Driver version ?

agent_x007 wrote on 2023-03-22, 08:40:

Driver version ?

Which driver? There are versions of all the drivers I installed in the OP. Installing i440BX drivers had no effect, so I left that out.

I'm sorry, I meant if you tried any others than listed one.

In general, a non-Tualatin Celeron (so 128kB L2) with 100MHz FSB... isn't that great (even at 1GHz clock). If changing drivers to older version doesn't help (and AGP is working in AGP mode and not PCI), what you see is what you get 🙁

agent_x007 wrote on 2023-03-22, 08:58:

I'm sorry, I meant if you tried any others than listed one.

Yeah, but with no effect. Any recommended versions I should try?

28.32 or 30.82 (phil's tested those in comparison he did few years ago) : LINK

Just tried 30.82 from Phil's website, same results unfortunately. I also installed RivaTuner to verify what AGP transfer rate it's using and it says 2x. Fast writes were disabled and couldn't be enabled, though.

It could very well be the Celeron, but I have no way of verifying that, without getting a different CPU and probably also a mobo, since this one doesn't support 133MHz FSB without overclocking AGP also.

I am not familiar with NOLF, but looking at the Readme file, you should be well above the recommended system requirements, both in terms of CPU and GPU speed.

However, my suggestion is to first run some other tests/benchmarks and see if your results are in line with what is expected for such a system.
For example, your PC should score ~ between 5000 - 6000 points in 3DMark 2000. Is this what you are seeing?

Here are the results from 3DMark2000 at default settings - 1024x768x16, hardware T&L:
5106 3D marks
349 CPU 3D marks

kapybara wrote on 2023-03-22, 11:29:

Here are the results from 3DMark2000 at default settings - 1024x768x16, hardware T&L:
5106 3D marks
349 CPU 3D marks

That looks OK. You can probably gain a few hundred points with some fine tuning/tigher memory timings, but the improvement will only be measurable in the benchmark itself, it certainly won't make a difference for NOLF.
So, the most likely explanation is that the NOLF system requirements are just wrong/way too optimistic (as it was often the case back in the day).

What you are seeing is clearly a CPU bottleneck (possibly combined with a FSB bottleneck as well). It would be very interesting to see how a 1 GHz Pentium 3 Coppermine @ FSB133 performs (that CPU should hit ~ 8000 points in 3DMark 2000, so a pretty big 50%+ improvement compared to your current Celeron). As for the overclocked AGP bus, it's not an issue in most instances; the Ti4200 should be fine with it and most 440BX motherboards also work perfectly well @ FSB 133 MHz / AGP 89 MHz).

Of course, you would probably be much better off with an Athlon 64 / Athlon XP / Pentium 4 if you want to hit 60+ FPS at all times in this particular game.

PS: does the game offer any adjustments in terms of graphics quality? (draw distance, maybe?)

NOLF's terrible with overdraw and doesn't use HWT&L. I think it's normal numbers

I wonder how that game runs on minimum system requirements P2 300MHz. Celeron 950MHz ~= P2 750Mhz and the game claims P2 500MHz optimal :---)

bloodem wrote on 2023-03-22, 13:18:

That looks OK. You can probably gain a few hundred points with some fine tuning/tigher memory timings, but the improvement will […]
Show full quote

That looks OK. You can probably gain a few hundred points with some fine tuning/tigher memory timings, but the improvement will only be measurable in the benchmark itself, it certainly won't make a difference for NOLF.
So, the most likely explanation is that the NOLF system requirements are just wrong/way too optimistic (as it was often the case back in the day).

What you are seeing is clearly a CPU bottleneck (possibly combined with a FSB bottleneck as well). It would be very interesting to see how a 1 GHz Pentium 3 Coppermine @ FSB133 performs (that CPU should hit ~ 8000 points in 3DMark 2000, so a pretty big 50%+ improvement compared to your current Celeron). As for the overclocked AGP bus, it's not an issue in most instances; the Ti4200 should be fine with it and most 440BX motherboards also work perfectly well @ FSB 133 MHz / AGP 89 MHz).

Of course, you would probably be much better off with an Athlon 64 / Athlon XP / Pentium 4 if you want to hit 60+ FPS at all times in this particular game.

PS: does the game offer any adjustments in terms of graphics quality? (draw distance, maybe?)

I could try getting the fastest Coppermine PIII and see how that goes. Graphics quality toggles do have a major impact on how the game looks, but don't improve my framerate in any reasonable way. They seem to help only in GPU-bound cases.

Yeah, P4 would help for sure, but I was mostly curious why NOLF runs this bad on a period correct PC. And I was hoping that buying this GeForce4 wasn't a waste of money, which it probably was, lol. 🥲

leileilol wrote on 2023-03-22, 13:50:

NOLF's terrible with overdraw and doesn't use HWT&L. I think it's normal numbers

Well that would explain why it fluctuates so much when turning the camera. How do you know how much it overdraws? Wireframe mode?
btw NOLF2 behaves similarly, despite requiring HW T&L. But NOLF2 has very high CPU requirements in general .

Early Lithtech can be a hog, especially on CPUs of the era. I think NOLF2 might actually run slightly better on your system, thanks to the updated engine.
As stated earlier, Celeron 950 has less and certainly not as smart cache (2way vs 4way associative) as Coppermine PIII, not to mention 100MHz FSB. Even at 1GHz, it can sometimes have a hard time achieving parity with a PIII 733. Speaking from experience here, I was always miffed that my brother with his PIII 733 could outclass my little Celeron 900 : - P .

I think your Voodoo 3 is right at home on this CPU, gains will be minimal going with a faster CPU, though if you insist on trying to play NOLF on your system, that GF4 Ti will ensure you are never GPU bound (which you will inevitably be with the Voodoo3 at some point). IMO you should play NOLF on a faster system, think Athlon XP and Northwood P4 and above.
If you really want to play on your system, I'd look into lowering memory timings somewhat, overclocking slightly (if you can achieve 112MHz FSB you'd get a decent boost), disabling A3D and/or EAX if it is applicable in this game (3D sound was a CPU hog at the time) and... lowering some details that put extra strain on the CPU.

Since I was curious, I've found and tested the game on the Athlon XP 1700+ "Thoroughbred" which is currently sitting on my desk. Coincidentally, this PC also has a GeForce 4 Ti 4200.
So, yeah, can confirm that NOLF really is extremely CPU bound.

I've attached two screenshots.
The first screenshot is taken with the Athlon XP running at 1.9 GHz (FSB 166 x 11.5 multiplier).
The second screenshot is with the same Athlon XP underclocked to 600 MHz (FSB 100 x 6 multiplier). At this speed, in terms of IPC, it should be similar to your Celeron 950 - possibly a little faster.
When running at 1.9 GHz, it's a very smooth experience, NOLF runs at 60+ FPS at all times (mostly at 100+ FPS). However, at 600 MHz, the difference is VERY noticeable and the framerate can drop in the low 20s in some areas.

This obviously means that a Pentium 3 (be it Coppermine or even Tualatin) won't cut it for a consistent 60+ FPS in this game. 😀
But if you're happy with 30+ FPS, a Pentium 3 1000EB should be fine.

I did a benchmark of various CPUs with GeForce FX5600 in 3D Mark 2000 some time ago:

1024x768 32bit

• Ahlon64 3400+ - 7176
• Celeron 1000 - 4076
• Celeron 950 - 3940
• PIII 900E - 5980
• PIII 750 - 5348

I would not recommend Coppermine Celerons for games. The ideal CPU for GeForce 4 should be Athlon XP, same as for GeForce FX. If not available then a PIII 1Ghz or 900E will do.

If you don't want to replace your entire system, I can confirm that NOLF is very smooth on a PIII 1.26 GHz, GeForce Ti 500 system. It is 60+ fps, probably 90% of the time. The 1.26 GHz PIII is still very cheap on ebay. It is FSB-133 though, so make sure your moherboard supports it!

Thanks everyone for your ideas and for confirming it's the CPU. I thought 950MHz Celeron would be plenty enough, given the optimistic hardware requirements in the game's manual.

I'll post how a proper PIII improves the performance, if I manage to get one with a 100MHz FSB. I'm a bit concerned that running a permanently overclocked AGP bus could decrease longevity of the GPUs. Changing the motherboard would be an option too, but I kind of like this one, since it's a microATX with an ISA slot.

kapybara wrote on 2023-03-23, 07:55:

I'm a bit concerned that running a permanently overclocked AGP bus could decrease longevity of the GPUs.

Don't be! 😀
GPUs don't fail because of AGP frequency, they can fail because of thermal and/or power related issues.
As long as the GPU works fine @ 89 MHz (it does not freeze and does not show artifacting - things that are quickly noticeable) , which should be the case with most or all GeForce 4 Ti 4200 cards, then you have nothing to worry about.

So I do recommend that you try a P3 1 GHz @ FSB133 MHz, it performs quite a bit better than the FSB100 variant (and should actually be cheaper). In my country I can still find them for $10, while the FSB100 SKU is rare and more expensive.
Make sure that your RAM can also handle it (PC133), and you should be good to go.

Alright then, I guess it's worth a shot. 😀 100MHz versions seem to be very rare, while I easily found a 1GHZ/133MHz Pentium 3 for 5 euros.