VOGONS


First post, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Edit: I've added results with FastVid. When two results are displayed with a slash between them, the first result is with FastVid, the second result without. So in the following example, the Rage 128 Pro gets 521.1 fps with FastVid and 216.3 without:
521.1/216.3 ATI Rage 128 Pro

These are all the PCI/AGP graphics cards I own that work in DOS. Most of them are from the Windows 95 to Windows 2000 era, and would probably be better suited for those OSes. But they are all I had. 😀 One other note: It's pretty apparent that a lot of these scores are cpu-limited. Oh well. Enjoy!

Test System:
Asus P2L98-XV from an HP Pavilion 6355
82440LX chipset
Celeron 333Mhz Slot 1 (66Mhz x 5)
integrated ATI VideoXpression+ Mach64VT4 2MB
AGP and PCI slots
32MB SDRAM
MS-DOS 6.22

Discrete Graphics Cards tested:

ATI Rage 128 Pro AGP 16MB
3dfx Voodoo3 2000 PCI 16MB
GeForce 2 MX AGP 32MB
GeForce 3 Ti200 AGP 128MB
GeForce 4 MX4000 AGP 64MB
GeForce FX5200 AGP 256MB
GeForce 8400GS PCI 512MB
Intel i740 AGP 4MB
Nvidia TNT2 M64 AGP 32MB

Note: The 8400GS PCI is easily the slowest card in the bunch. It is roughly half the speed of the other PCI card in the test (Voodoo3). So the bus does not explain its slowness. If anyone has an explanation, I'm curious. I'm thinking it's because it's so modern that they didn't bother with DOS-specific optimizations.

3DBENCH (FPS):
521.1/216.3 ATI Rage 128 Pro
521.1/216.3 GeForce 3 Ti200
520.0/216.2 GeForce 2 MX
520.0/216.2 GeForce FX5200
516.1/216.2 TNT2 M64
491.8/216.3 Voodoo3
443.0/216.1 GeForce 4 MX4000
388.0/120.5 GeForce 8400GS
264.9/215.7 ATI Mach64VT4
239.7/189.5 Intel i740

PCPBench (FPS):
102.2/87.3 GeForce 3 Ti200
102.2/87.3 ATI Rage 128 Pro
102.1/87.3 GeForce FX5200
102.1/87.3 GeForce 2 MX
102.0/87.3 TNT2 M64
101.1/87.3 Voodoo3
98.2/87.3 GeForce 4 MX4000
94.5/87.3 GeForce 8400GS
81.8/81.8 Mach64VT4
78.4/78.4 Intel i740

Doom (realticks/FPS):
785(95.1)/908(82.3) ATI Rage 128 Pro
809(92.3)/932(80.1) GeForce 2 MX
809(92.3)/933(80.1) GeForce 3 Ti200
809(92.3)/934(80.0) GeForce FX520
810(92.2)/934(80.0) TNT2 M64
829(90.1)/934(80.0) Intel i740
834(89.6)/922(81.0) Voodoo3
841(88.😎/921(81.1) ATI Mach64VT4
1031(72.4)/1067(70.0) GeForce 4 MX4000
1674(44.6)/1808(41.3) GeForce 8400GS
Doom seems to like the ATIs best. The GeForce 4 MX4000 results seem out of character.

Quake 320x200 (FPS):
71.4/64.4 ATI Rage 128 Pro
71.2/64.3 Voodoo3
71.2/64.2 TNT2 M64
71.2/64.2 GeForce FX5200
71.1/64.1 GeForce 2 MX
69.3/63.9 GeForce 4 MX4000
71.1/63.5 GeForce 3 Ti200
65.5/62.0 GeForce 8400GS
61.3/61.3 ATI Mach64VT4
59.7/59.7 Intel i740

Quake 640x480 (FPS):
30.2/15.6 Intel i740
30.2/15.6 TNT2 M64
30.2/15.6 GeForce 2 MX
29.9/15.5 GeForce 3 Ti200
29.8/15.6 GeForce FX5200
29.7/15.5 GeForce 4 MX4000
29.2/15.6 Voodoo3
24.6/13.8 ATI Rage 128 Pro
24.0/13.8 ATI Mach64VT4
16.6/ 7.1 GeForce 8400GS
The ATIs run out of steam in 640x480 compared to the Intel, 3dfx and Nvidias.

Note: FastVid made zero difference in any of the Duke3d scores

Duke Nukem 3D 320x200 (FPS):
120 All cards except...
112 ATI Mach64VT4
106 Intel i740

Duke Nukem 3D 320x200VESA (FPS):
160 TNT2 M64
160 GeForce FX5200
160 Voodoo3
160 GeForce 2 MX
160 GeForce 4 MX4000
160 GeForce 3 Ti200
106 Intel i740
71 ATI Mach64VT4
71 GeForce 8400GS
71 ATI Rage 128 Pro
The ATIs are slower when using VESA in 320x200

Duke Nukem 3D 640x480VESA (FPS):
51 All cards except...
30 ATI Rage 128 Pro
30 ATI Mach64VT4
30 GeForce 8400GS

Duke Nukem 3D 800x600VESA (FPS):
35 All cards except...
30 ATI Mach64VT4
30 ATI Rage 128 Pro
20 GeForce 8400GS

Duke Nukem 3D 1024x768VESA (FPS):
23 All cards except...
20 ATI Mach64VT4
12 GeForce 8400GS
lockup Voodoo3
lockup ATI Rage 128 Pro
The Voodoo and Rage would consistently freeze Duke shortly after launching the .exe, but only in 1024x768.

Note: Duke benchmarks were done by starting a new game in the first episode (starting on the roof) and typing "dnrate" to show the frame counter in the upper left corner. I wait for the rocket to crash and the framerate to settle, then record the highest value I see most consistently.

Last edited by clueless1 on 2016-01-09, 17:43. Edited 1 time in total.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 1 of 20, by sunaiac

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

DN3D looks vsynced on 8400 and both ATIs.

R9 3900X/X470 Taichi/32GB 3600CL15/5700XT AE/Marantz PM7005
i7 980X/R9 290X/X-Fi titanium | FX-57/X1950XTX/Audigy 2ZS
Athlon 1000T Slot A/GeForce 3/AWE64G | K5 PR 200/ET6000/AWE32
Ppro 200 1M/Voodoo 3 2000/AWE 32 | iDX4 100/S3 864 VLB/SB16

Reply 2 of 20, by idspispopd

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Is that with or without fastvid? (Pretty important for Quake and Duke.)

Reply 4 of 20, by MrEWhite

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
clueless1 wrote:

I did not use fastvid.

I would use fastvid, it improves performance quite a bit.

Reply 5 of 20, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
MrEWhite wrote:
clueless1 wrote:

I did not use fastvid.

I would use fastvid, it improves performance quite a bit.

I recall Phil (or maybe someone else) explicitly not using fastfid in their benchmarks for some reason. Does it not support all graphics cards, thus giving some cards an unfair advantage over others? Maybe it's a tool that not everyone is aware of, so it's better to benchmarks without so that the playing field is more even...

I would think fewer variables and "helpers" would make for cleaner results. But now I'm curious enough I may rerun the numbers.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 6 of 20, by PCBONEZ

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

As it was CPU-limited perhaps you should repeat the experiment with a faster CPU.

GRUMPY OLD FART - On Hiatus, sort'a
Mann-Made Global Warming. - We should be more concerned about the Intellectual Climate.
You can teach a man to fish and feed him for life, but if he can't handle sushi you must also teach him to cook.

Reply 7 of 20, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
PCBONEZ wrote:

As it was CPU-limited perhaps you should repeat the experiment with a faster CPU.

That's as fast as I've got. 😀

I've got a K6-2 550, but no AGP slot.
I've got the Celeron 333 system (that's the fastest cpu the board takes) with both AGP and PCI.
I've got a P133 with no AGP.

I've thought of maybe picking up a Deschute PII-333 in the hopes that it would run on this board. Not sure how much the extra L1 would help over the Celeron, though, or whether for sure that cpu would run in this board (it's an OEM HP-ified Asus P2L98-XV).

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 8 of 20, by PCBONEZ

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Then I suggest looking for maybe a BX chipset board and a PIII 500-600 or so.
The Celeron 333 should also work in the BX board for a couple of chipset comparisons to your LX board.

An AGP board for the K6-2 550 would also be interesting.
.

GRUMPY OLD FART - On Hiatus, sort'a
Mann-Made Global Warming. - We should be more concerned about the Intellectual Climate.
You can teach a man to fish and feed him for life, but if he can't handle sushi you must also teach him to cook.

Reply 9 of 20, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
PCBONEZ wrote:
Then I suggest looking for maybe a BX chipset board and a PIII 500-600 or so. The Celeron 333 should also work in the BX board f […]
Show full quote

Then I suggest looking for maybe a BX chipset board and a PIII 500-600 or so.
The Celeron 333 should also work in the BX board for a couple of chipset comparisons to your LX board.

An AGP board for the K6-2 550 would also be interesting.
.

I was just trying to share results with the community here with what I have. It's not something I'm going to spend money on to remove bottlenecks. At the very least, the Doom results are pretty relevant with a decent range of graphics cards represented. When I get a chance, I'll update the numbers with fastvid, and if a faster board happens to fall in my lap down the road, I'll be happy to redo the tests as well.

Thanks!

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 10 of 20, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I tested fastvid with one video card (Intel i740) and it did make a significant difference in a few (not all) benchmarks, so I'll make some time to get the rest of the cards retested. Is it pretty standard procedure to use fastvid when reporting benchmark results? What if the system in question does not have a cpu that is compatible with fastvid?

Here are the before and after results on the i740:
3dbench--189.5/239.7
pcpbench--no difference
doom--80.0/90.1
quake 320x200--no difference
quake 640x480--15.6/30.2
duke3d--no difference in any resolution

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 11 of 20, by alexanrs

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

FASTVID basically does the same thing most Windows drivers do and sets a MTRR to boost video memory access speed for SVGA modes. If you can't run it on a CPU later than a Pentium Pro (older CPUs do not support that feature anyway), you can try to run stuff in Windows 9x and see if they run faster.

Reply 12 of 20, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

FASTVID works on the Celeron 333, but it doesn't seem to work on my Pentium I 133. Does that make sense?

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 13 of 20, by alexanrs

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Yes, Anything below Pentium Pro does not support MTRRs. Those are used to control how to cache certain ranges of memory and, in Intel processors, is only supported on P6 and later families.

Reply 14 of 20, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I've updated the results in the first post to include results with FASTVID. Thanks for making me aware of it! 😀

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 15 of 20, by idspispopd

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
clueless1 wrote:
I tested fastvid with one video card (Intel i740) and it did make a significant difference in a few (not all) benchmarks, so I'l […]
Show full quote

I tested fastvid with one video card (Intel i740) and it did make a significant difference in a few (not all) benchmarks, so I'll make some time to get the rest of the cards retested. Is it pretty standard procedure to use fastvid when reporting benchmark results? What if the system in question does not have a cpu that is compatible with fastvid?

Here are the before and after results on the i740:
3dbench--189.5/239.7
pcpbench--no difference
doom--80.0/90.1
quake 320x200--no difference
quake 640x480--15.6/30.2
duke3d--no difference in any resolution

I'm surprised this does anything for DOOM and nothing for Duke3D. I would have expected it to be the other way around.
MTRR's also exist in some K6-2 models and in K6-3. You might need another Tool for that. Athlon also have MTRR's, fastvid may work there.

Reply 16 of 20, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
idspispopd wrote:

I'm surprised this does anything for DOOM and nothing for Duke3D. I would have expected it to be the other way around.
MTRR's also exist in some K6-2 models and in K6-3. You might need another Tool for that. Athlon also have MTRR's, fastvid may work there.

I had no expectations, because I didn't know anything about fastvid til it was mentioned in this thread. My understanding now is that it's supposed to improve SVGA performance more than VGA (I guess because there is more headroom for performance increases?)

Did you look at the rest of the scores in the original post? The i740 you quoted was one of the cards that showed the least improvement with fastvid.

I wish I had an explanation for why it does nothing in Duke3D. Anyone else care to try on their system and confirm? Does anyone have anything similar to a Celeron 333?

But a quick summary:
-the ATI Rage 128 Pro is easily the best VGA card, but is also one of the worst in SVGA.
-the Intel i740 is tied with a few nvidias for fastest SVGA (though the i740 is one of the slowest in VGA)
-the GF2MX and TNT2 M64 appear to be the fasted overall and best combination of VGA and SVGA performance.
-something is clearly not right with the 8400GS. Perhaps because it is so new compared to the others. Maybe nvidia's VESA implementation by the time this came out cut some corners.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 17 of 20, by idspispopd

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
clueless1 wrote:

I had no expectations, because I didn't know anything about fastvid til it was mentioned in this thread. My understanding now is that it's supposed to improve SVGA performance more than VGA (I guess because there is more headroom for performance increases?)

The higher the resolution, the more bytes have to be moved per frame, so there is more potential for performance gains. Also VESA 2.0 modes have a higher bandwidth ceiling than vanilla 320x200 VGA. (VESA modes can reach the theoretical maximum of 133MB/s while vanilla VGA modes will never be close to that. Not that it's necessary: One frame of 320x200x256 need <64k, so for 100fps you'd just need <6.4MB/s plus more so the CPU has cycles left to actually run the game and render the image , not exactly demanding.)

Did you look at the rest of the scores in the original post? The i740 you quoted was one of the cards that showed the least improvement with fastvid.

According to your results, DOOMs runs faster on all cards with fastvid, but the difference is quite small for all of these.
And you did write that fastvid doesn't make a difference for Duke3D.

...
-something is clearly not right with the 8400GS. Perhaps because it is so new compared to the others. Maybe nvidia's VESA implementation by the time this came out cut some corners.

Exactly. After a while extreme DOS performance wasn't considered necessary anymore. In fact I remember a post which said that the DOS performance of Geforce cards went down after GF3.

Reply 18 of 20, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
idspispopd wrote:

And you did write that fastvid doesn't make a difference for Duke3D.

Yep. I'd guess that it's because Duke is CPU-bound in all the VESA resolutions, but what about the ATIs? Based on the rest of their SVGA scores, maybe poor VESA implementation.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 19 of 20, by gerwin

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I had trouble using FastVid with VGA range memory, Commander Keen started to mess up.
Currently use MTRRLFBE by rayer for this. Less fancy name then FastVid, but better functionality. (Requires 'DPMI server' file also on that page.)
The command line would be 'mtrrlfbe lfb wc', This way it won't affect VGA range, just VESA.

Setting LFB Write combining for VGA range is kinda useless, because all systems fast enough to support LFB Write combining can run the low resolution modes at 60 FPS anyways.

How do you guys bench Duke 3D? AFAIK it does not do a timedemo, just a nervous -DNRATE display at the bottom right.

--> ISA Soundcard Overview // Doom MBF 2.04 // SetMul