Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Discussion about old graphics cards, monitors and video related things.

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2019-5-02 @ 01:47

rcarkk wrote:Just to confirm the settings. Should we use the absolute maximum settings and 32bit colors except trilinear filtering? Or should we use high quality preset settings without trilinear filtering?


I'm using the settings from the OP
https://abload.de/img/q3a_settingsvcs4v.png

unless I specify on my post that I used something else.

it would've been easier to avoid mistakes if it was just about using one of the settings profile, well, I suppose we should just say the settings we are using when posting a result, be it "op settings" or "high quality" or whatever!
SPBHM
Oldbie
 
Posts: 529
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby rcarkk » 2019-5-02 @ 15:06

Thanks. I did used those settings...except on the V2 SLI. I had to put the second highest texture setting, because they only have 8MB for textures. They only scored 11fps with max texture settings.
rcarkk
Newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 2018-8-16 @ 19:03

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby cxm717 » 2019-5-02 @ 23:42

rcarkk wrote:My results for a Matrox G400 32MB and 2x 3Dfx Voodoo 2 12MB in SLI on a Pentium III-S 1.26Ghz running on a QDI Advance 10T with Via Apollo Pro 133T and 256MB of PC133 at 2-2-2-2 timmings. Sound card is a Live! 5.1 digital and OS is Win98 SE.

6.23 drivers + G400 @125/166Mhz = 38.1fps @16bit
6.23 drivers + G400 @125/166Mhz = 25.4fps @32bit

Latest reference drivers + Voodoo 2 12MB SLI = 28.2fps @16bit (with 2nd highest texture resolution, because at max res, the framerate is very low due to only 12MB)


You should try the matrox TurboGL on your G400, you need to install a 5.xx driver though IIRC.
User avatar
cxm717
Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2017-11-21 @ 04:17

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby rcarkk » 2019-5-03 @ 10:23

cxm717 wrote:
rcarkk wrote:My results for a Matrox G400 32MB and 2x 3Dfx Voodoo 2 12MB in SLI on a Pentium III-S 1.26Ghz running on a QDI Advance 10T with Via Apollo Pro 133T and 256MB of PC133 at 2-2-2-2 timmings. Sound card is a Live! 5.1 digital and OS is Win98 SE.

6.23 drivers + G400 @125/166Mhz = 38.1fps @16bit
6.23 drivers + G400 @125/166Mhz = 25.4fps @32bit

Latest reference drivers + Voodoo 2 12MB SLI = 28.2fps @16bit (with 2nd highest texture resolution, because at max res, the framerate is very low due to only 12MB)


You should try the matrox TurboGL on your G400, you need to install a 5.xx driver though IIRC.


I think i had tried it, and the OpenGL ICD of the 6.23 drivers, were faster than older drivers with TurboGL. But i need to check that again. One thing i did notice is that the G400 takes a huge hit with Trilinear filtering enabled in Quake 3. This benchmark requiring Bilinear filtering because of V2 is actually benefiting the G400 performance figures.
rcarkk
Newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 2018-8-16 @ 19:03

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby rcarkk » 2019-5-03 @ 17:48

My results for an Asus V3400TNT Riva TNT 16MB and one 3Dfx Voodoo 2 12MB on a Pentium III-S 1.26Ghz running on a QDI Advance 10T with Via Apollo Pro 133T and 256MB of PC133 at 2-2-2-2 timmings. Sound card is a Live! 5.1 digital and OS is Win98 SE.

21.83 + Riva TNT 16MB = 22.4fps @1024x768 16bit
21.83 + Riva TNT 16MB = 13.4fps @1024x768 32bit

Latest reference drivers + Voodoo 2 12MB = 31.8fps @800x600 16bit (with 2nd highest texture resolution, because at max res, the framerate is very low due to only 12MB)
21.83 + Riva TNT 16MB = 35.7fps @800x600 16bit (with 2nd highest texture resolution, to compare with Voodoo 2 12MB texture limitation)

I´m impressed. The Riva TNT is scoring higher all across the games i tested. This is true in Direct3D and OpenGL. Not much faster, but faster. Even UT at 800x600 16bit, runs at 47fps on both cards. And the TNT is using D3D vs the almighty Glide on the Voodoo 2.
I did notice that the image quality is better on the Riva TNT compared to Voodoo 2, even at 16bit. I never thought that the TNT was clearly superior to the Voodoo 2 12MB.
rcarkk
Newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 2018-8-16 @ 19:03

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2019-5-04 @ 03:38

I thought it was fairly interesting how close the results I got with the VIA P4M266 IGP (ProSavgeDDR, Savage 4 based IGP from 2001/2002) are to the TnT 16MB,
the CPU is not the same but I doubt it's having much of an impact with this level of IGP, (and the northwood Celeron is incredibly slow for how high clocked it is)

IGP is overclocked to 154Mhz and the ram is DDR 266
celeron21-q3-oc.JPG

OP settings
I also tested with 16 bits and it got 22.6FPS
and with 800x600 16bit and the texture quality reduced by 1 it got 36.5 (it actually made no difference to performance running with max or 1 step down)
SPBHM
Oldbie
 
Posts: 529
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby rcarkk » 2019-5-04 @ 17:15

SPBHM wrote:I thought it was fairly interesting how close the results I got with the VIA P4M266 IGP (ProSavgeDDR, Savage 4 based IGP from 2001/2002) are to the TnT 16MB,
the CPU is not the same but I doubt it's having much of an impact with this level of IGP, (and the northwood Celeron is incredibly slow for how high clocked it is)

IGP is overclocked to 154Mhz and the ram is DDR 266
celeron21-q3-oc.JPG

OP settings
I also tested with 16 bits and it got 22.6FPS
and with 800x600 16bit and the texture quality reduced by 1 it got 36.5 (it actually made no difference to performance running with max or 1 step down)

This means a standard S3 Savage 4 Pro 32MB is slower than a Riva TNT 16MB. The scores of the TNT i posted are with no OC. Weird, i thought that the Savage 4 Pro from 1999, was faster card than the TNT from 1998
rcarkk
Newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 2018-8-16 @ 19:03

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby cxm717 » 2019-5-05 @ 06:20

I tried Q3 on a 32MB Rage 128pro and 16MB Savage4 in my OR840/P3800/512MB 800 RDRAM system.

First the Rage:
p3r128psys.png

q3rage128p6292.png


And the Savage4:
s3s4ep3sys.png

s3s4eq3.png
User avatar
cxm717
Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2017-11-21 @ 04:17

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2019-5-05 @ 06:50

rcarkk wrote:
SPBHM wrote:I thought it was fairly interesting how close the results I got with the VIA P4M266 IGP (ProSavgeDDR, Savage 4 based IGP from 2001/2002) are to the TnT 16MB,
the CPU is not the same but I doubt it's having much of an impact with this level of IGP, (and the northwood Celeron is incredibly slow for how high clocked it is)

IGP is overclocked to 154Mhz and the ram is DDR 266
celeron21-q3-oc.JPG

OP settings
I also tested with 16 bits and it got 22.6FPS
and with 800x600 16bit and the texture quality reduced by 1 it got 36.5 (it actually made no difference to performance running with max or 1 step down)

This means a standard S3 Savage 4 Pro 32MB is slower than a Riva TNT 16MB. The scores of the TNT i posted are with no OC. Weird, i thought that the Savage 4 Pro from 1999, was faster card than the TNT from 1998


when I started testing this IGP I started looking around for savage 4 results and the IGP looks slower, it didn't look massively slower when comparing IGP with OC vs stock Savage 4, but still looked slower, but stock vs stock and OC vs OC the discrete card should be faster, as @cxm717 shows, with very close clocks the Savage 4 Pro is 50% faster than the ProSavageDDR IGP in this test!

the only thing is that I'm using windows XP, it might be possible that the IGP is better with 98 drivers,
because AFAIK the IGP has the same number of pipelines/tmus as Savage4 and the same the design, it might be that the shared memory is a significant performance penalty.
SPBHM
Oldbie
 
Posts: 529
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby rcarkk » 2019-5-05 @ 15:32

cxm717 wrote:I tried Q3 on a 32MB Rage 128pro and 16MB Savage4 in my OR840/P3800/512MB 800 RDRAM system.

First the Rage:
p3r128psys.png

q3rage128p6292.png


And the Savage4:
s3s4ep3sys.png

s3s4eq3.png

Great results for your Savage 4. Your card is running stock at 160/166Mhz on GPU/RAM. That´s very fast and much faster than reference Savage 4 Pro clocks of 125/143Mhz.
What card do you own?
rcarkk
Newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 2018-8-16 @ 19:03

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby rcarkk » 2019-5-05 @ 15:33

SPBHM wrote:
rcarkk wrote:
SPBHM wrote:I thought it was fairly interesting how close the results I got with the VIA P4M266 IGP (ProSavgeDDR, Savage 4 based IGP from 2001/2002) are to the TnT 16MB,
the CPU is not the same but I doubt it's having much of an impact with this level of IGP, (and the northwood Celeron is incredibly slow for how high clocked it is)

IGP is overclocked to 154Mhz and the ram is DDR 266
celeron21-q3-oc.JPG

OP settings
I also tested with 16 bits and it got 22.6FPS
and with 800x600 16bit and the texture quality reduced by 1 it got 36.5 (it actually made no difference to performance running with max or 1 step down)

This means a standard S3 Savage 4 Pro 32MB is slower than a Riva TNT 16MB. The scores of the TNT i posted are with no OC. Weird, i thought that the Savage 4 Pro from 1999, was faster card than the TNT from 1998


when I started testing this IGP I started looking around for savage 4 results and the IGP looks slower, it didn't look massively slower when comparing IGP with OC vs stock Savage 4, but still looked slower, but stock vs stock and OC vs OC the discrete card should be faster, as @cxm717 shows, with very close clocks the Savage 4 Pro is 50% faster than the ProSavageDDR IGP in this test!

the only thing is that I'm using windows XP, it might be possible that the IGP is better with 98 drivers,
because AFAIK the IGP has the same number of pipelines/tmus as Savage4 and the same the design, it might be that the shared memory is a significant performance penalty.

Maybe the clocks of the Savage 4 based IGP is running with low clocks. You need to open Powerstrip to see the clocks...
Edit: My mystaque. Yes, your Savage 4 IGP is OC to 152Mhz. Yes, maybe the shared system memory is slowing the IGP.
rcarkk
Newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 2018-8-16 @ 19:03

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby cxm717 » 2019-5-05 @ 21:29

rcarkk wrote:
cxm717 wrote:I tried Q3 on a 32MB Rage 128pro and 16MB Savage4 in my OR840/P3800/512MB 800 RDRAM system.

First the Rage:
p3r128psys.png

q3rage128p6292.png


And the Savage4:
s3s4ep3sys.png

s3s4eq3.png

Great results for your Savage 4. Your card is running stock at 160/166Mhz on GPU/RAM. That´s very fast and much faster than reference Savage 4 Pro clocks of 125/143Mhz.
What card do you own?


It's a number nine card. I really like it, it has much better quality output compared to my other S3 cards.
User avatar
cxm717
Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2017-11-21 @ 04:17

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby cxm717 » 2019-5-05 @ 21:37

Here is my Geforce256 SDR on the same OR840 setup:

p3gfsys.png


q3gfsdr3082.png
User avatar
cxm717
Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2017-11-21 @ 04:17

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby RoyBatty » 2019-5-06 @ 04:58

CPU-Z reports wrong CPU freq, it's actually 4.4ghz (same as north bridge). The elusive 1k FPS.

quake3demo.jpg
User avatar
RoyBatty
Member
 
Posts: 460
Joined: 2009-8-22 @ 11:37

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby rcarkk » 2019-5-06 @ 09:15

cxm717 wrote:Here is my Geforce256 SDR on the same OR840 setup:

p3gfsys.png


q3gfsdr3082.png

Very good fps for the GF256 SDR. Can you do another benchmark with Trilinear filtering enabled?
My V5 5500 on a PIII Coop 866Mhz scored only 51.7fps @1024x768 with Trilinear filtering on, and the TNT2 Ultra is scoring 31fps in the same machine and same settings.
I always thought the V5 5500 is faster than GF256 SDR and the TNT2 Ultra was only 30% slower than GF256 SDR.
rcarkk
Newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 2018-8-16 @ 19:03

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby rcarkk » 2019-5-06 @ 09:17

cxm717 wrote:
rcarkk wrote:
cxm717 wrote:I tried Q3 on a 32MB Rage 128pro and 16MB Savage4 in my OR840/P3800/512MB 800 RDRAM system.

First the Rage:
p3r128psys.png

q3rage128p6292.png


And the Savage4:
s3s4ep3sys.png

s3s4eq3.png

Great results for your Savage 4. Your card is running stock at 160/166Mhz on GPU/RAM. That´s very fast and much faster than reference Savage 4 Pro clocks of 125/143Mhz.
What card do you own?


It's a number nine card. I really like it, it has much better quality output compared to my other S3 cards.

Is the card overclocked with those 160/166Mhz settings?
rcarkk
Newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 2018-8-16 @ 19:03

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby cxm717 » 2019-5-07 @ 21:17

rcarkk wrote:
Is the card overclocked with those 160/166Mhz settings?


Nope. The card was running stock clocks. Here are some pics of the card https://imgur.com/a/jR9lfNo
User avatar
cxm717
Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2017-11-21 @ 04:17

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby cxm717 » 2019-5-08 @ 06:10

Here are some stock and OC results on my G400Max. Both running the 555 driver with the 1.3 TurboGL.

The G400 at stock clocks:
g400sys.png

g40032.png


and OCed:

g400ocsys.png

g400oc32.png
Last edited by cxm717 on 2019-5-08 @ 18:16, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
cxm717
Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2017-11-21 @ 04:17

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby cxm717 » 2019-5-08 @ 06:15

rcarkk wrote:
cxm717 wrote:Here is my Geforce256 SDR on the same OR840 setup:

p3gfsys.png


q3gfsdr3082.png

Very good fps for the GF256 SDR. Can you do another benchmark with Trilinear filtering enabled?
My V5 5500 on a PIII Coop 866Mhz scored only 51.7fps @1024x768 with Trilinear filtering on, and the TNT2 Ultra is scoring 31fps in the same machine and same settings.
I always thought the V5 5500 is faster than GF256 SDR and the TNT2 Ultra was only 30% slower than GF256 SDR.


I can run more tests once I'm done with the G400. From what I remember the Geforce got about 55fps with trilinear. Keep in mind this version of Q3 defaults to s3tc enabled, that probably makes a difference (for the SDR version at least). New versions of Q3 seem to default to disabled.
User avatar
cxm717
Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2017-11-21 @ 04:17

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby bofh.fromhell » 2019-5-09 @ 01:37

My contribution to the 2000 GPU & CPU period correct list:

Image

Athlon 1200C.
ABIT KG7 with AMD 760 chipset (released nov 2000)
Gainward GeForce2 Ultra, 71.89 drivers.
1GB DDR memory, super tight 2-2-2-2-6 settings.
Soundblaster Live! (SB0060), funny enough I get better results with sound on.
Windows 2000 with Unofficial SP5.
Nothing overclocked.

Amazing machine IMO.
And rock solid since the recap, zero problems.
Can't belive that I never payed attention to the 760 chipset when it was current.
The Y2K machine is only missing a few parts now =)
User avatar
bofh.fromhell
Member
 
Posts: 121
Joined: 2019-2-09 @ 16:11

PreviousNext

Return to Video

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron