I added the G400 Max too. I figured I would go ahead and create a small chart to make things more readable. The first result is 1600x1200, the second 1024x768.

Again, this is Quake 2, demo1.dm2, on my Soyo K7VTA Pro with Athlon XP 2400+.

alexanrs wrote:

About the autosync issues, the Voodoo probably uses nonstandard timings for 1600x1200, just like it does for 1920x1080. If you can find the correct timings (can something like PowerStrip get them while a Matrox or GeForce is installed?) just change them in the INF file. This is probably not needed for CRTs though.

I remember someone mentioning this for 1366 x 768 resolution, but I didn't think that it might work at 1600 x 1200 😊

Have an Asrock P4v88 and a decent collection of Socket 478 CPU's in the closet somewhere.
I just lack a case and a PSU for it. It ran Win98 nice and fast.
The problem is, that I am not really fond of running 98 on it. It lacks that retro feel.
One thing that struck me. Was that I could run Win98 with 1gig of ram. Stable, without issues.
If the CPU was a 400fsb with 512kb cache. The 800fsb gave some issues on this board.

Anyway...
I have put it up for sale, so I will not join the Socket478-Win98-Club. 😁

Another reason is: very easy to connect external isa bridge to 865 chipset (845 as well)

boxpressed wrote:

I added the G400 Max too. I figured I would go ahead and create a small chart to make things more readable. The first result is […]
Show full quote

I added the G400 Max too. I figured I would go ahead and create a small chart to make things more readable. The first result is 1600x1200, the second 1024x768.

Again, this is Quake 2, demo1.dm2, on my Soyo K7VTA Pro with Athlon XP 2400+.

Bugger I forgot to mention this.

This is also the first time I did this. Quake 2, takes the colour depth that you have set on the desktop and uses it in the game. You can read the colour mode in the startup lines on the console.

For all the cards, I set the desktop to 1024x768 and 32 bit colours, so that Quake II would run in 32 bit colour mode. I did this because I wanted to establish a level playing field, seeing that the V4 is a full 32 bit card anyway, not like the V3.

brostenen wrote:

Have an Asrock P4v88 and a decent collection of Socket 478 CPU's in the closet somewhere. I just lack a case and a PSU for it. I […]
Show full quote

Have an Asrock P4v88 and a decent collection of Socket 478 CPU's in the closet somewhere.
I just lack a case and a PSU for it. It ran Win98 nice and fast.
The problem is, that I am not really fond of running 98 on it. It lacks that retro feel.
One thing that struck me. Was that I could run Win98 with 1gig of ram. Stable, without issues.
If the CPU was a 400fsb with 512kb cache. The 800fsb gave some issues on this board.

Anyway...
I have put it up for sale, so I will not join the Socket478-Win98-Club. 😁

Asrock has this board on Newegg, Intel 865 chipset, socket 775 and support for Core 2 Duo 😀

I haven't tested any higher FSB processors, or dual channel memory. I found that the 2 GHz chip with 400 FSB already has enough performance.

anthony wrote:

Another reason is: very easy to connect external isa bridge to 865 chipset (845 as well)

An external ISA bridge...

Do you have more information about this? Sounds cool.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlYXbxQneG8

Just plug to pci slot, connect serirq, dmareq, dmagnt to ich5 and configure isa bridge chip and ich5

Why not test if it can handle more than 512mb ram?
Just to test when the bugs come. 😉

brostenen wrote:

Why not test if it can handle more than 512mb ram?
Just to test when the bugs come. 😉

Nah that doesn't interest me. Windows 98 is 512 MB max for me. Anything more, I just go with XP.

When comparing id tech 3 game performance between cards, play with the r_primitives setting to 1 and 2. (don't do 3 or higher)

It defaults to 0 as it assumes from a present extension, but sometimes this assumes wrong and goes slower. This is especially true towards more modern hardware.

I'm tempted to drag my Asus P4P800dlx out of the box and give it a test. Reason being that I have one of those CT-479 adaptors so You can use a Pentium M chip. At 2.7 - 2.8ghz there is no
other single core cpu that can match it in games. I bios modded it with a P4P800se bios which allowed for Multiplier adjust all the way down to x6, so 600mhz to 2700mhz range.
The only downside would be that as far as I can tell You cannot turn off CPU cache so can forget about compatibilty with older Dos titles.
I never used it as a Dos games machine though, I never had the bug for retro hardware at the time, and was happy with Dosbox. That's not the case now though.

Anyway, back to the topic, am looking forward to watching the new Youtube clip when I get home.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Bugger I forgot to mention this.

This is also the first time I did this. Quake 2, takes the colour depth that you have set on the desktop and uses it in the game. You can read the colour mode in the startup lines on the console.

For all the cards, I set the desktop to 1024x768 and 32 bit colours, so that Quake II would run in 32 bit colour mode. I did this because I wanted to establish a level playing field, seeing that the V4 is a full 32 bit card anyway, not like the V3.

I was wondering why my results were so much higher! I think your graph did say 32-bit, but I missed it. I reran the benches, and the results are almost right in line with your P4 results. Results are pretty much the same across the 45.23, 56.64, and 71.84 drivers for the Quadro2. An earlier set might be a bit faster.

leileilol wrote:

When comparing id tech 3 game performance between cards, play with the r_primitives setting to 1 and 2. (don't do 3 or higher)

It defaults to 0 as it assumes from a present extension, but sometimes this assumes wrong and goes slower. This is especially true towards more modern hardware.

Could you please explain what this setting does?

boxpressed wrote:

I was wondering why my results were so much higher! I think your graph did say 32-bit, but I missed it. I reran the benches, and the results are almost right in line with your P4 results. Results are pretty much the same across the 45.23, 56.64, and 71.84 drivers for the Quadro2. An earlier set might be a bit faster.

That's excellent! Always good to see when others get matching results 😀

Imperious wrote:

I'm tempted to drag my Asus P4P800dlx out of the box and give it a test. Reason being that I have one of those CT-479 adaptors s […]
Show full quote

I'm tempted to drag my Asus P4P800dlx out of the box and give it a test. Reason being that I have one of those CT-479 adaptors so You can use a Pentium M chip. At 2.7 - 2.8ghz there is no
other single core cpu that can match it in games. I bios modded it with a P4P800se bios which allowed for Multiplier adjust all the way down to x6, so 600mhz to 2700mhz range.
The only downside would be that as far as I can tell You cannot turn off CPU cache so can forget about compatibilty with older Dos titles.
I never used it as a Dos games machine though, I never had the bug for retro hardware at the time, and was happy with Dosbox. That's not the case now though.

Anyway, back to the topic, am looking forward to watching the new Youtube clip when I get home.

Old DOS games is really not the aim of this machine. Although running DOSBox is an option.

Excellent review Phil! I'm always sticking to graphics performance, haven't really tested sound compatibilities in any way. And when these good old DOS games came out, I was too young to have experienced them.

I'm totally with you about the "VIA=crappy drivers, Intel = goody drivers" opinion. 😀 What would you say about a Core 2, Intel 865 chipset, a modern 500GB (formatted to 120GB) HDD and 2GB ram together with Win 98SE?

The only reason I'm also keeping a Tualatin i440BX system is ISA sound really (for DOS games - and 3dfx graphics). If these can be bypassed with just a PCI card and some wrappers, I'm good to go.
It's always good for nostalgia reasons to have some old shiny hardware under the hood, but when playing I personally don't think about that anymore.

Blasphemy! Burn him at the stake! 😉

GeorgeMan wrote:

What would you say about a Core 2, Intel 865 chipset, a modern 500GB (formatted to 120GB) HDD and 2GB ram together with Win 98SE?

Is that the Asrock board that Newegg sells?

There is a patch for more than 512 MB of RAM, but I've never used it myself. I always stay with the 512 MB limit.

philscomputerlab wrote:

GeorgeMan wrote:

What would you say about a Core 2, Intel 865 chipset, a modern 500GB (formatted to 120GB) HDD and 2GB ram together with Win 98SE?

Is that the Asrock board that Newegg sells?

There is a patch for more than 512 MB of RAM, but I've never used it myself. I always stay with the 512 MB limit.

It's the AsRock 775i65G R3.0 --> http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/775i65G%20R3.0/
And I have it combined with an unlocked Core 2 processor. Win 98 is stable enough running at 3.2GHz on a Intel "Core" processor.

Yes, I've bought the patch and it works good. The only reason I've not stayed at 512MB is because this computer also has a GeForce 6800 Ultra and it's also able to play newer games on Windows XP that feel comfortable with more than 512MB of ram, while still being officially supported under 98SE.

If I can perform any benchmark on this setup, feel free to provide me with the setup files. 😀

Most of the benchmarks are based on full versions I'm afraid.

Q3A is the easiest, it is the demo version.

I don't have any problem on the size of them.
They just need to be the same versions as yours for the results to be comparable.

🤣 you might not, but I do 😊

That's ok...