win98 vs win2k for 3d(directX).. wtf?

[string]

hi

i just managed to get my win98 system back on working, although i would greatly stay with win2k.

i ran Unreal Tournament TimeDemo on the intro.
The Average FPS for Win98se is 57.44
and now..
the average FPS for Win2k is 38 ??

i use Mgatweak under win98 and under win2k.
AGP runs in 2x mode. Superbypass is disabled (as i cant enable it on win2k with the util)

System: Biostar Irongate Board, AMD 700 256 mb ram, G400 32 mb DH.

if i change the clock divider of the athlon to 800 mhz or above it scales under win98 like under win2k. not much but the win2k are always SLOW like hell in comparation.


Unreal was started with

start /high c:\games\unrealtournament\unrealtournament.exe

any hints why win2k performs that err.. crappy?

[string]

ah yes
the resolution was
1024x768x 32 bit high, high, all on except detailed textures, desired framerate = 38

[franksch3]

I'm sorry that I can't help you, as Unreal Tournament under Win2K crashes within a second on an Athlon.

But I was wondering, how you can run a timedemo or such like in Quake 3. I can't seem to find any info on that subject, but everyone does it, except me. :-(

Frank

[Gurm]

String:

1. The current G400 drivers are, how to say this without being offensive... um... LESS THAN OPTIMAL on non-BX chipsets.

2. Last I knew, Unreal Tournament ran suboptimally on Win2k.

3. What mode are you running in? OpenGL or D3D?

4. Have you installed the AMD750 patches for Win2k yet? They were just released last week.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[franksch3]

Might I ask where, Gurm? On the AMD support page the newest thing is the AGP miniport driver, which is only meant for Windows 95/98/98SE.

Frank

[dOOMY]

AMD750 patches for Win2k....? I don't understand u very well...
Can U be more specified, Gurm?
dOOMY

[string]

franksch3:

But I was wondering, how you can run a
timedemo or such like in Quake 3. I can't seem to find any info on that subject, but everyone does it, except me. :-(


thats easy. start unreal, go in UT gui in the menue Tools select timedemo and reconnect to server. you get the average and last second FPS on right sight of the screen, and at the end of every pass you can see the result if you open the command console.


Gurm:
String:
1. The current G400 drivers are, how to say this without being offensive... um... LESS THAN OPTIMAL on non-BX chipsets.


i really wonder why that is so. i mean.. there was really enough time to get ready for win2k since the first releases. :|

2. Last I knew, Unreal Tournament ran suboptimally on Win2k.

in fact i wrote in "Matrox Gaming" that it runs "awesome". in normal game (not timedemo) i have around 60 fps. but in comparation to win98se it performs suborbital. it will not affect gameplay really as fps rarely drops under 30 but its much nicer to play above, especially when things get heavy (100 ppl etc)

3. What mode are you running in? OpenGL or D3D?

direct3d. as there is no turboGL for win2k i didnt tested opengl, as the normal opengl performance before turbogl showed up was bad for the matrox.
i use the beta direct3d dll from the UT tech site.

4. Have you installed the AMD750 patches for Win2k yet? They were just released last week.

ARRRH !! what patches ?? please give me a link, i searched ms downloads like crazy, looked now at amd etc, but i couldnt find any information about that !

[DarkSyd]

string-
I find UT to be much smoother under Win2k than 98se. Lower peak framrates, but higher (read smoother) average framerate. What's your subjective opinion on the gameplay...even if numbers aren't as high, the game can still run better. That's why I hate benchmarks. You'd have to give me large sums of money (or at least two flats of Kokanee) to go back to running games under 98se. To be fair though, I don't use my machine primarily for gaming anyway...I'm more of a casual target

[Wombat]

Not to mention that W2K is NOT a gaming OS. Sheesh.

[PaulS]

Wombat, you've been under ground too long.

Paul

[string]

DarkSyd: I understand what you mean but i cant say it runs smoother under win2k.

first of i dont really care if the game runs in 800 frames or 38 if i enjoy it and it works fine for me (giving me impression of beeing smooth whatever)
the thing that surprised me was that heavy performance impact. in all tests i ever read there was some _slight_ performance drawback under win2k, even to some fps more under win2k. the tests were usually made with tnt, tnt2 or geforces running quake3 or ut.

not the matrox is the only one performing that bad in comparation.
its still interesting why.
either the amd irongate miniport whatever implementation in win2k is crap (here there would be interesting to read a test of some nvid. chipset user with an athlon board comparing win98 to win2k,

or the actual drivers are extremly odd.
if you look how hard it is to achive FPS for UT i really wonder what goes and where wrong.


to come back to your conclusion: i also will not change back from win2k. the average 38 fps in timedemo are ok, as the min framerate doesnt falls i think under 28 or so (dont remember), and in usual gameplay on most maps the average rate is at around 50 to 65 anyway.


ps. btwi think we can forget gurms tip to get the new amd751 patches for win2k. that sentence took me one hour, but i think its sure now there isnt something like that anywhere on earth

wombat: im sure you will also wonder when your son some day shows you his newest nintendo gam3g3arWhat3Ver and in the firs millisecond when he turns the thing on in front of you you think having noticed a small sentence saying something about ... linux .. times change.
btw i also do more than gaming with the machine. stability and security are welcome