Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-25, 21:35:

-Half life is not bad with a pentium pro 200mhz and a voodoo 1: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bg5FXhty0u8 […]
Show full quote

-Half life is not bad with a pentium pro 200mhz and a voodoo 1:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bg5FXhty0u8

-Pentium mmx with voodoo 2 in pretty smooth at 800x600 as well:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Puhajj28gs&pp= … gcJCR4Bo7VqN5tD

-Pentium 133, bad performing, but, ¿software?:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fisb1sr7_Rk

The first video is the alpha of the game, not the release game, and it is clearly very sluggish. He can barely even hit things he's pointing at.

The second video the player isn't even using a mouse (he's turning with the keys, which is super slow) and you can still tell it is sluggish and choppy, even in a youtube video.

The last one says they are using an S3 Virge, so yeah... hardware or software will be a slideshow.

Keep in mind, a video that looks basically sort of smooth-ish does not fully reflect the huge delay between mouse movement\clicks and the game reacting at 15-20fps.

I played through HL1 on my K6-2+/550 and voodoo3 it was still needing more performance in a lot of areas, especially on Xen and Surface Tension. I think with a P5* you will only get acceptible performance in low poly areas with very few actors. More demanding areas of the game will be completely unplayable with 10fps or less. HL1 has a wide variation in performance depending on what's happening on screen so it's easy to make it look slow or fast on a certain system depending on what's being showcased.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-25, 21:41:

The first video is the alpha of the game, not the release game, and it is clearly very sluggish. He can barely even hit things h […]
Show full quote

The first video is the alpha of the game, not the release game, and it is clearly very sluggish. He can barely even hit things he's pointing at.

The second video the player isn't even using a mouse (he's turning with the keys, which is super slow) and you can still tell it is sluggish and choppy, even in a youtube video.

The last one says they are using an S3 Virge, so yeah... hardware or software will be a slideshow.

Keep in mind, a video that looks basically sort of smooth-ish does not fully reflect the huge delay between mouse movement\clicks and the game reacting at 15-20fps.

Completely agree.

You might get 20-25 fps on a P200MMX in a plain hallway without any enemies on screen, but as soon as there's some action going on, it's going to be a slideshow (<10 fps).

Even in the above-linked video, look how bad the fps drops at 0:36 s when going through this slightly larger room with two characters on screen: https://youtu.be/-Puhajj28gs?si=UOyyP_VrgXU8XFB3&t=36

That's single-digit fps. Imagine what it will be like on the surface with 4 enemies on screen. Impossible to aim.

I know we were a lot more forgiving of low fps back in the day, but let's not forget that there was a lot of frustration from it as well.

jh80 wrote on 2025-12-26, 01:23:

Completely agree. […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-25, 21:41:

The first video is the alpha of the game, not the release game, and it is clearly very sluggish. He can barely even hit things h […]
Show full quote

The first video is the alpha of the game, not the release game, and it is clearly very sluggish. He can barely even hit things he's pointing at.

The second video the player isn't even using a mouse (he's turning with the keys, which is super slow) and you can still tell it is sluggish and choppy, even in a youtube video.

The last one says they are using an S3 Virge, so yeah... hardware or software will be a slideshow.

Keep in mind, a video that looks basically sort of smooth-ish does not fully reflect the huge delay between mouse movement\clicks and the game reacting at 15-20fps.

Completely agree.

You might get 20-25 fps on a P200MMX in a plain hallway without any enemies on screen, but as soon as there's some action going on, it's going to be a slideshow (<10 fps).

Even in the above-linked video, look how bad the fps drops at 0:36 s when going through this slightly larger room with two characters on screen: https://youtu.be/-Puhajj28gs?si=UOyyP_VrgXU8XFB3&t=36

That's single-digit fps. Imagine what it will be like on the surface with 4 enemies on screen. Impossible to aim.

I know we were a lot more forgiving of low fps back in the day, but let's not forget that there was a lot of frustration from it as well.

Yes, back then we had no choice but to turn down settings, watch a slideshow, spend hundreds to upgrade ever year or not play the latest games... that's just how it was. These days, there is no reason to play any 3D accelerated D3D\OpenGL\Glide games at less than 60fps unless you just plain don't care or don't notice the difference.

You can pick up any old Pentium 4\D or Athlon XP\64 computer (Dell Dimension 4300\4600, Optiplex GX270, HP\Compaq workstation, etc.) that doesn't have blown caps, and whatever video card it has will likely be enough to have a good experience in games from the late 90s. If it uses integrated video and you need a video card, pick up an FX 5200 (usually dirt cheap still), Radeon 9600 (much faster), Geforce 6200 or if you need something in PCI-E grab a Radeon X300 or X600... these are all quite cheap and will allow a cheap\free Windows XP system to run all these games at speeds and settings we could only have dreamed of in the late 90s.

Save the Pentium MMX for games made before 1997. No sense in torturing yourself.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-26, 03:24:

Save the Pentium MMX for games made before 1997. No sense in torturing yourself.

Yes, is only for testing purposes, but i want the best performance possible, cause there are games precisely from before 1997 that needs all this extra power.

Grand prix 2 is a bit demanding, so it could be greater to have a better pentium machine (that write back mainboard would serve).

Or blood omen legacy of kain... jesus christ what a BAD performance for being a simple 2D game (although with some fancy illumination).

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-24, 19:06:

With this box, my options are limited. Some later revisions of the aptiva 2144 has better mainboards, so i ask for them... appar […]
Show full quote

theelf wrote on 2025-12-24, 08:30:

? there is nothing better than a Triton for classic pentium, and you have same performance already […]
Show full quote

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-24, 05:12:

So, with a better chipset, could be expected a better performance?.

? there is nothing better than a Triton for classic pentium, and you have same performance already

Forget, you will never get more performance, because there is no more

If you want more performance use different CPU

With this box, my options are limited. Some later revisions of the aptiva 2144 has better mainboards, so i ask for them... apparently it gets better performance with write back instead write through, What mainboards were those?.

IBM Aptiva 2144-M51, M63, or M71, with 633577 motherboard and chipset intel 430FX (Triton I), is the only information i have...

And i would like to ask for flashing my bios before thinking of that, Where would i get the flash aplication?.

Sorry if i ask too much! ^^u

Changed my Pentium 200 to use WT instead of WB, and I get 27,8fps on quake 1 timedemo 1 at fullscreen no lifebars 320x200

jh80 wrote on 2025-12-26, 01:23:

Completely agree. […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-12-25, 21:41:

The first video is the alpha of the game, not the release game, and it is clearly very sluggish. He can barely even hit things h […]
Show full quote

The first video is the alpha of the game, not the release game, and it is clearly very sluggish. He can barely even hit things he's pointing at.

The second video the player isn't even using a mouse (he's turning with the keys, which is super slow) and you can still tell it is sluggish and choppy, even in a youtube video.

The last one says they are using an S3 Virge, so yeah... hardware or software will be a slideshow.

Keep in mind, a video that looks basically sort of smooth-ish does not fully reflect the huge delay between mouse movement\clicks and the game reacting at 15-20fps.

Completely agree.

You might get 20-25 fps on a P200MMX in a plain hallway without any enemies on screen, but as soon as there's some action going on, it's going to be a slideshow (<10 fps).

Even in the above-linked video, look how bad the fps drops at 0:36 s when going through this slightly larger room with two characters on screen: https://youtu.be/-Puhajj28gs?si=UOyyP_VrgXU8XFB3&t=36

That's single-digit fps. Imagine what it will be like on the surface with 4 enemies on screen. Impossible to aim.

I know we were a lot more forgiving of low fps back in the day, but let's not forget that there was a lot of frustration from it as well.

Yeah but it did not drop below 10FPS for any significant duration on my P200MMX/V2 12MB (W95); I could never have finished the game if below 10FPS was quite common and I remember it running quite OK. It did come from a Twilight CD so it might have had music stripped out if there was any music in the game anyway. Looking at that video, I remember it running like that but the stutter like you see in the hallway only really happened when a large explosion/scripted event happened. Multiple enemies was no problem.

We were indeed a lot more tolerant to low fps back then, but even then around 16fps was my lower limit for "playable".

I'm not saying I had some magical super200mmx that ran HL1 at 60fps, and even solid 30fps was out of the question (at least at the highish resolution I used to play it). But it was very playable, which sub 10fps is not.

On youtube I see other examples of similar spec'ed pc's, both real hardware and 86box, that run hl1 as playable as I remember.

theelf wrote on 2025-12-26, 11:47:

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-24, 19:06:

With this box, my options are limited. Some later revisions of the aptiva 2144 has better mainboards, so i ask for them... appar […]
Show full quote

theelf wrote on 2025-12-24, 08:30:

? there is nothing better than a Triton for classic pentium, and you have same performance already

Forget, you will never get more performance, because there is no more

If you want more performance use different CPU

With this box, my options are limited. Some later revisions of the aptiva 2144 has better mainboards, so i ask for them... apparently it gets better performance with write back instead write through, What mainboards were those?.

IBM Aptiva 2144-M51, M63, or M71, with 633577 motherboard and chipset intel 430FX (Triton I), is the only information i have...

And i would like to ask for flashing my bios before thinking of that, Where would i get the flash aplication?.

Sorry if i ask too much! ^^u

Changed my Pentium 200 to use WT instead of WB, and I get 27,8fps on quake 1 timedemo 1 at fullscreen no lifebars 320x200

So, with write back i can gain some performance more.

I posted a couple of links of a mainboard before, i don't know if one of these could fit in my 2144.

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-28, 02:01:

theelf wrote on 2025-12-26, 11:47:

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-24, 19:06:

With this box, my options are limited. Some later revisions of the aptiva 2144 has better mainboards, so i ask for them... appar […]
Show full quote

With this box, my options are limited. Some later revisions of the aptiva 2144 has better mainboards, so i ask for them... apparently it gets better performance with write back instead write through, What mainboards were those?.

IBM Aptiva 2144-M51, M63, or M71, with 633577 motherboard and chipset intel 430FX (Triton I), is the only information i have...

And i would like to ask for flashing my bios before thinking of that, Where would i get the flash aplication?.

Sorry if i ask too much! ^^u

Changed my Pentium 200 to use WT instead of WB, and I get 27,8fps on quake 1 timedemo 1 at fullscreen no lifebars 320x200

So, with write back i can gain some performance more.

I posted a couple of links of a mainboard before, i don't know if one of these could fit in my 2144.

Maybe my english is not good... no way you will get more performance

Man, i have a triton board, exept for triton ii, istop performance for xlassic pentium, and i get 33fps

You get 34 !!

Do some test, 3dbench 1.0c 148fps, doom shareware 1.9 fullscreen no life bar, -timedemo demo3 2134/1005 realtiks = 74fps

You want more fps? forget classic pentium, buy a pentium 2

Pretty much as theelf said. There isn't anything wrong with your current performance. It's on par with other similarly configured systems. Your CPU isn't underperforming.
If you want better performance you need to upgrade.

There is no need to limit yourself to a Pentium. You need a better CPU, or a better system.
K6-2, Cyrix MII or a later system.

Found useful FastVid related website.

I've built and benchmarked my own Pentium (non-MMX) 200 MHz systems.

I get 43.3 FPS in Quake at 320x200.

This is running on a Gigabyte GA-586ATV (Intel 430VX) motherboard, 512kB l2 cache, 64MB of RAM, and using a Matrox Mystique 4MB PCI graphics card.

Only getting FPS around 33-34 does sound low for a Pentium 200 system. Even my Pentium 166 gets faster FPS than that.

theelf wrote on 2025-12-28, 02:12:

Maybe my english is not good... no way you will get more performance

Man, i have a triton board, exept for triton ii, istop performance for xlassic pentium, and i get 33fps

You get 34 !!

That does seem low though. I've previously benchmarked ~43 FPS on a Pentium 200 MHz.

My Pentium 166 gets about 39 FPS.

I've noticed both yours and the OPs systems have 256kB of L2 cache, whereas both of mine have 512kB. I wonder if the extra 256kB of cache be the reason for the performance difference?

Just comparing my Pentium Pro 256kB vs 512kB benchmarks, there's about 5-6 FPS difference there.

Señor Ventura wrote on 2025-12-25, 21:35:

-Half life is not bad with a pentium pro 200mhz and a voodoo 1: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bg5FXhty0u8 […]
Show full quote

-Half life is not bad with a pentium pro 200mhz and a voodoo 1:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bg5FXhty0u8

-Pentium mmx with voodoo 2 in pretty smooth at 800x600 as well:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Puhajj28gs&pp= … gcJCR4Bo7VqN5tD

-Pentium 133, bad performing, but, ¿software?:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fisb1sr7_Rk

Problem with Half-Life is that it can be smooth in one area and then unplayable in another.

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-12-30, 14:40:

That does seem low though. I get ~43 FPS in my own Pentium 200 in Quake (320x200). […]
Show full quote

theelf wrote on 2025-12-28, 02:12:

Maybe my english is not good... no way you will get more performance

Man, i have a triton board, exept for triton ii, istop performance for xlassic pentium, and i get 33fps

You get 34 !!

That does seem low though. I get ~43 FPS in my own Pentium 200 in Quake (320x200).

My Pentium 166 gets about 39 FPS.

I've noticed both yours and the OPs systems have 256kB of L2 cache, whereas both of mine have 512kB. I wonder if the extra 256kB of cache be the reason for the performance difference?

Just comparing my Pentium Pro 256kB vs 512kB benchmarks, there's about 5-6 FPS difference there.

Totally fullscreen? timedemo demo 3? demo1? sound or not sound?

For reference https://thandor.net/benchmark/33

here a pentium 166 five 39fps with TWO minus levels and nosound, my pentium 200 classic give 39fps with this same setup in demo1 and 38 in demo 3

What chipset? ram? triton 1 is a classic chipset pentium

theelf wrote on 2025-12-30, 17:03:

Totally fullscreen? timedemo demo 3? demo1? sound or not sound?

For reference https://thandor.net/benchmark/33

here a pentium 166 five 39fps with TWO mius levels and nosound, my pentium 200 classic give 39fps with this same setup in demo1 and 38 in demo 3

I'm using the Quake benchmark in Phil's DOS benchmark pack: https://www.philscomputerlab.com/dos-benchmark-pack.html

It uses demo1 full screen with no sound.

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-12-30, 17:08:

theelf wrote on 2025-12-30, 17:03:

Totally fullscreen? timedemo demo 3? demo1? sound or not sound?

For reference https://thandor.net/benchmark/33

here a pentium 166 five 39fps with TWO mius levels and nosound, my pentium 200 classic give 39fps with this same setup in demo1 and 38 in demo 3

I'm using the Quake benchmark in Phil's DOS benchmark pack: https://www.philscomputerlab.com/dos-benchmark-pack.html

It uses demo1 with no sound.

This benchmark is not good because in some point changed quake screen size, just cant know what your numbers are if you dont say screen level

theelf wrote on 2025-12-30, 17:11:

This benchmark is not good because in some poin changed quake screen size, just cant know what your numbers are if you dont say screen level

I just edited my post to note that it's running full screen.

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-12-30, 17:12:

theelf wrote on 2025-12-30, 17:11:

This benchmark is not good because in some poin changed quake screen size, just cant know what your numbers are if you dont say screen level

I just edited my post to note that it's running full screen.

Then you are faster than ANY benchmark out there

https://thandor.net/benchmark/33

My numbers are in line from most benchmark online of other people, and of course a classic pentium chipset. If you use new chipsets, PC100 ram etc faster bus you can get better performance, here i talk about 66x3 and standar 72pin ram

theelf wrote on 2025-12-30, 17:13:

Then you are faster than ANY benchmark out there […]
Show full quote

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-12-30, 17:12:

theelf wrote on 2025-12-30, 17:11:

This benchmark is not good because in some poin changed quake screen size, just cant know what your numbers are if you dont say screen level

I just edited my post to note that it's running full screen.

Then you are faster than ANY benchmark out there

https://thandor.net/benchmark/33

My numbers are in line from most benchmark online of other people, and of course a classic pentium chipset. If you use new chipsets, PC100 ram etc faster bus you can get better performance, here i talk about 66x3 and standar 72pin ram

Am I missing something or does that page not show what video card is being used for all of the CPU tests? That basically invalidates using that entire page to compare to anything outside of that page.

Likewise, the video card benchmarks do not say which CPU is being used. A very odd omission after doing all of that work. 🤷

Look at how huge the differences are between graphics chips when using a faster CPU:
https://www.vgamuseum.info/images/vlask/bench/quake320.png

Very likely the reason that Shponglefan's system is faster is because the Matrox Mystique 4MB is extremely fast in this test compared to other cards from the time. It is faster than any S3 card on the chart, and about 35% faster than the S3 Trio64V+ 2MB with EDO. With a significantly slower CPU the difference will be much smaller, but it could definitely account for the 10% performance difference... and even among S3 Trio64V+ cards there can be a difference in performance from one to the next.