All Voodoo1 cards offer the same speed.

Did you delete the OpenGL DLLs from the Quake 2 folder and/or replace it with the 3dfx ones?

derSammler wrote on 2020-01-10, 14:39:

All Voodoo1 cards offer the same speed.

Did you delete the OpenGL DLLs from the Quake 2 folder and/or replace it with the 3dfx ones?

Yeah, thay all follow the same spec obv. I was thinking more along the lines of it being bottlenecked or faulty or something... After all it was in the bottom of one of the many parts piles around here. 😀

As for the GL DLLs i moved the Voodoo ones in there from the driver pack and had the same results. Some research on YT ows some guy getting a 26 fps average on demo1 Q2 with a Voodoo1 card. However i trust YT content as much as a used car salesman, as there are many variables involved.

Should the CPU be enough to not bottleneck or should i dig out a 233MMX? Would that really be much gain?

And if someone has a system like this one, i would like to compare benchmarks still, to see that i'm on the right track here.

Found this: https://www.soldcentralfl.com/quakecoop/compare2.htm

That has a similar system to this one, except the RAM is less in the test system. It states the results:

P-200 MMX, 32mb, Win95 32.8 na na na Righteous 3D Voodoo, i.e. 30+ fps on average...

This would lead me to believe that something is going on here with my 18-ish FPS, as measured in the same circumstances as in this old test... The card is obviously working, as is the rest of the HW, as it starts fine in 3dfx mode.

I have a 200 MMX with a Voodoo1 as well. And it also has Quake II installed. I wish I could tell you the fps I get there, but I never measured it. All I can tell is that it was running smooth and certainly never dropped to single-digit fps.

derSammler wrote on 2020-01-10, 17:46:

I have a 200 MMX with a Voodoo1 as well. And it also has Quake II installed. I wish I could tell you the fps I get there, but I never measured it. All I can tell is that it was running smooth and certainly never dropped to single-digit fps.

If you get the time to do so, i would be interested in a timedemo measuring (using the console commands) of the demo1.dm2 map, to compare...

What chipset does your motherboard have? If it is an Intel based board, then chances are you have more RAM than can actually be cached, as the 430VX and 430TX chipsets can only cache up to 64MB and AFAIR only the 430HX can cache up to 128MB (or was it 256MB?). If it's not an Intel chipset, it may need tweaking to the memory timings and/or other BIOS related options to achieve optimal performance.

Also, you don't mention at what resolution you're getting those framerates, is it 640x480 or is it 512x384? 18.6fps on a V1 using the latest drivers @640x480 on an MMX 200 and if you've pumped the texture quality all the way up, doesn't really sound that far off. Have you turned V-Sync off? Try 512x384 and/or lowering the texture quality in half or better yet don't use this system to play Quake 2 😉

Garrett W wrote on 2020-01-10, 18:57:

What chipset does your motherboard have? If it is an Intel based board, then chances are you have more RAM than can actually be cached, as the 430VX and 430TX chipsets can only cache up to 64MB and AFAIR only the 430HX can cache up to 128MB (or was it 256MB?). If it's not an Intel chipset, it may need tweaking to the memory timings and/or other BIOS related options to achieve optimal performance.

Also, you don't mention at what resolution you're getting those framerates, is it 640x480 or is it 512x384? 18.6fps on a V1 using the latest drivers @640x480 on an MMX 200 and if you've pumped the texture quality all the way up, doesn't really sound that far off. Have you turned V-Sync off? Try 512x384 and/or lowering the texture quality in half or better yet don't use this system to play Quake 2 😉

HX can cache 512MB with additional tag ram.

All intel chipsets (pentium and pentium mmx) can cache 64MB, except HX with two tag ram chips (11bits) can do 512MB.

Take your memory back down from 128MB to 64MB and rerun the tests. Keep in mind windows 9x loads stuff from upper memory on down-wards so you get performance losses immediately with 128MB.

Cheers, jason

NX could fully cache 512 MB as well.

But yes, that's most likely his problem. My 200 MMX has 64 MB installed.

Update: I fixed it. It wasn't memory-related... For whatever mysterious reasons, one of the DirectX updates had managed to overwrite and corrupt the Voodoo driverset with its own "certified" driver. This caused all sorts of weirdness. After rolling back to DX7a and reinstalling 3dfx drivers, i now get 31.6 frames per second in 512x384 which seems consistent with the benchmarks i linked earlier and seems about right...

Please try 64MB to see if you get bit more performance?

Cheers,

Has someone optimized the image-quality (vga-through) on his orchid v1 ?
The diamond monster3d is far better. Compared through the same cable.
I am sure that it has to do with the relays that the orchid is using.