marxveix wrote on 2022-12-07, 22:22:
With Rage3 (8MB) cards it is possbile to get better fps, more like 30-40fps with GLQuake @ 640x480x16 timedemo demo1 without ove […]
W.x. wrote on 2022-08-30, 22:30:
The differance is remarkable. In GLQuake 640x480x16, 4 MB Rage Pro Turbo gets 16.7 fps. But 8MB Rage Pro Turbo gets 21.8 fps. What's going on there? Both versions are same (SGR memory, same Ati-109- code , just one is Ati Xpert@Work (without TV out) and one is Ati Xpert@Play.
With Rage3 (8MB) cards it is possbile to get better fps, more like 30-40fps with GLQuake @ 640x480x16 timedemo demo1 without overlock, use right OpenGL, best at the moment is 1094 or 1068 version for Quake1 and Quake2 1068 or 1076/1077 as i member and i recommend using Rage XL AGP pn 109-66700-01 or 109-66700-00 cards.
Rage3 OpenGL Win9x files for download:
If anybody has some other Win9x MiniGL/OpenGL versions for Rage3, let me know , Thank you!
ATi RagePro OpenGL files
MiniGL 4.10.1010, 4.10.1021, 4.10.1036
OpenGL 4.11.1051, 4.11.1058, 4.11.1060, 4.11.1065, 4.11.1068, 4.11.1076, 4.11.1077, 4.11.1084, 4.11.1085, 4.11.1091, 4.12.1091, 4.11.1094, 4.12.1094, 4.12.1095, 4.12.1096, 4.12.1103, 4.12.1104, 4.12.1106, 4.12.1107
Thanks for interesting note, but my testing setup is Windows XP (for easier manipulation), so I can test only there right now.
Anyway, always wondered, what's FPS is under windows 98, and I've expected of course more fps. With ATI official drivers. I am using Rage Pro ati official drivers, last version from early 2002 or so, on official page. I admit, some drivers can have better performance for particular game, but latest drivers have usually best compatibility, stability, and overall less issues in games/programs, also less rendering glitches. That's why I wanted to go with latests drivers.
So right now, I cannot test it on windows 98, it would be time consuming. I cannot find time even to compile my results from windows Xp benchmarks, I was making several days. Not to mention, even switch drivers... that would basicaly multiply all time.
But I never liked tactic to use special drivers for special game. I kinda played more games in one era, and also shared computer with brother in that time, he played different games. It would unrealistic to change drivers in that time, everytime I play something. I also didnt want to touch OS too much, as it was unstable... often resulted in crashes, and unstable system, when playing with stuff like that. Now, I dont risk anything, but in that time, it was shared primary computer. If anything screwed up, it was really really bad at home, lots of anger (everyone wanted just sit behind computer that is working, and when we had to reinstall everything, it usually costed like 1-2 hours, it was really really bad. Like really bad. In that time, I just didnt touch anything on OS, only play games.
So... in summary, I see reasonable to only use latest drivers. Not choose drivers for one game, than switch them for another. That was unrealistic scenario for most people to do. And I find it also not properiate for benchmarks. Because, it's not only about Quake (or only one game). Many times, drivers had better FPS in one game, but was unstable or slow, in others. That is, why I dont like tactic to cherry pick drivers for only one benchmark, but rather, find overall best and most stable drivers, and test all games on it.
specificaly Ati was known to do it, that they've sacrificed everything, to get few FPS more in one game, that was benchmarked the most. So they'll get better reviews. (later, when reviews were out, after few months, they released newer version, that was better overall, but had less FPS in that particulary game... because reviews were already out... they basicaly unscrewed the driver for 90% games, back to original state) I've never liked this tactic, and would not use such drivers for wide benchmarks.