Beta ICD is slower than 5.25 ICD!!!

[Xor'Arch]

Hi,

I benchmarked beween the two ICD's and found that the beta ICD was about 3-4 frames per second slower in both Quake 2 and Quake 3 Test.

Did anybody have more positive results with the Beta ICD?


------------------
____________________________________

Xor'Arch

PIII 550Mhz, 256 MB, 10,2 GB 7200 rpm HD, Teac 6x24 cd SCSI burner, Pioneer 6x32 SCSI DVD ROM, Matrox G400 32Mb DualHead, SBLive! Player and lots of other stuff.
____________________________________

[Joel]

I'm seeing about a 5 to 10% increase on my AMD K6-2/400 system. And the ICD included with the 5.25 drivers is newer and has less bugs than the beta.

Joel

[Liquid Snake]

THe beta ICD was MUCH faster for me (up to 15fps faster). It is more buggy, GLQW doesn't work anymore (like in 5.13). HL runs faster too, but Q3 is the same.

[GD]

Well I saw an 95% increase in performace with all the details at the maximum @ 1024x758 and the sound at high:

without beta icd : 12.2
with beta icd: 23.2

See my post for more info...

Anyway is it just my idea or the forums are REALLY quite today?

------------------
PC Power and Cooling Deluxe Chrome Tower case and 300W ATX Power Supply, Dual Slot1 440GX AMI MegaRUM II motherboard, 128MB of ECC 100 MHz SDRAM, PII 450 MHz, Matrox G400 MAX, Seagate Cheetah 9,1GB @ primary SCSI Ultra2 Wide controller, Hitachi 4x DVD-ROM, Panasonic (Matsushita) LS-120 Drive, Terratec EWS64XL sound card.