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. 🤣

falloutboy wrote:

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 wi […]
Show full quote

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.

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.

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

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

It's insane to think that I've been benchmarking Quake 3 for over 17 years! 🤣 This is sad. Obviously not everyday but still. 😮

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, 1 […]
Show full quote

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.

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

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.

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

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

0.7 FPS, SiS 530 IGP, IBM 6x86L-PR200 OC 100x2=200MHz, GA-5SMM, 256MB SDRAM, XP SP3, PCI mode, 1024x768x16bpp color, 32bpp texture.

Thanks for the benchies.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

I got this every run...this might be the limit.

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.

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."