Request: 58x0 and 5970 Quake2 benchmarks

H

H-street

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
4,538
I know this sounds like an oddity, anyone have a Quake 2 with the above cards willing to install and benchmark?

its mainly just for fun, i run my new hardware i get through the quake2 timedemo

you can see the results i have here from some of my old hardware

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1224066

(the fun stat being that the X2 4400+ in software mode is finally faster than the Voodoo2's)

if you have a fast CPU a software only run would also be fun to see.

just a refresher for the quake2 demo

Vsync has to be forced off in control panel and in quake 2 settings for openGL

Resolution 800x600
open console
timedemo 1
s_initsound 0 - to turn off all sound
snd_restart - to re-initialize sound with the previous statement active
map demo1.dm2


i know it will be CPU limited but fun none the less
 
You know I used to do this all the time, till I installed vista 64 and didn't bother to reinstall it. I just found the disc, will give it a go later. Still, even with my x1800 I managed something like 400 fps (VERY driver dependent, some of the older catalyst drivers actually hosed quake2 performance to nearly unplayable levels).

edit: Okay, at 800x600.. machine in my sig. CD music disabled (30fps gain, wow ) AA mode is supersampling, box filter, just cuz.

noAA/AF: 420 fps

4xSSAA/16xAF: 372 fps

8xSSAA/16xAF: 345 fps
 
Last edited:
System in sig:

Quake 2: 1280 x 960 8X SSAA / 16X AF - 618.7 FPS

Quake 3: 1920 x 1080 8X SSAA / 16X AF - 333.2 FPS
 
Colt___45 said:
System in sig:

Quake 2: 1280 x 960 8X SSAA / 16X AF - 618.7 FPS

Quake 3: 1920 x 1080 8X MSAA / 24X Edge Detect / 16X AF - 333.2 FPS
Click to expand...

Checked my Quake 3 config and realized somewhere along the lines I had set max_fps to 333. (I think there were some funky rendering issues past 600 frames per second). Anyways, switched to Edge Detect and upped max_fps to 999 and reran the Quake 3 benchmark and came in at 557.4 fps :)
 
Yoda that is about what i run with my 4870, 455fps @ 800x600

i love it Colt! Thanks.. dang look at the 5970 go.

Colt can you run it in software mode to see how well the CPU does (@ 4Ghz)
 
Quake 2 software render 800 x 600 = 250.9 FPS
 
600 FPS on an outdated game. LOL. Is there really a point in benchmarking it? It's like asking, gee I wonder how many FPS could I get on the original Doom. Probably 1000+!!
 
Colt___45 said:
Quake 2 software render 800 x 600 = 250.9 FPS
Click to expand...

Wow that puts it around the same speed as probably a Geforce 2.. its amazing how fast the video cards really are and just how far CPUs still have to go.
 
H-street said:
Wow that puts it around the same speed as probably a Geforce 2.. its amazing how fast the video cards really are and just how far CPUs still have to go.
Click to expand...

You're misinterpreting the results, because the software renderer for Quake II uses inferior rendering methods versus the OpenGL renderer (just a few off the top of my head: OpenGL uses bilinear filtering while software uses point sample, and the particles rendered by OpenGL are more complex and are actually transparent).

The correct comparison would be to install Quake II on such a system with no 3D card, and then select OpenGL. The OS will fall-back to the OpenGL software renderer, and you will get an accurate comparison.

One company actually makes an SSE-optimized OpenGL software renderer (which gives it the potential to be several times faster than the default OS renderer) that you might want to check out.

ANECDOTE: when configuring my fancy new Rendition v2200 to run GLQuake, I installed the MiniGL incorrectly, and the rendering fell back to software OpenGL. This meant the image quality was exactly the same as if I were running on the 3D card, but the framerate was about one frame every three seconds.

This means that the video card was about 100x faster at rendering than my Pentium MMX CPU was :)
 
Last edited:
You'll be CPU bound in these games I would have thought, at this point it's really just a measure of your CPUs power.

Might be worth checking an old frame limited game like GTA 1/2 which ran as fast as your frame rate, tap the forwards key and see if you can actually drive around without faceplanting a wall instantly :)
 
defaultluser said:
You're misinterpreting the results, because the software renderer for Quake II uses inferior rendering methods versus the OpenGL renderer (just a few off the top of my head: OpenGL uses bilinear filtering while software uses point sample, and the particles rendered by OpenGL are more complex and are actually transparent).

The correct comparison would be to install Quake II on such a system with no 3D card, and then select OpenGL. The OS will fall-back to the OpenGL software renderer, and you will get an accurate comparison.

One company actually makes an SSE-optimized OpenGL software renderer (which gives it the potential to be several times faster than the default OS renderer) that you might want to check out.

ANECDOTE: when configuring my fancy new Rendition v2200 to run GLQuake, I installed the MiniGL incorrectly, and the rendering fell back to software OpenGL. This meant the image quality was exactly the same as if I were running on the 3D card, but the framerate was about one frame every three seconds.

This means that the video card was about 100x faster at rendering than my Pentium MMX CPU was :)
Click to expand...


for me its more of a comparison of at the time, out of hte box how does the performance of the quake2 software renderer compare to the video cards at the time. For me it speaks volumes of exactly how impactful the video cards of 1996 - 2000 are on our gaming of today. Granted another solution probably woudl have presented itself, but if you look at if we were still on software rendering today how different our games would be.


i'm going to try that SSE opengl renderer tonight, .


its time to break out the Retro rig again, i have an ATI MAXX (the first dual chip, AFR solution) that i want to do some comparisons with. you can see my earlier testing here

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1298265&highlight=AFR

kindof fun, ATI has come full circle.

the ATI Rage Fury MAXX Dual Chip (April 2000) to the ATI 5970 (November 2009)
 
I always like doing this with the first Quake. To this day I still bust out a timedemo for Quake 1 when I get new hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top