VOGONS


Improving Quake performance on POD83.

Topic actions

Reply 61 of 67, by shamino

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Garrett W wrote on 2020-09-06, 11:18:

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 and who'd want to play without sound and the awesome Trent Reznor soundtrack anyway? 😁

Back when I was doing some benchmarking on a socket-7 board, I started out running tests with sound on but it turned into a headache when I realized how sound settings were affecting results. As Serpent Rider mentioned, it adds variables that make it harder to be consistent. So I simplified things by disabling sound.
One of the variables is the sound card itself, and I didn't intend to commit myself to that particular card for the rest of my life any time I benchmark something. It was just some random SB16 clone, not even a real one.

If you ever want to quantify the impact of the sound card or settings, then you could start by reproducing previous benchmark results that were done with sound off, then start messing with sound settings to see the impact.

feipoa wrote on 2020-09-03, 00:51:

Using v1.06 is the norm, not v1.08.

Is there a good reason for this? What version do people play the game with?

Reply 62 of 67, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

See attached. 23.3 fps w/Phil vs. 25.9 fps run direct.

So I've compared it on PMMX 200 Mhz with LT430TX board, and the difference was literally 0.1 fps. 49.9 fps on dosbench and 50.0 from pure Quake run (and that's only because I launched timedemo after loading into new game). As far as I can tell, that odd behaviour can't be replicated by normal means and tied to very specific hardware and/or software config. And by the way, my 5x86-180 results were also made via dosbench suite.

Last edited by The Serpent Rider on 2020-09-07, 08:19. Edited 2 times in total.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 63 of 67, by Chadti99

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

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.

Attachments

Last edited by Chadti99 on 2020-09-06, 19:43. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 64 of 67, by alvaro84

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

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.

Shame on us, doomed from the start
May God have mercy on our dirty little hearts

Reply 65 of 67, by Chadti99

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
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.

Reply 66 of 67, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Chadti99 wrote 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.

Mine are consistent as well. 25.9 fps running the benchmark manually and 23.3 fps with Phil's benchmark pack.

Ultimate 486 Benchmark | Ultimate 686 Benchmark | Cyrix 5x86 Enhancements | 486 Overkill Graphics | Worlds Fastest 486

Reply 67 of 67, by Chadti99

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

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.

Attachments