Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Discussion about old graphics cards, monitors and video related things.

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Fusion » 2017-8-28 @ 17:51

Beat my last score! I don't think I can milk this system anymore, a 0.4fps jump is pretty good considering I didn't overclock higher or change any hardware:

52.0 FPS, Fusion, Voodoo3 3000 16MB PCI @ 195/195, Pentium III 800EB, Intel i810e, 384MB PC133, WinMe

EDIT: Modifying cg_lagometer, and changing the value to 0 in your q3config gets you an additional .5fps. You're welcome. :lol:
WIP Retro Files
P3 800 | 512MB PC100| PCI V3 3000 16MB @ 195/195 | CT4780 SB Live! Value| WinME
P3 450 | 128MB PC100| AGP TNT2 Pro 32MB | CT4170 SB16 | MS-DOS 7.10
A64 2.4 | 2GB DDR1 | PCI-E Radeon X800XT @ 575/575 | Win2K
User avatar
Fusion
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: 2017-3-06 @ 04:49
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby dottoss » 2017-8-28 @ 19:42

falloutboy wrote:
leileilol wrote:(some "pro" players also alleged the sound system in Q3's also slow, though i don't feel that's true first-hand)

Makes a big difference on my Super Socket 7 system. Have not testet with others.
44.8 fps with sound ; no a3d sound
62.9 fps without sound

Quake3 1.32 with custom settings (quite low)
demo four

K6-III+ 550MHz
Tyan S1590
GeForce3-Ti200 Det. 14.10
Vortex 2
Win98SE

In Quake 2 it's only 5% difference on that system.


Oh yes, it makes a different. All the professional benchmarking people used to disable the soundsystem when benching GPU and/or CPU back in the days when Q3 was used for that purpose :)

Without sound = s_initsound 0, then snd_restart = 592 FPS.

quake3.jpg


With sound: 10. 486.6 FPS, dottoss, Geforce 6800 Ultra (AGP), Intel Pentium 4 EE 3.4 GHz Gallatin, Asus P4C800-E, 1GB DDR 400 CL2-2-2-5, WinME

When running with sound, setting the quality of the sound from low to high and vice verse will affect FPS, a lot.
Last edited by dottoss on 2017-8-29 @ 06:20, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dottoss
Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: 2014-7-08 @ 11:30

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby silikone » 2017-8-28 @ 20:27

Purging an integral part of a game seems counterproductive for what is the go-to real-world performance benchmark, no?
Do not refrain from refusing to stop hindering yourself from the opposite of watching nothing other than that which is by no means porn.
User avatar
silikone
Member
 
Posts: 257
Joined: 2012-3-21 @ 19:53

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby dexvx » 2017-8-28 @ 23:12

silikone wrote:Purging an integral part of a game seems counterproductive for what is the go-to real-world performance benchmark, no?


Most all in-era benchmarks for Quake3 disabled sound.

Back then it was less about real world performance and more about raw hardware performance. The timedemo's themselves are not very real world because there is only a set number of frames being rendered each time (thus 100 fps goes super fast).e
dexvx
Oldbie
 
Posts: 725
Joined: 2017-3-07 @ 03:32
Location: USA

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Fusion » 2017-8-29 @ 16:36

It's insane to think that I've been benchmarking Quake 3 for over 17 years! :lol: This is sad. Obviously not everyday but still. :o
WIP Retro Files
P3 800 | 512MB PC100| PCI V3 3000 16MB @ 195/195 | CT4780 SB Live! Value| WinME
P3 450 | 128MB PC100| AGP TNT2 Pro 32MB | CT4170 SB16 | MS-DOS 7.10
A64 2.4 | 2GB DDR1 | PCI-E Radeon X800XT @ 575/575 | Win2K
User avatar
Fusion
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: 2017-3-06 @ 04:49
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby lazibayer » 2017-9-08 @ 02:34

lazibayer wrote:Just for laughs...
2.7 FPS, Rage Pro AGP 2x 8MB, K6-3+ 450 OC 133x4.5=600, 256MB PC133 2-2-2, P5A-B, Windows XP, stock driver, 1024x768, 16bit color, 32bit texture.
17.8 FPS, Rage Fury (128GL) 32MB, K6-3+ 450 OC 133x4.5=600, 256MB PC133 2-2-2, P5A-B, Windows XP, driver version 6.13.3279, 1024x768, 32bit color, 32bit texture.
26.5 FPS, FireGL2 64MB @PCI mode, K6-3+ 450 OC 133x4.5=600, 256MB PC133 2-2-2, P5A-B, Windows XP, driver version 6.12.10.2106, 1024x768, 32bit color, 32bit texture.


OC'ed the Rage Fury from 103/103 to 125/154 and scored 24.7 FPS. Powerstrip can only support upto 154/154 on this card. Surprisingly the 8ns memory works pretty well at 154MHz, while the core crashes at 127MHz.
User avatar
lazibayer
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: 2014-10-21 @ 21:16

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2017-9-10 @ 23:47

My Win98SE installation recently crashed and burned. Now that I've got Win98 reinstalled, my Celeron/V3 system is actually performing better than it used to. I'm guessing it's because this time I'm using DX7a and official 3DFX drivers (last time I used DX9c and AmigaMerlin drivers).

New result:
Celeron-1400, 440BX, 512MB PC100, Voodoo3 3000 AGP, Aureal SQ2500, Win98SE: 46.4 fps
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 974
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby lazibayer » 2017-9-11 @ 01:13

Continuing the stretch of oldware...
3.1 FPS, Intel i740 8MB, K6-3+ 450 OC 112*5.5=617, 256MB PC133 2-2-2, P5A-B, Windows XP, 5.1.00.1404 driver for w2k, 1024x768, 32bit color, 32bit texture.
Although both using OpenGL -> D3D wrapper i740 is faster than Rage Pro and also has better image quality. Under 112*5.5 Rage Pro only scored 2.5 FPS and it was under 16 bit color. Why didn't I put i740 under 133MHz bus speed? Because it won't boot into windows at all.
Last edited by lazibayer on 2017-9-11 @ 19:49, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lazibayer
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: 2014-10-21 @ 21:16

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2017-9-11 @ 14:27

well, still more than 1 frame per second!

K6-2 533, VIA MVP4, 128MB PC97, Trident Blade 3d IGP, ESS onboard, Win98SE: 1.7 fps

even the menu feels like it runs at 1FPS, if I lower everything it's kind of playable at low res, over 20FPS
SPBHM
Oldbie
 
Posts: 565
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby vlask » 2017-9-16 @ 09:49

Testing something quite rare, so tried Q3 too.
Trident Blade XP 32MB AGP clocked at 166/166MHz - 11FPS

Tested on Athlon XP 2200+, Soltek SL75-KAV (Via KT133A), 512MB SDR CL3
Not only mine graphics cards collection at http://www.vgamuseum.info
vlask
Member
 
Posts: 409
Joined: 2009-6-29 @ 18:01
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby lazibayer » 2017-9-18 @ 01:54

0.7 FPS, SiS 530 IGP, IBM 6x86L-PR200 OC 100x2=200MHz, GA-5SMM, 256MB SDRAM, XP SP3, PCI mode, 1024x768x16bpp color, 32bpp texture.
User avatar
lazibayer
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: 2014-10-21 @ 21:16

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby W Gruffydd » 2017-9-22 @ 03:49

Thanks for the benchies.

Wasn't the DDR version of GeForce 256 released in 2000, though?
W Gruffydd
Newbie
 
Posts: 50
Joined: 2017-8-18 @ 02:24

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Putas » 2017-9-23 @ 10:26

vlask wrote:Testing something quite rare, so tried Q3 too.
Trident Blade XP 32MB AGP clocked at 166/166MHz - 11FPS

Tested on Athlon XP 2200+, Soltek SL75-KAV (Via KT133A), 512MB SDR CL3


That is probably only Blade T64, right?
User avatar
Putas
Oldbie
 
Posts: 785
Joined: 2010-11-21 @ 06:58
Location: q3dm6

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2017-9-23 @ 16:29

Core i5-3470 @ 3391, B75, 8GB DDR3-1600, Intel HD 2500, onboard audio, Win7-64: 400.7 fps
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 974
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2017-9-24 @ 08:08

And here's the same machine with a GTX 560 installed:

Core i5-3470 @ 3391 MHz, B75, 8GB DDR3-1600, GTX 560, onboard audio, Win7-64: 977.2 fps
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 974
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby dexvx » 2017-9-25 @ 21:51

W Gruffydd wrote:Thanks for the benchies.

Wasn't the DDR version of GeForce 256 released in 2000, though?


Late 1999. Like literally last week of December.

Too bad the FX 5800 Ultra didn't make the cut into 2002.
dexvx
Oldbie
 
Posts: 725
Joined: 2017-3-07 @ 03:32
Location: USA

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby lazibayer » 2017-9-26 @ 02:57

31.7 FPS, FireGL2, P4 1.3GHz, Dell Dimension 8100, 1GB PC800 RDRAM, XP SP3, 1024x768x16bpp color, 32bpp texture.
31.7 FPS, FireGL2, P4 1.3GHz, Dell Dimension 8100, 1GB PC800 RDRAM, XP SP3, 1024x768x32bpp color, 32bpp texture.
33.0 FPS, FireGL2, P4 HT 2.8C, Dell GX270, 1GB DDR400 DC, XP SP3, 1024x768x16bpp color, 32bpp texture.
33.0 FPS, FireGL2, P4 HT 2.8C, Dell GX270, 1GB DDR400 DC, XP SP3, 1024x768x32bpp color, 32bpp texture.
33.0 FPS, FireGL2, P4 2.8A, Dell GX270, 1GB DDR400 DC, XP SP3, 1024x768x16bpp color, 32bpp texture.
33.0 FPS, FireGL2, P4 2.8A, Dell GX270, 1GB DDR400 DC, XP SP3, 1024x768x32bpp color, 32bpp texture.
User avatar
lazibayer
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: 2014-10-21 @ 21:16

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Shagittarius » 2017-9-26 @ 05:02

Q3ABench.jpg


I got this every run...this might be the limit.
User avatar
Shagittarius
Oldbie
 
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-12-20 @ 06:49
Location: California, USA

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Fusion » 2017-9-26 @ 06:37

Standard Def Steve wrote:Core i5-3470 @ 3391, B75, 8GB DDR3-1600, Intel HD 2500, onboard audio, Win7-64: 400.7 fps


Damn... that beats my x800XT 256MB @ 565/540. :( Stupid Intel.
WIP Retro Files
P3 800 | 512MB PC100| PCI V3 3000 16MB @ 195/195 | CT4780 SB Live! Value| WinME
P3 450 | 128MB PC100| AGP TNT2 Pro 32MB | CT4170 SB16 | MS-DOS 7.10
A64 2.4 | 2GB DDR1 | PCI-E Radeon X800XT @ 575/575 | Win2K
User avatar
Fusion
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: 2017-3-06 @ 04:49
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby dexvx » 2017-9-26 @ 21:47

Ok one minor nitpick as I was browsing through some old articles. The last Athlon to release in 1999 was the Athlon 800 (512KB). So that should be allowed on the 1999 cpu side.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/424

December 20, 1999 article

"As if that were not excessive enough, with rumors that Intel was going to start sampling their Pentium III based on the new Coppermine core in 750MHz and 800MHz flavors, AMD was pressured to release data on their competing product early. And thus we have our review of the AMD Athlon 800."
dexvx
Oldbie
 
Posts: 725
Joined: 2017-3-07 @ 03:32
Location: USA

PreviousNext

Return to Video

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: willow and 4 guests