Quake 3 findings...

[GD]

Hi everyone!

This is my first post in the gaming forum and I apologise if anyone has posted this before but here's what I found...

I don't play games a lot but I just wanted to test Q3 some days ago... I did expect the performance to be really low of course, since I'm running windows 2000. With the default settings the avg fps would be at around 20 in demo 1 whereas while playing with others on a server the frame rate would drop to 6-8fps in action scenes...

I decided to do some benchmarking and here are the scores:

a) 640- everything minimum : 20.4 fps
b) 640- everything to max apart from texture detail which is set to min: 19.7 fps
c) 800- as above : 19.4 fps

I think that virtually there's no difference! However the texture detail setting seems to have a greater impact.

It seems as if the Matrox w2k drivers are suffering from the same problem as in the early w98 days... Slow performance at lower res... Not that this is much of a problem to me right now but it would be nice if they got it fixed so that we can play a game every now and then :-)

I wonder if any other w2k user could post his opinion and/or own experience on the subject...

Thanks!!!!
GD

------------------
PC Power and Cooling Deluxe Chrome Tower case and 300W ATX Power Supply, Dual Slot1 440GX AMI MegaRUM II motherboard, 128MB of ECC 100 MHz SDRAM, PII 450 MHz, Matrox G400 MAX, Seagate Cheetah 9,1GB @ primary SCSI Ultra2 Wide controller, Hitachi 4x DVD-ROM, Panasonic (Matsushita) LS-120 Drive, Terratec EWS64XL sound card.

[jImbEam]

From the looks of you CPU, you are not going to get steller performance out of Q3. I think you are going to have to play the ugly game. That is, turn down the settings in Q3 until you get good performance. You should go to a good Q3 tweaking site and try out what they got. You can try somewhere like:
http://www.voodooextreme.com/reverend/

I was able to get a 8Mb Voodoo2 up to 47FPS in demo1 by makeing it butt ugly. That is probably why I play Q3 on high quality now.

jImbEam

[DosFreak]

NT5

K63-400@433 124mhz X3.5

1024X768 All setting max

FPS=20.3

P3550@630 115mhz X 5.5

FPS=20.3

Interesting huh?


*P.S.---> Voodoo 5 on the way!

[This message has been edited by DosFreak (edited 27 June 2000).]

[Rags]

P3550E at default, default settings, bilinear:
640X480: 56.9 fps
1024: 36.9 fps

P3550E@733 default settings, bilinear:
640X480: 67.9 fps
1024: 37.2 fps

V3 3000 with 550E@733 same settings as above:
640: 48.1
1024: 33.1


Voodoo gets it's ass smacked here

Rags



------------------
Partnership for an idiot free America

[EddieX]

Hi
I have matrox g400 millenium and i get these results.

1280*1024 about 80fps
1024*768 about 120fps
800*600 about 120fps
640*480 about 130+ i use this option because it is a quick shooting game then you should have low resolution
/EddieX

------------------
eDDieX

[WarFlail]

EddieX, what kind of system are you running to get high scores like that?

I get just 44-45fps on Q3A's Timedemo, on the standard High Quality settings (with HQ sound).

-=W=-

[good health to all]

Thats weird because thats what I am limited to, 20 fps, when playing half-life CS 6.6. I have win2k, PII450, 160MB ram.
I use: net_graph 3 , to see my fps. The funny thing is when I am dead and spectating my fps is ~40 fps at the exact same spot where I was playing and getting 20fps. Weird!

[GD]

ARGHH!! I'm always below 20 not to mention 40 fps!!!

It's that GX chipset again!!!!

Oh well...

Thanks for the feedback though..
GD

[Pace]

GD: Are you using 2 P2's? And have you tried testing with ECC off? I doubt it's the GX chipset to [/i]blame[/i] as such but it may have some options to slow your machine down (sorry - increase stability )

Paul.