Quake2 benchmarks

[Meta|Gear]

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!!!!!!!!

[Meta|Gear]

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

[ankerson]

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.

[Diogenes]

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.....

[caljam]

Hey what about 800x600????? Cant forget that one. Still kinda standard res.

[ankerson]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Meta|Gear]

I did 800 x 600 it was 21fps and 20 fps.

I did this with an Intel 8mb i740.

:-)

[Todd a]

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!

[Diogenes]

Hey caljam,

800 X 600 ... Are you kidding??

How about 320 X 200 ...

640 X 480 was an option for high end rigs!!

[ankerson]

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.

[Tempest156]

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

[joshua_web]

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.

[Meta|Gear]

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

[Fixer66]

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?

[Luke-Skywalker]

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.