Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Standard fps

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Standard fps

    Ok, here is a question...

    What sort of fps should I expect in Q3 (or any other game actually) with the following system:

    amd k62 350
    64mb ram
    Millenium G400 32mb
    fic va 503 motherboard
    PD 5.30
    turbogl

    With q3 on the 'fastest' setting, but with simple items off and the resolution at 640/480

    the reason I'm asking is that before upgrading, I got around 25 fps in Q3test with a voodoo2, (with the above settings) and now I'm getting around 30, which isn't the improvement I expected after paying around $220 (£140).

    I also bought and installed (myself) the motherboard at the same time coz my old one didn't have an agp slot, so I suspect that the fps may be hindered by my giving wrong bios settings, but then I've read a lot about the matrox gl drivers being quite poor, so this might be the problem, then again it might be that my system is kinda slow altogether. If I can see what sort of fps other users get with similar settings, then I can compare and see what is actually causing the problem (if it is indeed a problem).
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Just another question, while I'm posting here and everything...

    What is the standard icd that everyone mentions? what is the difference between the turbogl and the glsetup and if I install glsetup after uninstalling the matrox drivers, do i need to reinstall the matrox drivers?

    Comment

    • #3
      I don't think that anything is wrong with your system.

      Q3 is an absolute PC killer when it comes to fps. Even on my P3 @ 560Mhz, I had to turn off almost all graphical options to achive good fps. There are lots of options you can turn off in Q3 speed up the game such as setting 16bit textures and color depth, and turning off dynamic lighting. I would think the 30fps in fastest is about correct for your system.

      I am not suprised as far as the G400 performing only a little bit better than the voodoo2 with your current CPU. The G400 depends more on the CPU than the voodoo2, but it scales very nicely with faster processors. You would see a much greater difference in fps from the voodoo2 and G400 on a P3 or Athlon system.

      Matrox did have their problems with Opengl. The new TurboGl driver solves all that.

      xippo

      Comment

      • #4
        Does TurboGL work correctly with your system? I have two friends with AMD K6's and they are having terrible luck with getting any good looking, fast frames from their G400's. Of course they're both Quakers so that's probably the most hardware intensive example out there.

        Comment

        • #5
          Just downloaded Q3 demo, not the full version and ran it just to see how it goes. Need to ask how it is to get the fps displayed on screen etc?

          As far as I could discern, the movements were pretty fluid..at 1280 x 1024/32 bit (but then this is a demo version, so maybe it's faster than the full ver.)..

          Got a K62 450/128 Mb and G400 32 DH..

          Comment

          • #6
            enter 'cg_drawfps 1' into the console ...

            ------------------
            Maggi

            ... sigh ... my third account in this BBS ...

            Despite my nickname causing confusion, I am not female ...

            ASRock Fatal1ty X79 Professional
            Intel Core i7-3930K@4.3GHz
            be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 2
            4x 8GB G.Skill TridentX PC3-19200U@CR1
            2x MSI N670GTX PE OC (SLI)
            OCZ Vertex 4 256GB
            4x2TB Seagate Barracuda Green 5900.3 (2x4TB RAID0)
            Super Flower Golden Green Modular 800W
            Nanoxia Deep Silence 1
            LG BH10LS38
            LG DM2752D 27" 3D

            Comment

            • #7
              Up till now i've used turbogl (with pd 5.3, 5.41 or the beta version do not work on my system) on my system, what with all the praise that everyone has given it, but recently i've been messing about without the turbogl and i've been getting better framerates!

              Comment

              • #8
                Also, more RAM is highly advised. Even if you're just running Windows.
                Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

                Comment

                • #9
                  I was amazed with the speed and lightness of the Q3A demo that I installed on my system.
                  It´s actually faster than Quake 2. I play it at 800x600 16-bit with medium quality textures, and it just flies (and it´s beautiful).

                  ------------------
                  INTEL CELERON 433, G200 SD 8MB AGP (BIOS 2.6), INTEL ATLANTA 440LX moby (latestly BIOSED), SOUNDBLASTER PCI 128, 96 MB SDRAM 66Mhz, 4.3 WESTERN DIGITAL EIDE CAVIAR HD, CREATIVE 24X CD-ROM, AOC 5VLR 15", EPSON STYLUS COLOR 200.
                  ALWAYS (ahem, well, almost) the latest Powerdesk and DirectX.

                  Remember folks:
                  "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers"
                  Pablo Picasso



                  [This message has been edited by Alec (edited 14 January 2000).]

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Its probably your processor limiting your maximum framerate. Try turing the geometric detail down to low. Also, keep in mind that eif youre CPU-limited, you can often turn on all the eyecandy without framerate hits. Ill bet you can run Q3A with 32-bit and trillinear with little performance hit. If you wanted a big speed boost in Q3A, you shoulda bought a TNT2 or GeForce...less processor dependent.

                    ------------------
                    This Signature Space FOR SALE / RENT

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...
                    X