Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I get good scores for VGA:

3DBENCH2: 665.7

That sounds pretty slow to me, for a 1400. I've just been trying out some graphics cards on the Katmai system in my sig (at stock speed, 550MHz). I got 783.0 on a TNT2 AGP. (the Voodoo3 does 797.3)

Specs:
Asus P3B-F 1.03 1.4 GHZ Pentium 3 Tualatin (440BX chipset)
1024 CL2 SDRAM
Nvidia Geforce 5950 256MB Ultra

Results with FASTVID

3DBENCH2: Weird result of 467,8 with FASTVID and 511 without. The benchmark itself is running at 2x the speed with FASTVID compared to without, so I guess the speed broke the score. The benchmark program can't show more than 4 digits, so I believe the correct score to be 1467,8.
PCPBENCH: 180,7

quake 1.06 timedemo demo 1 (nosound):
320 x 240: 268,8 FPS
640 x 480: 95,6 FPS
800 x 600: 67,1 FPS
1024 x 768: 44,2 FPS

vetz wrote:

3DBENCH2: Weird result of 467,8 with FASTVID and 511 without. The benchmark itself is running at 2x the speed with FASTVID compared to without, so I guess the speed broke the score.

I don't think 3DBench2 is very accurate anymore at these speeds. Even the latest version (1.0c) was designed with 486/P1 speeds in mind. It probably shouldn't be used as benchmark tool at all on P2 and above.

jwt27 wrote:

vetz wrote:

3DBENCH2: Weird result of 467,8 with FASTVID and 511 without. The benchmark itself is running at 2x the speed with FASTVID compared to without, so I guess the speed broke the score.

I don't think 3DBench2 is very accurate anymore at these speeds. Even the latest version (1.0c) was designed with 486/P1 speeds in mind. It probably shouldn't be used as benchmark tool at all on P2 and above.

What would be funny is if you used something like Go Slow and the results went up instead of down.

vetz wrote:

Specs: Asus P3B-F 1.03 1.4 GHZ Pentium 3 Tualatin (440BX chipset) 1024 CL2 SDRAM Nvidia Geforce 5950 256MB Ultra […]
Show full quote

Specs:
Asus P3B-F 1.03 1.4 GHZ Pentium 3 Tualatin (440BX chipset)
1024 CL2 SDRAM
Nvidia Geforce 5950 256MB Ultra

Results with FASTVID

3DBENCH2: Weird result of 467,8 with FASTVID and 511 without. The benchmark itself is running at 2x the speed with FASTVID compared to without, so I guess the speed broke the score. The benchmark program can't show more than 4 digits, so I believe the correct score to be 1467,8.
PCPBENCH: 180,7

quake 1.06 timedemo demo 1 (nosound):
320 x 240: 268,8 FPS
640 x 480: 95,6 FPS
800 x 600: 67,1 FPS
1024 x 768: 44,2 FPS

Thank you so much for testing this 😀

Looks like there is something that's holding back SVGA performance on the VIA chipset board. Just shows how good the BX440 is.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Thank you so much for testing this 😀

Looks like there is something that's holding back SVGA performance on the VIA chipset board. Just shows how good the BX440 is.

No problem. Quite surprised of the results myself. Maybe someone else could test with newer Intel chipsets and see how they perform. I do agree that your VIA chipset do seem a tad slow.

Yea it's weird. The VGA performance is definitely there. But go to SVGA and performance plummets.

I tried some BIOS settings, AGP settings, but made no difference.

Maybe there is a tool like FASTVID but for VIA chipsets rather than Intel which unlocks even more performance?

leileilol wrote:

Jane's ATF or Jane's US Navy Fighters with the textures enabled at 1024x768. Quite the demanding games coming from 1994-96 😀

the engine of these two games doesn't scale, I was never possible to come over 20fps with all details on, even on a i7 CPU 😀

schlang wrote:

leileilol wrote:

Jane's ATF or Jane's US Navy Fighters with the textures enabled at 1024x768. Quite the demanding games coming from 1994-96 😀

the engine of these two games doesn't scale, I was never possible to come over 20fps with all details on, even on a i7 CPU 😀

Wait, so you actually booted DOS on an i7 and ran those games? 🤣 Somehow, I never thought that would be possible.

Ive got the Via chipset in my Tualatin 1.4 system and im also curious about the chipset speed, for reference I get 9,600 points in 3DMARK 2001SE at stock settings with a X800 PRO, obviously CPU limited but is anyone else able to run a beast graphics card that will be CPU starved for comparison on a different chipset for this CPU? A Geforce 4TI/ATI 9800 PRO will be good enough

Hi!

This thread is really for high resolution DOS games 😀

also modern video hardware strips more VESA functions (not just the Windows XP NTVDM restrictions imposed on them) so it's not even recommended.

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

Wait, so you actually booted DOS on an i7 and ran those games? 🤣 Somehow, I never thought that would be possible.

y not? some people even try to run win311 on an i7 😁

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM6q5iuy1oM

schlang wrote:

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

Wait, so you actually booted DOS on an i7 and ran those games? 🤣 Somehow, I never thought that would be possible.

y not? some people even try to run win311 on an i7 😁

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM6q5iuy1oM

Does it actually run, or does it just crash on that glitched startup screen? 🤣

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Hi!

This thread is really for high resolution DOS games 😀

I thought it would be relevant to test whether the VIA chipset is complete shite or not, my system is packed away atm so cant test it for dos games, Lellehol stated that poor performance is probably due to too new a video card or too old like your s3, so sounds like we need a sweet spot for high end dos gaming.

dirkmirk wrote:

Ive got the Via chipset in my Tualatin 1.4 system and im also curious about the chipset speed, for reference I get 9,600 points in 3DMARK 2001SE at stock settings with a X800 PRO, obviously CPU limited but is anyone else able to run a beast graphics card that will be CPU starved for comparison on a different chipset for this CPU? A Geforce 4TI/ATI 9800 PRO will be good enough

I got about the same last time I ran 3Dmark 2001SE on my 440BX rig. Graphics card is Geforce 5950FX Ultra. This was under Windows98. Haven't tested in WinXp.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

A S370 board that can't take the 1.4, but does take a regular 1.0GHz / 133 FSB Pentium III <...> Quake timdemo demo1: 640 x 480: […]
Show full quote

A S370 board that can't take the 1.4, but does take a regular 1.0GHz / 133 FSB Pentium III <...>
Quake timdemo demo1:
640 x 480: 60
800 x 640: 43.4
1024 x 768: 28.9

As fastvid was made for Intel 440FX and 440BX chipsets, so MB with other chipsets will give less results. Maybe it's this case.

I have my "Super MS-DOS" Machine I could test if you guys wanted.

EpoX motherboard with KT-133A Via chipset (For that one ISA slot so I can use an AWE64 with it), AthlonXP mobile Barton chip in it with a slight overclock to 1.8 ghz and PC-155 ram, and a Geforce2 Ultra. It's the fastest SVGA gaming machine I've ever played with or built. It does Descent II @ 1024x768 SVGA at above 60 FPS (gives tearing when turning.. which is a sign of going past 60 FPS usually).

The only game it does poorly in is Quake I though, I've always thought it was just because it's an AMD system and Quake I was optimized with pentium instructions and thus leaned towards Intel CPU's only.

But yeah, I could boot it up and run tests for you if you liked.

vetz wrote:

Asus P3B-F 1.03 1.4 GHZ Pentium 3 Tualatin (440BX chipset), 1024 CL2 SDRAM, Nvidia Geforce 5950 256MB Ultra quake 1.06 timedemo […]
Show full quote

Asus P3B-F 1.03 1.4 GHZ Pentium 3 Tualatin (440BX chipset), 1024 CL2 SDRAM, Nvidia Geforce 5950 256MB Ultra
quake 1.06 timedemo demo 1 (nosound):
320 x 240: 268,8 FPS
640 x 480: 95,6 FPS
800 x 600: 67,1 FPS
1024 x 768: 44,2 FPS

If to make an approximation, taking into account other video mode 320x240->320x200 and viewsize 100->120, then in Quake section of Phil's testing this machine would get ~257 fps. Vetz took part in that testing, but not with his P3 1400(S?).

Blood is pretty demanding at some parts of the game on any computer at the resolution 640x480 and above.