Hello, these CPU charts are great, but I've just noticed one strange thing, that I don't understand.
Lets look at Havli's benchamark of GLQuake. And compare them to Philscomputerlabs voodoo2 scaling project.
In case, I provide links to both tests CPU scaling tests:
https://www.cnews.cz/test-historickych-proces … il-i-1995-1999/
https://www.philscomputerlab.com/uploads/3/7/ … ing_project.pdf
There is huge differance between FPS in GLQuake and I don't know why.
GLQuake 800x600
Havli's test on voodoo3:
P233MMX: 27,6 fps
P166: 14,8 fps
Phils test on voodoo2 (but as CPU is bottleneck, voodoo2 SLI ~ voodoo3 2000 values are same)
P233MMX: 69,2 fps
P166: 57.9 fps
Both are on Supersocket 7 platform. Havli used Ali Aladdin V chipset, Phil used Via Apollo MVP3, but differences shouldn't be too much.
Now, when you compare for example Pentium II CPU's
Havli's Pentium II 450: 80.7 fps
Phils Pentium II 400: 71.3 fps (but voodoo2 have there limit around 70, even with faster CPU, FPS is doesn't rise) so let's use voodoo2 SLI value,
that should match voodoo3
Phils Pentium II 400 (voodoo2 SLI~voodoo3 2000) : 126,8 fps
What's going on here? Why have Havli so little score with Voodoo3? Can it be because of Windows XP drivers? I think GLQuake have only Glide mode, so it cannot be because OpenGL Mini driver, instead of Glide.
What's holding back Havli's performance by huge margin (in some cases, like Pentium 166, even 4x less FPS).