noshutdown wrote:

to make use of 3dnow, you need to change renderer setting to "3dnow software", "3dnow opengl" or "3dnow 3dfx", not just installing the patch.

Hmm that doesn't make much sense when you replace the dll file in the game folder. And I did measure a difference nut not large.

Do you have a more detailed instructions as for steps / what to do? This is where it gets confusing easily 😀

philscomputerlab wrote:

Hmm that doesn't make much sense when you replace the dll file in the game folder. And I did measure a difference nut not large.

Do you have a more detailed instructions as for steps / what to do? This is where it gets confusing easily 😀

just choose renderer from the game's "video" menu.

standard quake2 has following options:
software
default opengl
3dfx opengl
powervr opengl

3dnow quake2 adds the following:
3dnow software
3dnow opengl
3dnow 3dfx
these are what really making use of 3dnow instructions.

Yes but what, exactly, do you do before that!

The MiniGL files I got from here: http://www.falconfly.de/minigl.htm

Particularly this one:

10 Apr 1999 […]
Show full quote

10 Apr 1999

3dfx MiniGL V1.47
349k ZIP

Maximum 3dNow! Support, fastest MiniGL for AMD K6-2

But you see, Voodoo 3 doesn't need miniGL it has full OpenGL ICD support.

I am testing on V3 not V or V2 which actually need miniGL.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Yes but what, exactly, do you do before that! […]
Show full quote

Yes but what, exactly, do you do before that!

The MiniGL files I got from here: http://www.falconfly.de/minigl.htm

Particularly this one:

10 Apr 1999 […]
Show full quote

10 Apr 1999

3dfx MiniGL V1.47
349k ZIP

Maximum 3dNow! Support, fastest MiniGL for AMD K6-2

But you see, Voodoo 3 doesn't need miniGL it has full OpenGL ICD support.

I am testing on V3 not V or V2 which actually need miniGL.

to run quake2 on voodoo or voodoo2, you should choose "3dfx opengl".
if you have voodoo3, maybe you can try both and see which is faster. i havn't tried by myself because i am not a big fan of 3dfx.

after all, the main idea of this thread is using "3dnow software" renderer as a stress test for k6plus cpus to see if its stable or not, and to my experience its 25% faster than generic software. i have no idea how it would perform on voodoo3, although reports seemed to show big improvement on voodoo, v2 and banshee cards.

noshutdown wrote:

just choose renderer from the game's "video" menu. […]
Show full quote

philscomputerlab wrote:

Hmm that doesn't make much sense when you replace the dll file in the game folder. And I did measure a difference nut not large.

Do you have a more detailed instructions as for steps / what to do? This is where it gets confusing easily 😀

just choose renderer from the game's "video" menu.

standard quake2 has following options:
software
default opengl
3dfx opengl
powervr opengl

3dnow quake2 adds the following:
3dnow software
3dnow opengl
3dnow 3dfx
these are what really making use of 3dnow instructions.

Thanks for the tutorial. After switching to 3dnow software I got 48.6fps! That's a 15% increase! 🤣

lazibayer wrote:

Thanks for the tutorial. After switching to 3dnow software I got 48.6fps! That's a 15% increase! 🤣

Great that you got it working!

Could you please attach the patch you used to this thread and explain what you did? Also what version of the patch did you use?

philscomputerlab wrote:

lazibayer wrote:

Thanks for the tutorial. After switching to 3dnow software I got 48.6fps! That's a 15% increase! 🤣

Great that you got it working!

Could you please attach the patch you used to this thread and explain what you did? Also what version of the patch did you use?

Sure. I got the 3dnow patch for 3.20 here:

http://www.markshan.com/thesinraven/amd_3dnow_3.20.htm

I just simply unpacked the archive and copied all files to the quake2 folder. I didn't test OpenGL nor 3dfx driver; I just compared software vs. 3dnow software.

Thank you!

I'm amazed by the incredible difference between the k6-2 500Mhz vs the k6-3 400Mhz. After using it for a while and trying the second right now, I find the k6-3 MUCH (!) faster than the k6-2. I know that 256Kbyte of L2 cache is the reason but I didn't imagine this difference. I didn't actually remember how slow was the k6-2 not necessary into games (only) but mostly in Windows operation but surely the k6-3 was a great cpu.

What chipset does your motherboard use and how much RAM do you have installed?

Another huge benefit, at least on that 1.6V model, of the K6-III+ is low power draw. I mean it's a 10 Watt processor 😀

chipset was the via mpv3 of the 5agm2 motherboard. Incredibly problematic mobo let me say but the k63 help a lot on the speed side.
It should be nice a k63+ at higher freqs.. 😀

Hi!

The reason I ask for the amount of memory is because if you install more RAM than the cache-able size of the chipset / motherboard, performance of both chips suffer, but much more on the cache-less K6-2.

I did tests on an ALI V based Gigabyte GA-5AX and going from 128 MB to 512 MB of memory has quite the effect on performance with the K6-2 hurting much more than the K6-2+ or K6-III+.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Hi!

The reason I ask for the amount of memory is because if you install more RAM than the cache-able size of the chipset / motherboard, performance of both chips suffer, but much more on the cache-less K6-2.

I did tests on an ALI V based Gigabyte GA-5AX and going from 128 MB to 512 MB of memory has quite the effect on performance with the K6-2 hurting much more than the K6-2+ or K6-III+.

ali5 has very fast memory performance, so it doesn't rely on the onboard cache, which is only 512kb. in my test, enabling and disabling onboard cache has only 1-2% impact on k6-2+ performance, i havn't tried k6-2 on it though.
mvp3 on the contrary, has poor memory performance, so its completely up to onboard cache. in my test, k6-2-550 runs superpi in 6:50, disabling onboard cache gives 10:15, thats a whopping 50% difference!

I'll publish my results soon, got most of the data ready to go though 😀

soon when? 😁

schlang wrote:

soon when? 😁

http://www.philscomputerlab.com/amd-k6-2-vs-k … -vs-k6-iii.html

philscomputerlab wrote:

schlang wrote:

soon when? 😁

http://www.philscomputerlab.com/amd-k6-2-vs-k … -vs-k6-iii.html

i have only one thing to note about your report, and i have already said that in my last reply above. 🤣