marxveix wrote on 2025-04-16, 19:04:

q3k6-132opt.exe

marxveix wrote on 2025-04-17, 06:10:

Thank you, performance difference is there and its made for 3DNow. 😀

There are no 3DNOW instructions in these files, this is a hoax.

marxveix wrote on 2025-04-17, 09:27:

Thank you for explaining, xp version dint work with Duron, i had to try.
q3k6-132opt was 0.3-0.4fps faster than q3tb-132opt with my Duron.

In the file q3xp-132opt.exe a lot of SSE instructions are used, there really is an optimization.

Takedasun wrote:

marxveix wrote on 2025-04-17, 06:10:

Thank you, performance difference is there and its made for 3DNow. 😀

There are no 3DNOW instructions in these files, this is a hoax.

Performance boost it gives at least, that matters. I tought it would use 3DNow if its made for K6, my mistake.

Just for fun, and because you already have a TNT bench, here's a voodoo 2. All mine are from Win98SE.

Intel Pentium III E, S370, 900 MHz, 100MHz fsb, i810
Creative Soundblaster Live CT4620
Voodoo 2 12mb

77.6 fps, 16.2 seconds

Duron 650Mhz/128MB/W98SE DX6.1/cmi8738/q3k6 removed
Nvidia Riva 128 AGP 4MB (ASUS AGP-V3000) 24,3 seonds / 51,8fps

the slowest quake3 performance possible is not difficult to obtain:
slowest card with official opengl support is rendition1000. however, i have only tested it with a p3-850 and got ~2.0fps, because i didn't have very slow platforms at that time.
*update: i dug up a rendition1000+winchip-100 result somewhere, yielding 0.4fps.*
quake3 can run on 486 cpus, so the slowest cpu possible is cyrix486dx25(pci 486 boards are usually down to 25mhz minimum), but i have only tried a riva128 with amd5x86-133 and couldn't remember the exact score, estimated to be around 1fps.
however, i failed getting the rendition1000 working on 486. it works with windows98 built in driver which has no 3d support, and using rendition 3d drivers caused windows to hang up a few seconds after desktop loads. not sure if there is any workaround or anyone else tried it.

i am also going to benchmark doom, quake and quake2 on following platform, in some months:
386sx16
intel387sx
16mb dram
ibm original vga card

you'll probably need a 387 FPU for that

and i am introducing you guys to my custom quake3 benchmarking demo:
introducing my quake3 benchmark demo

even today's modern computers are expected to score around 200fps without overclocking, rather than hitting the ~1000fps ceiling.

leileilol wrote on 2025-04-18, 03:41:

you'll probably need a 387 FPU for that

i forgot to mention that i do have a 387sx with it

What is the higher end limit if there is any for the gpu and cpu?

noshutdown wrote on 2025-04-18, 03:35:

i am also going to benchmark doom

noshutdown wrote on 2025-04-18, 03:42:

and i am introducing you guys to my custom quake3 benchmarking demo:

The most intense demo that I know that runs on vanilla Doom is the Hell Revealed II MAP32 TAS UV-Max demo.

Grab the following:
https://www.doomworld.com/idgames/themes/hr/hr2final for the WAD
https://dsdarchive.com/files/demos/hr2final/1 … 75/h232x423.zip for the demo itself

Run with doom2.exe -file hr2final.wad -timedemo h232x423 - I've found it to be a good way to also test overclocking stability, as the demo will desync if the overclocking is unstable in any way.

noshutdown wrote on 2025-04-18, 03:35:

[...]the slowest quake3 performance possible is not difficult to obtain[...]

Sounds fun, but I don't want to artificially slow down the GPUs.
I'm using a 1GHz P3 to stay clear of the CPU limit (around 126 FPS in my PC) and I'm using the best drivers I can find.

I just get a kick out of running Quake III on GPUs that nobody in their right mind would even consider running it on. 😜

I'd probably extend it to software GL drivers. SGI's OpenGL and their CosmoGL driver (found in the Cosmo VRML browser plugin) can be faster than Microsoft GDI OpenGL driver (which is also SGI-based but predates their later optimizations), especially at 8-bit color but Q3 can't allocate a palette for that so it'll show nothing. At least it somehow doesn't give up with r_colorbits 8

leileilol wrote on 2025-04-20, 16:56:

I'd probably extend it to software GL drivers. SGI's OpenGL and their CosmoGL driver (found in the Cosmo VRML browser plugin) can be faster than Microsoft GDI OpenGL driver (which is also SGI-based but predates their later optimizations), especially at 8-bit color but Q3 can't allocate a palette for that so it'll show nothing. At least it somehow doesn't give up with r_colorbits 8

since quake3 was intended to demand opengl card by design, i would rather not count software opengl drivers to violate that. and while others may count third party opengl wrapper, i would rather stick to factory opengl icd.

this reminds me of quake2, i think carmark once mentioned that there was a 16bpp mmx/sse software renderer for quake2 in development, which "looks very nice and only a bit slower than default 8bpp renderer", but was abandoned since opengl cards were becoming popular. i wondered if that renderer was ever leaked and anyone else would work on it.

DEAT wrote on 2025-04-20, 11:53:

The most intense demo that I know that runs on vanilla Doom is the Hell Revealed II MAP32 TAS UV-Max demo. […]
Show full quote

The most intense demo that I know that runs on vanilla Doom is the Hell Revealed II MAP32 TAS UV-Max demo.

Grab the following:
https://www.doomworld.com/idgames/themes/hr/hr2final for the WAD
https://dsdarchive.com/files/demos/hr2final/1 … 75/h232x423.zip for the demo itself

Run with doom2.exe -file hr2final.wad -timedemo h232x423 - I've found it to be a good way to also test overclocking stability, as the demo will desync if the overclocking is unstable in any way.

🤣 i have also recommended that demo for benchmarking before, but with Andrey Budko's hacked doom2p.exe to display everything correctly. since the vanilla doom.exe would only display 128 sprites at max, many things(monsters, projectiles, supplies, decorations and so one) would be missing in a "cheating" way.

noshutdown wrote on 2025-04-21, 01:27:

since quake3 was intended to demand opengl card by design, i would rather not count software opengl drivers to violate that. and while others may count third party opengl wrapper, i would rather stick to factory opengl icd.

Quake3 calls for blending functions that about 70% cards in the list doesn't support so it's not much of a stretch.

RaVeNsClaw wrote on 2025-04-20, 14:50:

Sounds fun, but I don't want to artificially slow down the GPUs. I'm using a 1GHz P3 to stay clear of the CPU limit (around 126 […]
Show full quote

noshutdown wrote on 2025-04-18, 03:35:

[...]the slowest quake3 performance possible is not difficult to obtain[...]

Sounds fun, but I don't want to artificially slow down the GPUs.
I'm using a 1GHz P3 to stay clear of the CPU limit (around 126 FPS in my PC) and I'm using the best drivers I can find.

I just get a kick out of running Quake III on GPUs that nobody in their right mind would even consider running it on. 😜

It's just fascinating to see such decent performance from some of that hardware as well. I bought a Rage Pro (Xpert@Play for the TV out) back in 97 but picked up a Voodoo II in 98 because of ATI taking so long to get their OpenGL ICD out. I honestly think that those Rage 3 cards would have been a huge hit if they released with drivers closer to those final ones. Aside from Glide support (which was important back then) all that Voodoo II would have given me would have been viable 800x600 performance. In reality, I probably would have been better off dropping in a higher clocked K6-2 (or 3 if I was patient) or just saved my pennies up for an Athlon closer to launch.

DrAnthony wrote:

It's just fascinating to see such decent performance from some of that hardware as well. I bought a Rage Pro (Xpert@Play for the TV out) back in 97 but picked up a Voodoo II in 98 because of ATI taking so long to get their OpenGL ICD out. I honestly think that those Rage 3 cards would have been a huge hit if they released with drivers closer to those final ones. Aside from Glide support (which was important back then) all that Voodoo II would have given me would have been viable 800x600 performance. In reality, I probably would have been better off dropping in a higher clocked K6-2 (or 3 if I was patient) or just saved my pennies up for an Athlon closer to launch.

They made huge amount Rage3 (Rage Pro / XL) cards that we have plenty of them out there. I like ATi Rage Pro / XL, they are great for early D3D and OpenGL + great bonus is CIF / DVD + many OS support. I have do admit that Nvidia OpenGL is better performer, but still good ATi R3 OpenGL versions at bit later versions. OpenGL multitexture also working with some of the OpenGL versions and you can try to turn OpenGL multitexture on with others. Rage3 also likes bit faster CPU from AMD K6-2+ or 3+ up to pentium2 or pentium 3 for better performance. I may try with Xpert@Play 4 - 8MB version also and this should hit as high as Rage XL with this low resolution Q3 mode, with higher resolution maybe tiny bit slower than ATi Rage XL, but its faster than Rage Pro EDO version for sure.

marxveix wrote on 2025-04-21, 07:40:

DrAnthony wrote:

It's just fascinating to see such decent performance from some of that hardware as well. I bought a Rage Pro (Xpert@Play for the TV out) back in 97 but picked up a Voodoo II in 98 because of ATI taking so long to get their OpenGL ICD out. I honestly think that those Rage 3 cards would have been a huge hit if they released with drivers closer to those final ones. Aside from Glide support (which was important back then) all that Voodoo II would have given me would have been viable 800x600 performance. In reality, I probably would have been better off dropping in a higher clocked K6-2 (or 3 if I was patient) or just saved my pennies up for an Athlon closer to launch.

They made huge amount Rage3 (Rage Pro / XL) cards that we have plenty of them out there. I like ATi Rage Pro / XL, they are great for early D3D and OpenGL + great bonus is CIF / DVD + many OS support. I have do admit that Nvidia OpenGL is better performer, but still good ATi R3 OpenGL versions at bit later versions. OpenGL multitexture also working with some of the OpenGL versions and you can try to turn OpenGL multitexture on with others. Rage3 also likes bit faster CPU from AMD K6-2+ or 3+ up to pentium2 or pentium 3 for better performance. I may try with Xpert@Play 4 - 8MB version also and this should hit as high as Rage XL with this low resolution Q3 mode, with higher resolution maybe tiny bit slower than ATi Rage XL, but its faster than Rage Pro EDO version for sure.

Oh I agree completely and I guess it makes it easier to get an good example of one of these cards today because of the so-so market reception they had when new. They were just so snakebit back then between the Rage3 drivers and the hardware bugs in Rage128 that delayed it into the next generation. I mean they obviously well enough to survive, unlike the majority of their peers, it's just that they were SO close to being at the head of the pack early on rather than just "another option".

i am not that interested in rage pro due to mediocre performance(about 2/3 of the riva128), and sometimes texture filtering doesn't work(blocky surfaces).
however, it has both d3d and opengl support in win2000, which is something that sis6326, rendition2200, permedia2, i740, savage3, trident9880 and riva128 can't do.

noshutdown wrote on 2025-04-22, 08:01:

i am not that interested in rage pro due to mediocre performance(about 2/3 of the riva128), and sometimes texture filtering doesn't work(blocky surfaces).

RagePro 8MB/XL 8MB AGP medicore performance it may have, 3DMark99Max (800x600x16) up to 2300 points is enough with faster CPUs for me.

Keep in mind that RagePro/XL has half the memory bandwidth vs Riva128.