Quake2 benchmarks
Home | Reviews and Features | Special Reports | Forums |

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Quake2 benchmarks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    88

    Quake2 benchmarks

    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!!!!!!!!


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    88
    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

  3. #3
    ankerson Guest
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,302
    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!"
    My Stuff

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Aurora
    Posts
    53
    Hey what about 800x600????? Cant forget that one. Still kinda standard res.

  6. #6
    ankerson Guest
    I got one for you. Great system.


    IBM P166
    S3 Trio 64 2mb

    Quake2 Time demo 1

    640x480 8.5 fps!!!!!!!!!!!


    Now that is screaming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    88
    I did 800 x 600 it was 21fps and 20 fps.

    I did this with an Intel 8mb i740.

    :-)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Location
    Grand Haven, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    11,332
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,302
    Hey caljam,

    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!"
    My Stuff

  10. #10
    ankerson Guest
    Todd a,


    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    71
    Check this one out.....

    pent133
    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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Nil
    Posts
    240
    Check this out.
    Pentium II 300
    64MB SDRAM at 100 Mhz
    Creative Riva TNT
    ref driver ***188
    default setting
    windows 95 ver B
    sound on
    cd audio off(jerky frames if on ide interface)


    Quake II
    demo 1
    640*480 68fps
    800*600 54fps
    1024*768 35fps

    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    88
    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.

    ;-P

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    55
    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?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    1,544
    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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •