July 8th, 1999, 04:03 AM
Well since all of you are showing your benchmarks i thought maybe id do it for fun. Really i was quite amussed on how crappy my card really is, so have a laugh as you look over my benchmarks
demo1.dm2 = 44.2fps
@ 320 x 240
demo2.dm2 = 41.0fps
demo1.dm2 = 21.2
@ 640 x 480
demo2.dm2 = 20.9
demo2.dm2 = 11.4
@ 1024 x 768
demo2.dm2 = 10.1
demo2.dm2 = 5.6
@ 1600 x 1200
demo2.dm2 = 5.1
Now thats some sweet fps!!!!!!!!
July 9th, 1999, 02:33 AM
I gues you guyz dont find my scores interesting what the heck am i saying of course your not interested. But you gotta admit there pretty funny
July 9th, 1999, 11:04 AM
No, I think it is good that you posted them.
There are alot of people out there that forgot how far we have realy come with 3D cards.
July 9th, 1999, 02:22 PM
I found this interesting..
Curious what the the card is?...
Couple of years ago, few machines met the
minimum requirements for Q2... So it is great
to see how far we’ve come..
Hope we can continue to share info and ignore
the ingrates who think this is a pissing contest..
Stupid is forever....
Ignorance can be repaired.....
"If it works it's not overclocked!"
July 9th, 1999, 02:28 PM
Hey what about 800x600????? Cant forget that one. Still kinda standard res.
July 9th, 1999, 03:22 PM
I got one for you. Great system.
S3 Trio 64 2mb
Quake2 Time demo 1
640x480 8.5 fps!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that is screaming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 9th, 1999, 10:53 PM
I did 800 x 600 it was 21fps and 20 fps.
I did this with an Intel 8mb i740.
July 10th, 1999, 04:52 AM
I have a K6-2 350
With my S3 Verge DX 4MB in Q2 demo1:
640x480 = 14.7
800x600 = 10.8
1024x768 = 7.4
With a Voodoo3 2000 at 155 Mhz and 22 bit patch I get
640x480 = 77.3
800x600 = 74.7
1024x768 = 66.9 <- a 900% increase!
AMD Phenom II x4 945 3Ghz | ASUS M4A77TD | 2X WD 1TB SATA 2 hard drive | 2x2GB Corsair XMS3 | nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS | ATI TV Wonder Theater Pro 550 | Antec P-160 case | Antec 650w Earth Watts | LG Blu-ray Super Drive | LG DVD RW | Windows 7 Pro
July 10th, 1999, 09:00 AM
800 X 600 ... Are you kidding??
How about 320 X 200 ...
640 X 480 was an option for high end rigs!!
"If it works it's not overclocked!"
July 10th, 1999, 09:33 AM
Now that is fast, %900 increase. This is what I am talking about, it is fun to compare the old stuff to the new.
Buy the way, that P166 is 5 years old.
July 11th, 1999, 04:10 AM
Check this one out.....
64mb edo ram
stealth II S220 4mb
Matrox M3d 4mb add on (PVR)!
640 x 480 16bit 17.4fps
800 x 600 16bit 13.9fps
1024 x 768 16bit 10.1fps
July 12th, 1999, 09:56 AM
Check this out.
Pentium II 300
64MB SDRAM at 100 Mhz
Creative Riva TNT
ref driver ***188
windows 95 ver B
cd audio off(jerky frames if on ide interface)
Note I have found that the higher the resolution for the same graphics card but higher processor the fps actually get pretty close. Check the PII 450 Mhz at higher resolutions.
July 12th, 1999, 04:24 PM
It different to see all of your benchmarks, u usually see ppl with 70 - 80 fps. Its good to see how much things have changed. Thanks for sharing your scores with me, it was pretty amussing.
July 12th, 1999, 08:19 PM
I thought I read somewhere a while ago that anything over 25 fps was indeterminable to the naked eye. Was that just to make cheaper cards more appealing, or was it the truth? And....if it's the truth, whats's the big deal about fps?
July 12th, 1999, 08:26 PM
The eye is not supposed to notice anything over about 40 fps as being different. So a card that maintains 35-40 is all you need.The problem is most cards can get higher but can't always maintain the base level.
A Dog is a Cat with More hair
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)