Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Discussion about old graphics cards, monitors and video related things.

Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-4-13 @ 02:02

I am getting much less than expected performance on my windows 98 machine, in particular with Unreal Gold. My average FPS with 32 bit colors, in D3D and 1024x768 is 12.13 fps in the flyover timedemo. I should be getting at least 50 frames all the way up to 1600x1200 correct? I am also unable to get more than 180fps in quake II no matter what settings I run at. I performed some benchmarks. Are these about what I should expect?


Athlon 64 3000+
Quadro FX 2000 (driver version 56.13)
512mb DDR
Windows 98SE with unofficial SP3
Directx 7.0a

Unreal Gold - D3D 32 bit
640x480 14fps
1024x768 12.1fps

Unreal Gold - D3D 16 bit
640x480 85fps
1024x768 85fps
1600x1200 71fps

Quake II - 3.05 32bit
640X480: 179.7 fps
1024x768 155.7 fps
1600x1200 107.7 fps
1600x1200 16xAA, 8xAF 68.4fps


Quake II software - 32 bit
640x480 83.2fps
1024x768 38.8 fps
1600x1200 17.7 fps

Quake III - Highest Settings
640x480 201.4fps
1024x768 155.2 fps
1600x1200 100fps
1600x1200 8xAF 70fps

3d mark 99 - (default settings)
3DMark Result 8,3999
Synthetic CPU 3D Speed 44,6111
Rasterizer Score 18,247

3d makr 2000 - (default settings)
3DMark Result 14670
CPU Speed 645
Game 1 - Helicopter - Low Detail 256.4fps
Game 1 - Helicopter - Medium Detail 196.9fps
Game 1 - Helicopter - High Detail 113fps
Game 1 - Adventure - High Detail 100.6fps
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 511
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby feipoa » 2019-4-13 @ 04:02

You might want to list all of which drivers you've tested (I assume you tried more than one?) and what your system specs are.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t++
 
Posts: 6515
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-4-13 @ 04:39

feipoa wrote:You might want to list all of which drivers you've tested (I assume you tried more than one?) and what your system specs are.


Athlon 64 3000+
Asus K8V-X Socket 754
512mb DDR
Aureal Vortex 2 PCI (driver version 2.08)
Nvidia Quadro FX 2000 (driver versions 45.23, 56.13)
120gb SSD (IDE to SSD adapter)
CD/DVD IDE drive

Windows 98SE with unofficial Service Pack 3 installed
DirectX 7.0a

I have tried two different version of the nvidia drivers and they performed pretty much the same.

The next thing I am going to try is flashing my quadro to a geforce and see if that does anything. The 13 fps in unreal though seems to me like some kind of larger software issues. Is there something I am missing in my setup?
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 511
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby cyclone3d » 2019-4-13 @ 04:57

Well, for one, the newer versions of the unofficial SP3 for Win98 are pretty much trash from personal experience.

Just install standard 98SE and use the Microsoft update CD... available here:
http://www.vogonsdrivers.com/getfile.php?fileid=873&menustate=

And if you want USB storage support, install this:
https://www.vogonsdrivers.com/getfile.php?fileid=1035&menustate=0

Also take a look at this.. it may just be a buggy D3D renderer:
https://www.gog.com/forum/unreal_series/what_renderer_for_unreal_gold
User avatar
cyclone3d
l33t
 
Posts: 3379
Joined: 2015-4-08 @ 06:06
Location: Huntsville, AL USA

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby feipoa » 2019-4-13 @ 05:08

cyclone3d wrote:Well, for one, the newer versions of the unofficial SP3 for Win98 are pretty much trash from personal experience.

Is version 2.1a the last OK version?
User avatar
feipoa
l33t++
 
Posts: 6515
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-4-14 @ 21:18

I think I got it fixed. I am now getting 237fps in Quake II at 640x480, which seems right in line with the numbers Phil put up in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRhm4aGNI3o

1) Reinstalled Windows 98. Didn't bother with Sp3 or security updates, just running stock.
2) Install Nvidia drivers v 56.64. I saw a lot better frames compared to 45.23.
3) Installed Rivatuner, and setup my Quadro to run as a FX 5800.
4) Overclocked to 469mhz core and 900mhz memory.
5) Installed directx 7.0a.
6) Install games and patches

I am not sure what is wrong with my install of unreal gold, with 32bit colors I max out at 20 fps, but it runs maxed out at 16bit colors flawlessly. Not a huge deal. The 227 unofficial patch is unfortunately not compatible with 98, but the game runs great on my XP machine. Alien vs Predator runs just fine in 32bit colors with D3D, so I think everything in my setup is ok.
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 511
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby feipoa » 2019-4-14 @ 22:12

mothergoose729 wrote:3) Installed Rivatuner, and setup my Quadro to run as a FX 5800.

If you leave it setup as a Quadro FX2000, how much does the framerate drop?
User avatar
feipoa
l33t++
 
Posts: 6515
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-4-14 @ 23:31

feipoa wrote:
mothergoose729 wrote:3) Installed Rivatuner, and setup my Quadro to run as a FX 5800.

If you leave it setup as a Quadro FX2000, how much does the framerate drop?


The highest score I got in quake II was 180 fps with the Quadro FX, but this was on quake II patch 3.05. Upgrading to patch 3.20 and installing the 3DNow! patch also helped, as did upgrading my drivers to version 56.64, and overclocking. I saw a 20fps increase by applying the Quake II patches, so I probably would have got 200fps with the Quadro on the same drivers. I think the base clock on my gpu was 300mhz on the core, and it overclocked to 469mhz just using the auto setting (very likely can go higher, no idea though).

On patch 45.23, with a fresh intall of quake on patch 3.05, I got 119fps in Quake II at 640x480. So for me, proper configuration literally doubled my fps.

Phil tested the same card and found that Quadro and FX performed pretty much the same, but he also found that 45.23 performed the same as 56.64, so there are definitely some differences in my experience from his.
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 511
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby feipoa » 2019-4-14 @ 23:51

With everything else kept constant, do you how much setting the "Quadro to run as an FX 5800" helped with the results? From your response, it sounds like other changes were made simultaneously. Just using different Quake versions, for example, I've noticed different benchmark results.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t++
 
Posts: 6515
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-4-15 @ 01:30

feipoa wrote:With everything else kept constant, do you how much setting the "Quadro to run as an FX 5800" helped with the results? From your response, it sounds like other changes were made simultaneously. Just using different Quake versions, for example, I've noticed different benchmark results.


When set to a Quadro with the same drivers I got 155fps at 1024x768 in Quake III, maxed out settings.

With the Geforce I get 168 fps. If I set the quality preset to high performance I get 177 fps. When I overclock I get 187 fps.

At 1600x1200 with 4xAF, no AA, Quality preset in the drivers and Vsync on I get 101fps at 1600x1200, compared to 100fps with the Quadro and no AF.

I could flash it back to a Quadro and test again, but I am reluctant to do that now that it is working so well... Phil has a couple videos on the topic, and his information is probably better than mine anyhow.
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 511
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby feipoa » 2019-4-15 @ 10:16

That's pretty interestsing. I haven't played with Rivatuner yet. From these numbers, are you able to discern the difference during actual gameplay? Or do you need a more demanding game for the benefits of the flash to be more apparent? I have a Quadro FX3000 but left it as a Quadro.
User avatar
feipoa
l33t++
 
Posts: 6515
Joined: 2011-3-07 @ 13:54
Location: Canada

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby Garrett W » 2019-4-15 @ 12:30

For Unreal, you want an alternate renderer. Both D3D and oGL are pretty poor, the game was designed with Software and Glide in mind, which is something to keep in mind with other UE1 games as well (UT, Deus Ex, Rune, Undying etc). The GOG thread referenced earlier in the page should help out.
User avatar
Garrett W
Member
 
Posts: 111
Joined: 2018-9-23 @ 09:54

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-4-15 @ 16:12

feipoa wrote:That's pretty interestsing. I haven't played with Rivatuner yet. From these numbers, are you able to discern the difference during actual gameplay? Or do you need a more demanding game for the benefits of the flash to be more apparent? I have a Quadro FX3000 but left it as a Quadro.


Probably not, no. Setting my card to a geforce has made everything more consistent and has made comparing my performance to other machines easier. I also find that the nvida control panel settings are more useful and relevant to gaming when it thinks you have a geforce.

One interesting thing I noticed is that forcing AA through the nvidia control panel on my card as quadro didn't seem to do anything. I thought I was chewing through Quake II at 1600x1200 with 16xAA, but once I flashed my card to a geforce and set AA in the driver I found my framerate plummeted. That could mean that the Quadro drivers are 10,000% more efficient at implementing AA in games, or more likely the AA effects were not being applied at all.

Phil found that geforce and the quadro had identical performance in opengl, and that the gerforce had a 10%-20% advantage in D3D compared to the quadro.
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 511
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-4-15 @ 16:17

Garrett W wrote:For Unreal, you want an alternate renderer. Both D3D and oGL are pretty poor, the game was designed with Software and Glide in mind, which is something to keep in mind with other UE1 games as well (UT, Deus Ex, Rune, Undying etc). The GOG thread referenced earlier in the page should help out.


The only patch I could find for Unreal was the 227 patch, and it isn't compatible with windows 98. I could use nGlide to force 3dfx mode, but that is limited to 16 bit colors too (or is it the same as the desktop?) and it requires direct X 9.0c, where the more compatible direct X version is 7.0a from what I have read.

Does anyone have some experience or recommendations with glide wrappers on 98 they would want to share? I haven't found a way to make use of it on my system yet, mostly because of the 9.0c requirements.
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 511
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby swaaye » 2019-4-16 @ 00:09

Zeckensack's Glide Wrapper uses OpenGL and is great with Geforce FX hardware. It benefits from the hardware support for palettized textures. It works with 98SE and it works very well with Unreal engine games.

There should be an OldUnreal that works on 98. Unfortunately I forgot the version. Also, UTGLR version 3.4 works on 98SE.
swaaye
Moderator
 
Posts: 7487
Joined: 2002-7-22 @ 21:24
Location: WI, USA

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-4-16 @ 00:14

swaaye wrote:Zeckensack's Glide Wrapper uses OpenGL and is great with Geforce FX hardware.


Definitely going to try that thanks. I would assume that like other opengl software, the bit depth is determined by your desktop settings?
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 511
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby swaaye » 2019-4-16 @ 00:15

mothergoose729 wrote:
swaaye wrote:Zeckensack's Glide Wrapper uses OpenGL and is great with Geforce FX hardware.


Definitely going to try that thanks. I would assume that like other opengl software, the bit depth is determined by your desktop settings?

I believe it always outputs 32-bit color. But maybe it is linked to desktop color depth. Not sure.
swaaye
Moderator
 
Posts: 7487
Joined: 2002-7-22 @ 21:24
Location: WI, USA

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-4-16 @ 05:41

swaaye wrote:
mothergoose729 wrote:
swaaye wrote:Zeckensack's Glide Wrapper uses OpenGL and is great with Geforce FX hardware.


Definitely going to try that thanks. I would assume that like other opengl software, the bit depth is determined by your desktop settings?

I believe it always outputs 32-bit color. But maybe it is linked to desktop color depth. Not sure.


I gave it a try on unreal gold and it worked ok. The framerate was very decent, but I noticed some flashing white textures in a scenes with dynamic lighting. I couldn't seem to set a profile to make those go away. Are there some settings you would recommend?

It might work better for a different game, unreal is all I have tried right now.
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 511
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby swaaye » 2019-4-16 @ 17:27

Which version of Unreal are you using? The Glide renderer underwent various changes. Support for multitexturing on Voodoo2 was added at one point, for example. You probably want to be on the latest official release.

By the way, according to a 2016 post here, OldUnreal 227d will work on 98.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35778&p=485179#p485104
https://oldunreal.com/oldunrealpatches.html
swaaye
Moderator
 
Posts: 7487
Joined: 2002-7-22 @ 21:24
Location: WI, USA

Re: Underperforming? Quadro FX 2000 windows 98

Postby mothergoose729 » 2019-4-16 @ 17:56

You are a treasure, thank you! Going to try that next.

My copy Unreal gold comes at patch 226 nearest I can tell. I haven't patch the game at all.
mothergoose729
Oldbie
 
Posts: 511
Joined: 2018-4-10 @ 03:04

Next

Return to Video

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: konc and 4 guests