Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

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

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2019-1-13 @ 05:14

SPBHM wrote:all stock apart from the e2140.
816.3 FPS, SPBHM, Radeon HD 5850, Core i5 2310, H61, 8GB DDR3 1333 DC, Win 10 x64
301.7 FPS, SPBHM, Radeon HD 4670 DDR2 (750/400) PCIe, Pentium E2140@2133MHz, VIA P4M900, 3GB DDR2 533 SC, Win 7 SP1 x86


I decided to test the same PC that I used for the 5850 but with the current card and I'm a little surprised...

618.9 FPS, SPBHM, Radeon R7 370 2GB, Core i5 2310, H61, 8GB DDR3 1333 DC, Win 10 x64

also decided to test the PC that currently has the same "HD4670" and again...

274.1, SPBHM, Radeon HD 4670 DDR2 (750/400) PCIe, Celeron E1400@2.54GHz, G31, 4GB DDR2 850 DC, Win 10 x86

the 4670 maybe it makes sense because perhaps it's slower on windows 10? is it really hurt by half the l2 cache? but G31 is much faster than the other chipset and there is over 400MHz more.

the 370 being so much slower than the 5850 I can't explain, only thing that I could think made the PC slower are the Spectre/Meltdown patches since that previous test.... or it's just that the drivers are far less optimized for this!?

edit: OK, cache is everything,
I removed the 2.54GHz Celeron dual core, and on the same board placed an e7300 (2.66GHz), and...

460.6, SPBHM, Radeon HD 4670 DDR2 (750/400) PCIe, C2D e7300 @ 2.66GHz, G31, 4GB DDR2 800 DC, Win 10 x64
Last edited by SPBHM on 2019-2-17 @ 22:55, edited 1 time in total.
SPBHM
Oldbie
 
Posts: 593
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Almoststew1990 » 2019-1-16 @ 19:17

I tried out my 4770K and 1070ti and got 997fps (1.3 seconds) at 1280*1024, the max that my screen supports :p
Ryzen 3700X 4.4-ish GHz | 16GB DDR4 3600MHz | Nvidia 1070ti | 750GB NVMe
AM1 x4 3820 APU Thing | 6GB DDR1 | iGPU or GTX 650
Slot 1 PIII 450MHz | 256MB PC100 | Nvidia MX440 | AWE32 CT3910
User avatar
Almoststew1990
Member
 
Posts: 409
Joined: 2017-3-14 @ 19:48
Location: Southampton, UK

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby slivercr » 2019-3-31 @ 01:10

Dear Q3 benchmark experts that have R200-based graphics cards and SMP configurations, please help me explain the following behavior I encountered while benchmarking. Here are the numbers...

1280x1024, r_ext_compressed_textures 0
Code: Select all
r_smp 0
Run1  Run2  Run3  Run4  Run5
97.7  97.6  97.7  97.6  97.8

r_smp 1
Run1  Run2  Run3  Run4  Run5
114.9 107.2 107.1 107.3 107.2


1280x1024, r_ext_compressed_textures 1
Code: Select all
r_smp 0
Run1  Run2  Run3  Run4  Run5
99.0  99.0  99.0  99.0  98.9

r_smp 1
Run1  Run2  Run3  Run4  Run5
115.9 115.9 115.7 115.8 115.9


Why do I lose frames when enabling SMP if I leave r_ext_compressed_textures at its default value of 0? Notes and observations:
  • I'm using version 1.32;
  • this happens to me with both a Radeon 8500 64 MB @ 275/275 and a Radeon 9100 128 MB @ 250/250;
  • when benchmarking with r_smp 1 and r_ext_compressed_textures 0, running vid_restart between benchmarks will prevent the FPS loss;
  • the performance loss in successive benchmarks happens at all resolutions, but the higher the resolution the more noticeable it gets;
  • in the same machine, no GeForce card incurs in a similar performance loss when r_ext_compressed_textures 0;
  • varying r_primitives has no effect, its default value of 0 yields the best results.

Any ideas?
Outrigger: an ongoing adventure with the OR840
QuForce FX 5800: turn your Quadro into a GeForce
User avatar
slivercr
Member
 
Posts: 307
Joined: 2017-2-16 @ 18:00
Location: Groningen

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Kamerat » 2019-4-05 @ 12:39

129.7 FPS, Kamerat, Intel GMA 900 @ 400MHz, Intel Pentium M 745A @ 2556MHz, Lenovo 3000 C100, 2GB DDR2 SDRAM DC @ 284MHz CL3-2-2-4, XP-SP3
User avatar
Kamerat
Oldbie
 
Posts: 962
Joined: 2014-3-14 @ 19:09
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2019-4-07 @ 02:11

I'm now running my PIII at 1628MHz, so I thought I'd retest my 9800 Pro. My previous score @ 1575MHz was 208.6 FPS.

PIII-S @ 1628MHz, 155MHz FSB
2GB DDR @ 310MHz, 2-2-2-5
9800 Pro @ stock, Catalyst 4.12
X-Fi Platinum
QDI Advance 12T mobo, Via Apollo Pro266T chipset
WinXP Media Center 2005 SP3

1024x768, all settings maxed = 220.2 FPS
PIII-1628, 9800Pro-Q3A.png


This machine is now EXACTLY twice as fast as a PIII-850.
P3-850-Q3A-9800Pro.png


And 7 times faster than a P2-300!
P2-300-Q3A-9800Pro.png
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1002
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby athlon-power » 2019-4-15 @ 06:00

Now that I've got a graphics card that will perform acceptably, I'll go ahead and post my results here. Specs of the system are:

- Intel SE440BX-2 Motherboard
- Intel Pentium III Katmai 500MHz SL35E
- Single-stick 128MB PC133 RAM under-clocked by the motherboard to 100MHz.
- Creative Labs 3D Blaster 32MB (nVidia TNT2 32MB, 125MHz core, 150MHz memory, 128-bit memory bus)
- Cobra AW744L-II PCI (Yamaha YMF744)
- Samsung SC-148F 48x IDE CD-ROM
- Western Digital WD400 40GB IDE HDD
- 3Com EtherLink XL 3C905C-TX 10/100 PCI
- Mitsumi 1.44MB 3.5" Floppy Diskette Drive

I got 24.5 FPS.

When my system was using the 16MB TNT2 Pro I had (143MHz core, 166MHz memory, 128-bit memory bus), I got a whopping 9.8FPS average. I'm unsure as to why this is- the only edge that my current TNT2 has over my old TNT2 Pro is that it has 32MB of VRAM. I guess Quake III favors cards with more VRAM, I'm not sure.

IMG_20190415_014506.jpg


IMG_20190415_014702.jpg


Also, I noticed the extreme differences between the other systems used in the first post as compared to mine. Some people were getting ~38FPS average with a Pentium II 350! All of those systems had a 3DFX Voodoo of some kind in them, most of them used Voodoo 3 cards. I guess that's the power of Glide.
User avatar
athlon-power
Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: 2018-9-29 @ 00:15

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby Garrett W » 2019-4-15 @ 07:34

You are using 32bit color depth which probably kills performance on the poor TNT2. Pull it back to 16bit and performance will see a huge boost.
User avatar
Garrett W
Member
 
Posts: 119
Joined: 2018-9-23 @ 09:54

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby slivercr » 2019-4-15 @ 10:01

slivercr wrote:Dear Q3 benchmark experts that have R200-based graphics cards and SMP configurations, please help me explain the following behavior I encountered while benchmarking. Here are the numbers...

1280x1024, r_ext_compressed_textures 0
Code: Select all
r_smp 0
Run1  Run2  Run3  Run4  Run5
97.7  97.6  97.7  97.6  97.8

r_smp 1
Run1  Run2  Run3  Run4  Run5
114.9 107.2 107.1 107.3 107.2


1280x1024, r_ext_compressed_textures 1
Code: Select all
r_smp 0
Run1  Run2  Run3  Run4  Run5
99.0  99.0  99.0  99.0  98.9

r_smp 1
Run1  Run2  Run3  Run4  Run5
115.9 115.9 115.7 115.8 115.9


Why do I lose frames when enabling SMP if I leave r_ext_compressed_textures at its default value of 0? Notes and observations:
  • I'm using version 1.32;
  • this happens to me with both a Radeon 8500 64 MB @ 275/275 and a Radeon 9100 128 MB @ 250/250;
  • when benchmarking with r_smp 1 and r_ext_compressed_textures 0, running vid_restart between benchmarks will prevent the FPS loss;
  • the performance loss in successive benchmarks happens at all resolutions, but the higher the resolution the more noticeable it gets;
  • in the same machine, no GeForce card incurs in a similar performance loss when r_ext_compressed_textures 0;
  • varying r_primitives has no effect, its default value of 0 yields the best results.

Any ideas?

Bump.

Any idea why r_ext_compressed_textures set to 0 malfunctions with R200 GPUs when SMP mode is used? It was pointed out before in this thread that it could be safely disabled if the GPU in use had 64 MB of memory or more. Should I just accept it as a lovable quirkiness of a bygone era with poor SMP support?
Outrigger: an ongoing adventure with the OR840
QuForce FX 5800: turn your Quadro into a GeForce
User avatar
slivercr
Member
 
Posts: 307
Joined: 2017-2-16 @ 18:00
Location: Groningen

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby athlon-power » 2019-4-15 @ 11:06

havli wrote:The requirements are:
1. demo001
2. 1024x768 resolution (windowed mode also allowed)
3. 32-bit colors and textures (except Voodoo3 and possibly other 16-bit only capable HW), Lightmap lighting and full details


Garrett W wrote:You are using 32bit color depth which probably kills performance on the poor TNT2. Pull it back to 16bit and performance will see a huge boost.


That's the official requirements of the benchmark, though- completely maxed out settings, save for the resolution. There's no way I'd ever actually run the game at these settings, it would probably be too slow, I just use the High Quality preset (even though I think that uses 32 bit color as well), and it's more than playable. I'll probably run it at the same settings, save for setting the color to 16-bit, when I get home later today, and see what results I get from that.
User avatar
athlon-power
Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: 2018-9-29 @ 00:15

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby matze79 » 2019-4-15 @ 11:52

slivercr wrote:Dear Q3 benchmark experts that have R200-based graphics cards and SMP configurations, please help me explain the following behavior I encountered while benchmarking. Here are the numbers...


as far as i know enabling SMP only moves Audio to second processor.
So music and soundeffects are running on CPU #2.
https://dosreloaded.de - The German Retro DOS PC Community
https://www.retroianer.de
matze79
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: 2014-12-12 @ 14:25
Location: Germany, Frankonia

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby slivercr » 2019-4-15 @ 12:23

matze79 wrote:
slivercr wrote:Dear Q3 benchmark experts that have R200-based graphics cards and SMP configurations, please help me explain the following behavior I encountered while benchmarking. Here are the numbers...


as far as i know enabling SMP only moves Audio to second processor.
So music and soundeffects are running on CPU #2.


Hmmm, I've had performance improvements when benchmarking with no soundcard installed, so what you're saying may be partially true, but its not the whole story.

But from your post can I guess you're hinting at a driver issue with ATI, compressed textures, and SMP?
Outrigger: an ongoing adventure with the OR840
QuForce FX 5800: turn your Quadro into a GeForce
User avatar
slivercr
Member
 
Posts: 307
Joined: 2017-2-16 @ 18:00
Location: Groningen

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby matze79 » 2019-4-15 @ 12:54

What about Nvidia ? is the Quadro Driver SMP aware ?
https://dosreloaded.de - The German Retro DOS PC Community
https://www.retroianer.de
matze79
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: 2014-12-12 @ 14:25
Location: Germany, Frankonia

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby matze79 » 2019-4-15 @ 12:57

Found a description about SMP on Q3 Engine:

http://fabiensanglard.net/quake3/renderer.php
https://dosreloaded.de - The German Retro DOS PC Community
https://www.retroianer.de
matze79
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: 2014-12-12 @ 14:25
Location: Germany, Frankonia

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby slivercr » 2019-4-15 @ 12:57

matze79 wrote:What about Nvidia ? is the Quadro Driver SMP aware ?

With GeForce cards I have no similar troubles, I get a performance boost and the performance of successive benchmarks doesn't deteriorate, no matter the setting of compressed textures.

EDIT:
matze79 wrote:Found a description about SMP on Q3 Engine:

http://fabiensanglard.net/quake3/renderer.php

Beautiful! I'll give it a read.
Outrigger: an ongoing adventure with the OR840
QuForce FX 5800: turn your Quadro into a GeForce
User avatar
slivercr
Member
 
Posts: 307
Joined: 2017-2-16 @ 18:00
Location: Groningen

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby 65C02 » 2019-4-16 @ 17:53

Standard Def Steve wrote:I'm now running my PIII at 1628MHz, so I thought I'd retest my 9800 Pro. My previous score @ 1575MHz was 208.6 FPS.

PIII-S @ 1628MHz, 155MHz FSB
2GB DDR @ 310MHz, 2-2-2-5
9800 Pro @ stock, Catalyst 4.12
X-Fi Platinum
QDI Advance 12T mobo, Via Apollo Pro266T chipset
WinXP Media Center 2005 SP3

1024x768, all settings maxed = 220.2 FPS
PIII-1628, 9800Pro-Q3A.png


This machine is now EXACTLY twice as fast as a PIII-850.
P3-850-Q3A-9800Pro.png


And 7 times faster than a P2-300!
P2-300-Q3A-9800Pro.png


Radeon 9800 is a pretty new card for the Pentium II/III. The video driver is probably leveraging the SSE instructions on the PIIIs making them much more efficient than the P2. As I recall, the PII wasn't much slower than PIII when SSE instructions weren't being used.

Running the timedemo on my Celeron 466 with GeForce 4MX-440 nets approximately 45 FPS. It's not great, but I would have been happy with it 20 years ago. :blush:
65C02
Newbie
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 2019-4-16 @ 01:38

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2019-4-16 @ 18:23

65C02 wrote:
Standard Def Steve wrote:I'm now running my PIII at 1628MHz, so I thought I'd retest my 9800 Pro. My previous score @ 1575MHz was 208.6 FPS.

PIII-S @ 1628MHz, 155MHz FSB
2GB DDR @ 310MHz, 2-2-2-5
9800 Pro @ stock, Catalyst 4.12
X-Fi Platinum
QDI Advance 12T mobo, Via Apollo Pro266T chipset
WinXP Media Center 2005 SP3

1024x768, all settings maxed = 220.2 FPS
PIII-1628, 9800Pro-Q3A.png


This machine is now EXACTLY twice as fast as a PIII-850.
P3-850-Q3A-9800Pro.png


And 7 times faster than a P2-300!
P2-300-Q3A-9800Pro.png


Radeon 9800 is a pretty new card for the Pentium II/III. The video driver is probably leveraging the SSE instructions on the PIIIs making them much more efficient than the P2. As I recall, the PII wasn't much slower than PIII when SSE instructions weren't being used.

Running the timedemo on my Celeron 466 with GeForce 4MX-440 nets approximately 45 FPS. It's not great, but I would have been happy with it 20 years ago. :blush:


it depends on the flavor of P3, Katmai or Coppermine, the 850 is Coppermine so it should be a good amount faster than PII even at the same clock and without SSE, if anything due to the much more effective l2 cache, and quake 3 seems to love some good l2 cache.



actually his scores kind of makes me wonder, how far a Coppermine could go with the same amount of love, max clock with that FSB and ram configuration,
because as cool as Tualatin is... I can help but always remind myself that it's newer than Pentium 4 :lol:

Celeron 466 at least had faster l2 cache, the PII 300 runs its l2 cache at 150MHz
SPBHM
Oldbie
 
Posts: 593
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby 65C02 » 2019-4-17 @ 17:51

SPBHM wrote:
65C02 wrote:
Standard Def Steve wrote:I'm now running my PIII at 1628MHz, so I thought I'd retest my 9800 Pro. My previous score @ 1575MHz was 208.6 FPS.

PIII-S @ 1628MHz, 155MHz FSB
2GB DDR @ 310MHz, 2-2-2-5
9800 Pro @ stock, Catalyst 4.12
X-Fi Platinum
QDI Advance 12T mobo, Via Apollo Pro266T chipset
WinXP Media Center 2005 SP3

1024x768, all settings maxed = 220.2 FPS
PIII-1628, 9800Pro-Q3A.png


This machine is now EXACTLY twice as fast as a PIII-850.
P3-850-Q3A-9800Pro.png


And 7 times faster than a P2-300!
P2-300-Q3A-9800Pro.png


Radeon 9800 is a pretty new card for the Pentium II/III. The video driver is probably leveraging the SSE instructions on the PIIIs making them much more efficient than the P2. As I recall, the PII wasn't much slower than PIII when SSE instructions weren't being used.

Running the timedemo on my Celeron 466 with GeForce 4MX-440 nets approximately 45 FPS. It's not great, but I would have been happy with it 20 years ago. :blush:


it depends on the flavor of P3, Katmai or Coppermine, the 850 is Coppermine so it should be a good amount faster than PII even at the same clock and without SSE, if anything due to the much more effective l2 cache, and quake 3 seems to love some good l2 cache.



actually his scores kind of makes me wonder, how far a Coppermine could go with the same amount of love, max clock with that FSB and ram configuration,
because as cool as Tualatin is... I can help but always remind myself that it's newer than Pentium 4 :lol:

Celeron 466 at least had faster l2 cache, the PII 300 runs its l2 cache at 150MHz

Hmm, I was looking up some specs on these chips. The Pentium II and Celeron have 64-bit caches busses, whilst Coppermine and Tualatin have 256-bit busses. I suppose this would improve the gaming performance of these chips substantially! :)
65C02
Newbie
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 2019-4-16 @ 01:38

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2019-4-24 @ 23:56

SPBHM wrote: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


same PC with a Voodoo 4 4500
K6-2 533, VIA MVP4, 128MB PC97, Voodoo 4 4500 PCI, ESS onboard, Win98SE: 31.0 fps

quake3-k62-v4500.jpg
SPBHM
Oldbie
 
Posts: 593
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby rcarkk » 2019-5-01 @ 21:30

Just to confirm the settings. Should we use the absolute maximum settings and 32bit colors except trilinear filtering? Or should we use high quality preset settings without trilinear filtering?
rcarkk
Newbie
 
Posts: 34
Joined: 2018-8-16 @ 19:03

Re: Quake III Arena Benchmark Thread

Postby rcarkk » 2019-5-01 @ 23:50

My results for a Matrox G400 32MB and 2x 3Dfx Voodoo 2 12MB in SLI on a Pentium III-S 1.26Ghz running on a QDI Advance 10T with Via Apollo Pro 133T and 256MB of PC133 at 2-2-2-2 timmings. Sound card is a Live! 5.1 digital and OS is Win98 SE.

6.23 drivers + G400 @125/166Mhz = 38.1fps @16bit
6.23 drivers + G400 @125/166Mhz = 25.4fps @32bit

Latest reference drivers + Voodoo 2 12MB SLI = 28.2fps @16bit (with 2nd highest texture resolution, because at max res, the framerate is very low due to only 12MB)
rcarkk
Newbie
 
Posts: 34
Joined: 2018-8-16 @ 19:03

PreviousNext

Return to Video

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests