such board fairly recently. Can't remember the guy's name, maybe he can drop in to offer some benchmarks !

UDMA2? That's odd. Oh I do remember something. On my Gigabyte board, there was a BIOS option to do with the ribbon cable. I had to set it manually to ATA66/100 or something like that to get top performance. So check if you have something similar.

anthony wrote:

I'd rather prefer bx board. Voodoos tolerates 89mhz bus very well. And bx outperforms 815 easily. 815 is good for serious overclocking

I've used 440BX boards with Pentium III 1.1 GHz in my Voodoo shootout reviews: http://www.philscomputerlab.com/3dfx-voodoo-s … ut-project.html

Love that chipset. But I'm not into overclocking. So for me, a stock Tualatin ends up faster, mostly thanks to the massive 512 KB Cache. It was easier for me buying a Tualatin motherboard than getting a Tualatin Slot 1 adapter.

calvin wrote:

440BX? i815? You wimps should consider i820, with Rambus(t)!

I don't have anything with RAMBUS. Sounds like fun, but also expensive.

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 45 of 97, by calvin

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

It's a bit higher end. My Dimension with an i820 supports 1 GB, but I only have 512 MB RAM installed. Also remember terminators.

2xP2 450, 512 MB SDR, GeForce DDR, Asus P2B-D, Windows 2000
P3 866, 512 MB RDRAM, Radeon X1650, Dell Dimension XPS B866, Windows 7
M2 @ 250 MHz, 64 MB SDE, SiS5598, Compaq Presario 2286, Windows 98

Reply 46 of 97, by F2bnp

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Felt like going the extra mile and ran some overclocked CPU benchmarks. I set the FSB to 150MHz, so the CPU is running at 1575MHz.

GLQuake

640x480: 339.6 FPS
800x600: 247 FPS
1024x768: 164.5 FPS
1280x1024: 106.9 FPS
1600x1200: 76.4 FPS

Quake 2

640x480: 254 FPS
800x600: 209.3 FPS
1024x768: 157.3 FPS
1280x960: 107.9 FPS
1600x1200: 65.3 FPS

Unreal

640x480: 168.41 FPS
800x600: 142.86 FPS
1024x768: 110.4 FPS
1280x1024: 72.37 FPS
1600x1200: 50.81 FPS

Unreal Tournament

640x480: 105.17 FPS
800x600: 103.80 FPS
1024x768: 97.62 FPS
1280x1024: 74.80 FPS
1600x1200: 53.17 FPS

Forsaken

640x480: 401.89 FPS
800x600: 325.61 FPS
1024x768: 243.77 FPS
1280x1024: 165.90 FPS
1600x1200: 118.92 FPS

The difference is minimal at best and it usually makes no difference even at 1024x768 which is what most people would play on with a V5 (or 640x480+2xAA which should be close performance wise). I really don't see the reason some people build Athlon XP-M builds for these cards, unless they're overclocking the GPUs quite a bit.
Interested in seeing how the 440BX fares. I'd love to get my hands on the QDI Advance 12T someday 😈 !

Reply 47 of 97, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
F2bnp wrote:

Interested in seeing how the 440BX fares. I'd love to get my hands on the QDI Advance 12T someday 😈 !

Nice scores!

Here are my benchmark results with a 440BX and Pentium III 1.1 GHz (100 MHz FSB). As you said, at higher resolutions, bugger all difference.

http://www.philscomputerlab.com/3dfx-voodoo-s … ut-project.html

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 48 of 97, by subhuman@xgtx

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Some missing(!) results. It's about 2:15 am and I really want to sleep a little ^^ I wanted to share with you what I had by now though, will update the post tomorrow 😀

Athlon XP2500M@ 2.3
1GB DDR400 RAM
Win98SE
Voodoo5 (latest official drivers)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Unreal

Voodoo5 @ 166MHZ (stock)

640x480: 213,84 fps
800x600: 156,91 fps
1024x768: 115,22 fps
1280x1024: 75,491 fps

Voodoo5 @ 183MHZ

640x480: 228,59 fps
800x600: 171,06 fps
1024x768: 127,05 fps
1280x1024: 83,23 fps

------------------------

Unreal Tournament

Voodoo5 @ 166MHZ (stock)

640x480: 144,38 fps
800x600: 138,75 fps
1024x768: 116,92 fps
1280x1024: 79,85 fps

Voodoo5 @ 183MHZ

640x480: 143,82 fps
800x600: 140,09 fps
1024x768: 124,54 fps
1280x1024: 87,63 fps
------------------------

GLQuake

Voodoo5 @ 166MHZ(stock)

640x480: 346,1 fps
800x600: 243,0 fps
1024x768: 152,5 fps
1280x1024: 105,6 fps

Voodoo5 @ 183MHZ

640x480: 377,9 fps
800x600: 266,2 fps
1024x768: 173,1 fps
1280x1024: 115,1 fps

------------------------

Quake II

Voodoo5 @ 166MHZ(stock)

640x480: 315,8 fps
800x600: 215,6 fps
1024x768: 160,6 fps
1280x960: 110,5 fps

Voodoo5 @ 183MHZ

640x480: 342,3 fps
800x600: 239,3 fps
1024x768: 177,7 fps
1280x960: 122,0 fps
------------------------

Last edited by subhuman@xgtx on 2015-07-07, 17:13. Edited 1 time in total.

7fbns0.png

tbh9k2-6.png

Reply 50 of 97, by Evert

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Impressive results! I couldn't help but hear this song in my head while reading them: https://youtu.be/gp37KD7vxRg?list=PL1A6D2462940EE848

sigpic2689_1.gif

Reply 51 of 97, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Evert wrote:

Impressive results! I couldn't help but hear this song in my head while reading them: https://youtu.be/gp37KD7vxRg?list=PL1A6D2462940EE848

🤣

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 52 of 97, by F2bnp

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Evert, that was spot on 🤣 .

Great results subhuman, like I said previously, a faster CPU really pulls ahead at lower resolutions, especially on UE1 games which are very CPU dependent. I ran some overclocked Voodoo5 tests on my system too, at 177MHz (highest my card can do without artifacts), I didn't bother with low resolutions:

GLQuake

1280x1024: 112.9 FPS
1600x1200: 80.8 FPS

Quake II

1280x960: 114.6 FPS
1600x1200: 69.4 FPS

Unreal

1280x1024: 77 FPS
1600x1200: 54.11 FPS

Unreal Tournament

1280x1024: 78.28 FPS
1600x1200: 56.58 FPS

Forsaken

1280x1024: 176.26 FPS
1600x1200: 126.36 FPS

Reply 53 of 97, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I won't dare overclock the V5. Cost me a small fortune 😊

A little OT, but I'm working on a new project. Initially I was set on using a Matrox G400 Max card, because I always use Voodoo cards, you know do something different.

But I had lots of issues getting games to work. Went back to a V3. Everything works. It's indeed the gamers card of that period.

I don't know much about Nvidia and cards from that era. I hardly got any cards. I believe I have a GF3 and a few GF4 cards. Ti and MX.

YouTube, Facebook, Website

Reply 54 of 97, by Evert

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Well, do be honest, most cards from that era were troublesome and had horrible drivers, but that's really part of the fun... Getting the games to work and tinkering.

sigpic2689_1.gif

Reply 55 of 97, by F2bnp

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
philscomputerlab wrote:
I won't dare overclock the V5. Cost me a small fortune :blush: […]
Show full quote

I won't dare overclock the V5. Cost me a small fortune 😊

A little OT, but I'm working on a new project. Initially I was set on using a Matrox G400 Max card, because I always use Voodoo cards, you know do something different.

But I had lots of issues getting games to work. Went back to a V3. Everything works. It's indeed the gamers card of that period.

I don't know much about Nvidia and cards from that era. I hardly got any cards. I believe I have a GF3 and a few GF4 cards. Ti and MX.

The Voodoo5 has some pretty shoddy cooling and noisy fans. I bought one a few months ago from forum member and all-round awesome guy Stojke and he had replaced these with full copper heatsinks and quieter fans. Overclocking slightly isn't going to strain the card, since you're not touching voltages anyway. I can see why you wouldn't do it though 😜.

The Voodoo 3 is an amazing card, far more compatible than V5.

Reply 57 of 97, by PhilsComputerLab

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
anthony wrote:

if you, guys, can point me to benchmark tools you've used (i mean downloadable games archives), i can provide results for agp v5 on i865 with c2d

C2D 😲

Nice 😀

Well, you got to have the games I'm afraid. But I have posted the instructions a page earlier or so.

YouTube, Facebook, Website