cxm717 wrote:

rcarkk wrote:

Is the card overclocked with those 160/166Mhz settings?

Nope. The card was running stock clocks. Here are some pics of the card https://imgur.com/a/jR9lfNo

Looks like it´s even faster than the Savage 4 Extreme. Rare card.

cxm717 wrote:

Here are some stock and OC results on my G400Max. Both running the 555 driver with the 1.3 TurboGL. […]
Show full quote

Here are some stock and OC results on my G400Max. Both running the 555 driver with the 1.3 TurboGL.

The G400 at stock clocks:

g400sys.png

g40032.png

and OCed:

g400ocsys.png

g400oc32.png

I really need to try the 5.55 drivers. Turbo GL seems to help Quake 3 performance. Interesting to see that the G400 Max is faster than the TNT2 Ultra with bilinear filtering and 32bit on Quake 3.

cxm717 wrote:

rcarkk wrote:

Very good fps for the GF256 SDR. Can you do another benchmark with Trilinear filtering enabled? My V5 5500 on a PIII Coop 866Mh […]
Show full quote

cxm717 wrote:

Here is my Geforce256 SDR on the same OR840 setup:

p3gfsys.png

q3gfsdr3082.png

Very good fps for the GF256 SDR. Can you do another benchmark with Trilinear filtering enabled?
My V5 5500 on a PIII Coop 866Mhz scored only 51.7fps @1024x768 with Trilinear filtering on, and the TNT2 Ultra is scoring 31fps in the same machine and same settings.
I always thought the V5 5500 is faster than GF256 SDR and the TNT2 Ultra was only 30% slower than GF256 SDR.

I can run more tests once I'm done with the G400. From what I remember the Geforce got about 55fps with trilinear. Keep in mind this version of Q3 defaults to s3tc enabled, that probably makes a difference (for the SDR version at least). New versions of Q3 seem to default to disabled.

In the mean time, i will test the GF256 DDR to see if it´s considerably faster than the SDR version.

P4 2.4@3.0GHz, Asus P4PE, 1GB DDR333 SC, EVGA FX5900SE, Onboard sound, WinXP SP3: 280.7 fps
OP settings

cxm717 wrote:

Here are some stock and OC results on my G400Max. Both running the 555 driver with the 1.3 TurboGL. […]
Show full quote

Here are some stock and OC results on my G400Max. Both running the 555 driver with the 1.3 TurboGL.

The G400 at stock clocks:

g400sys.png

g40032.png

and OCed:

g400ocsys.png

g400oc32.png

Is the 1.3 TurboGL included in the 5.55 driver? Is that the final driver with TurboGL? How does the TurboGL installation process work - do you just install the driver and that's it?

I will replace a GF2MX PCı with G450 PCI tonight, so I wanted to know. I tried the OpenGL ICD drivers earlier and gaming performance left a lot to be desired, they seem to have been coded with applications in mind, or something.

rcarkk wrote:

In the mean time, i will test the GF256 DDR to see if it´s considerably faster than the SDR version.

Here is the Geforce SDR with trilinear:

appiah4 wrote:

cxm717 wrote:

Here are some stock and OC results on my G400Max. Both running the 555 driver with the 1.3 TurboGL. […]
Show full quote

Here are some stock and OC results on my G400Max. Both running the 555 driver with the 1.3 TurboGL.

The G400 at stock clocks:

g400sys.png

g40032.png

and OCed:

g400ocsys.png

g400oc32.png

Is the 1.3 TurboGL included in the 5.55 driver? Is that the final driver with TurboGL? How does the TurboGL installation process work - do you just install the driver and that's it?

I will replace a GF2MX PCı with G450 PCI tonight, so I wanted to know. I tried the OpenGL ICD drivers earlier and gaming performance left a lot to be desired, they seem to have been coded with applications in mind, or something.

Matrox dropped support for the TGL before the G450 released and wasn't supported with the 6xx drivers. The newest TGL does have its own installer (some of the 5xx drivers do come with a version of the TGL) and will not install with the 6xx drivers. I tried it anyways with some of the 6xx drivers by installing it with an older driver and then just keeping the opengl32.dll file. Anyways, it does work with the 603 drivers and I tried it on the G450 AGP. The performance was very good on the G400max but on the G450 it was slower than the ICD. I didn't try it on the G450 PCI though, so who knows. One thing I need to do is test different drivers on the G450PCI, to see if maybe some of the older ones run quake2 better.

I added the TGL file for the Pentium 3. There is a different version for the K6, Athlon and Pentium 2 also.

cxm717 wrote:

One thing I need to do is test different drivers on the G450PCI, to see if maybe some of the older ones run quake2 better.

A G450 ICD driver that has no issues with Quake 2 would be very interesting for me..

cxm717 wrote:

appiah4 wrote:

cxm717 wrote:

Here are some stock and OC results on my G400Max. Both running the 555 driver with the 1.3 TurboGL. […]
Show full quote

Here are some stock and OC results on my G400Max. Both running the 555 driver with the 1.3 TurboGL.

The G400 at stock clocks:

g400sys.png

g40032.png

and OCed:

g400ocsys.png

g400oc32.png

Is the 1.3 TurboGL included in the 5.55 driver? Is that the final driver with TurboGL? How does the TurboGL installation process work - do you just install the driver and that's it?

I will replace a GF2MX PCı with G450 PCI tonight, so I wanted to know. I tried the OpenGL ICD drivers earlier and gaming performance left a lot to be desired, they seem to have been coded with applications in mind, or something.

Matrox dropped support for the TGL before the G450 released and wasn't supported with the 6xx drivers. The newest TGL does have its own installer (some of the 5xx drivers do come with a version of the TGL) and will not install with the 6xx drivers. I tried it anyways with some of the 6xx drivers by installing it with an older driver and then just keeping the opengl32.dll file. Anyways, it does work with the 603 drivers and I tried it on the G450 AGP. The performance was very good on the G400max but on the G450 it was slower than the ICD. I didn't try it on the G450 PCI though, so who knows. One thing I need to do is test different drivers on the G450PCI, to see if maybe some of the older ones run quake2 better.

I added the TGL file for the Pentium 3. There is a different version for the K6, Athlon and Pentium 2 also.

Do you suggest installing 555 drivers with the already supplied TurboGL driver? Can i intall the TurboGL file you atached on top of 555 driver version?

I don't think the 555 drivers have a TGL included (the 530 and 541 do though). The 1.3 TGL has its own installer. You can get the TGL here https://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/support/dr … isplay2/#OpenGL

cxm717 wrote:

I don't think the 555 drivers have a TGL included (the 530 and 541 do though). The 1.3 TGL has its own installer. You can get the TGL here https://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/support/dr … isplay2/#OpenGL

Ok then. What driver version do you recommend for the G400 series in W9x? And needs to be TGL 1.3 compatible.

Some Haswell IGP fun.

Core i5-4670 running at Turbo Boost frequency (3.8GHz), 16GB DDR3-1600 CL9-9-9-24, Intel HD-4600 graphics, Win7 x64
All settings maxed @ 1024x768 = 625.5 FPS

It's just amazing how much IGP performance has improved over the years. And Haswell's IGP is nowhere near as fast as the Ryzen APUs. I wouldn't be surprised if those could hit the 1000FPS limit.

My Pentium 3 PC benched, all settings max:

GPU & CPU period-correct list (2002) - 1024x768
127.0 fps, appiah4,Abit Siluro GeForce 4 Ti4200 (Stock), PIII 1200/133 (stock, 1C/1T), Gigabyte GA-6OXT (Intel i815EP), 384MB SDR PC133

Here's your first PowerPC result!

PowerMac G4 MDD, dual G4 1.25GHz (166MHz FSB, 256K on-die L2 cache, 2MB external L3 cache per CPU), 2GB PC2700 DDR, GeForce 7800GS AGP, OS X 10.4.11
1024x768, all maxed.

Well, the G4 sure sucked at Doom3, but Quake 3 is a completely different story! 227 fps from a mere 1.25GHz is nothing short of amazing. I'm starting to think that Doom 3 was just a crappy/lazy port.

Today I slotted a "new" 512MB Quadro FX 4500 in my Quad G5 and did some benchmarking with Quake 3, Quake 4, Doom 3, UT2004, and Prey. This card replaced a 256MB X1900XT and so far I'm really pleased with it. It's a heck of a lot quieter, that's for sure!

Quake 3 absolutely flies on a G5. Memory latency on these machines is just dreadful, but man does that 1.25GHz FSB give it a ton of raw bandwidth. Say, doesn't that remind you of some other CPU/memory combination? 😜

PowerMac G5 Quad: 2x dual-core PowerPC 970MPs at 2.5GHz, 16 GB DDR2-533, Quadro FX 4500 PCIe, OS X 10.5.8
1024x768, everything maxed: 520.9 FPS

P3 @ 1.0 ghz / 100 mhz fsb
384 mb ram
geforce2 gts pro 64 mb
intel i815
all settings as requested, sound quality high

Average of 3 runs = 92.9 FPS

Incidentally, i was getting the same results in full version Q3A until I updated it to latest 1.32... after which FPS dropped significantly to like 79 fps... anyone else experience this? Didn't mess with any settings, also tried deleting config to no avail.

262 fps with P4 3 ghz and geforce 6600 agp 256MB. Sound on, and using the graphics settings recommended on page 1.

It's more than fast enough to be playable, but I keep thinking it should be 100 fps faster, based on results I see on this thread and even the K6 Quake 2 and 3 thread.

when someone decides 32bit memory bus is a good thing for a MX4000...

but really without OCing the memory the result was 39FPS, so that's a decent gain from memory OC (well kind of cheating since I saw the memory chips are 5ns ones and expected something like that, but the stock clock for the 32bit ram is 143MHz 🤣)

I'm getting the following for demo1 and demo2 (max settings, 1280 x 1024 resolution):

1. Asrock 775i65G, C2D E7500 2.93 GHz, (1Gb+1Gb) DDR800 RAM, ATI Radeon X800 XT PE. Demo1: 577 fps, Demo2: 575 fps
2. Asus P5KPL-AM/PS, C2D E8500 3.16 GHz, 2 Gb DDR2800 RAM, ATI Radeon X850 XT PE. Demo1: 500 fps, Demo2: 512 fps

This is really confusing because the 2nd build (on paper) is better than 1st build, yet the 1st build has higher fps. For all other games that I've seen, the 2nd build performs better. Q3A is the only exception for some unknown reason.

xtreger wrote on 2024-03-31, 18:26:

I'm getting the following for demo1 and demo2 (max settings, 1280 x 1024 resolution): […]
Show full quote

I'm getting the following for demo1 and demo2 (max settings, 1280 x 1024 resolution):

1. Asrock 775i65G, C2D E7500 2.93 GHz, (1Gb+1Gb) DDR800 RAM, ATI Radeon X800 XT PE. Demo1: 577 fps, Demo2: 575 fps
2. Asus P5KPL-AM/PS, C2D E8500 3.16 GHz, 2 Gb DDR2800 RAM, ATI Radeon X850 XT PE. Demo1: 500 fps, Demo2: 512 fps

This is really confusing because the 2nd build (on paper) is better than 1st build, yet the 1st build has higher fps. For all other games that I've seen, the 2nd build performs better. Q3A is the only exception for some unknown reason.

Your second system is PCIe, your first is AGP. It's not exactly apples to apples... What are your benchmark parameters in Quake3 for Demo001?