VOGONS


First post, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Does anyone have any framerate comparisons for identical hardware in Win98SE vs. Win95 OSR2.x for 486 through Pentium 133 systems? I am wondering if the bloat of Win98SE cuts in to framerates at all.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 1 of 12, by vetz

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Ive used both on my retro machines. Never noticed any difference in games. Win98SE requires more RAM to run smoothly so it is possible there is a difference on systems with less RAM

3D Accelerated Games List (Proprietary APIs - No 3DFX/Direct3D)
3D Acceleration Comparison Episodes

Reply 2 of 12, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
vetz wrote:

Ive used both on my retro machines. Never noticed any difference in games. Win98SE requires more RAM to run smoothly so it is possible there is a difference on systems with less RAM

Did you test GL Quake and Quake 2?

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 6 of 12, by idspispopd

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
d1stortion wrote:

95 vs. NT4 or 98SE vs. 2K would be a lot more interesting. Maybe with P6 instead of 486 😀

95 vs NT4 would be limited because of missing Direct3D acceleration in NT.

In 2K (and XP) gaming performance was at first worse than in 9x until the video chip companies managed to optimize their drivers. I think that happened only months after the release of XP, possibly 1-2 years. According to http://www.oocities.org/ziyadhosein/rprow2k.htm it never happened for ATI Rage Pro. (There are no 3D accelerated drivers for 2k/XP for most other early 3D accelerators.)

Reply 7 of 12, by d1stortion

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Yeah I was thinking about WinQuake for NT4 to make it independent of 3D card. The difference for Q3 is just a few frames: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-kx … dup,186-15.html & http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-kx … dup,186-18.html

For 2K I've read that the latest 3dfx drivers fixed the performance disadvantage.

Reply 9 of 12, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Jorpho wrote:

There's the 98lite performance comparison at http://www.litepc.com/perform.html . That's sort of like 95 vs 98.

Quake II jumped an average of 0.5 fps, from 12.5 fps to 13 fps.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 10 of 12, by Logistics

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

It's been too long since I've used 95 or 98 to remember if they use ACPI, but in XP I get a significant performance increase (ie franerate increase, responsiveness) with ACPI disabled.

Reply 12 of 12, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I suppose if anybody does any benchmarks on this topic, it would be just as interesting to extend the platforms to include Win95 a/b/c, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, NT4, W2K, and XP.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.