Announcement

**Frank** · 8 October 1999, 19:46

Hey is your second column for ICD BETA or ICD5.3?
Cos there you are saying the 5.3 ICD is slower than ICD Beta.

**Grimace** · 8 October 1999, 20:09

I'm getting (roughly) the same results... but where are the 71FPS at 1024x768 HQ quoted in the Firing Squad article? I've got a PIII450@504, 128MB CAS2 Memory, G400 MAX, and SBLive. I'm curious to know where those numbers came from (and I'd love to be getting them!)

P.S. I just checked Ant's numbers and I'm still a ways away from those (as are yours).

[This message has been edited by Grimace (edited 10-09-1999).]

**Kruzin** · 8 October 1999, 20:15

You are getting roughy the same results because you have vsynch on. Turn it off, and watch the numbers go up.

And firing squad ran their tests on a P3-600. You are on a 450~504. That will account for a noticable (~20%) difference...

**Grimace** · 8 October 1999, 20:24

I have vsync turned off in Q3. Is there more I have to do? Also, could a 20% CPU MHz increase (500 versus 600) account for a 220% framerate increase (32 versus 71)? Ant's 500MHz system also got 44FPS so something must be up in my situation.

[This message has been edited by Grimace (edited 10-09-1999).]

**Kruzin** · 8 October 1999, 20:29

Your post in the game forum sounded like you had vsynch on.

What OS are you running?

**Grimace** · 8 October 1999, 20:34

Win98SE, fresh install for 5.21 drivers. Actually in the other forum, I was trying (poorly) to indicate that I had turned vsync off.

[This message has been edited by Grimace (edited 10-09-1999).]

**Kruzin** · 8 October 1999, 20:38

Are you sure the TurboGL installed?
Is there an opengl32.dll in the Q3 directory?

**Shaidar** · 8 October 1999, 20:48

The firing Squad Article is some Major false advertising. I have a p3-450@600mhz, running with 256mb Enhanced pc133 memory, ABit Bx6 REvision 2 mobo, Diamondmax 7200rpm ATA/66 HD

And i only saw a 10% Frame Rate increase in q3 timedemo 1. I was getting 41.5 FPS at High Quality setting with the res upped to 1024x768, Bilinear Filtering and Dynamic Lights, and Gibs off. With the turbo Drivers I am at 46.5 fps, under the same settings.

Turning any of those options onwill ower the framerate accordingly. As well as 32 bit z buffer under display properties options will lower the fps by 8 when enabled.

On another strange note, if i keep all the settings the same, and just drop the resolution to 800x600, i get a 20fps boot to 67 fps. In my limited knoledge of graphic engines, which doesnt make too much sense to me, 30 fps is a huge jump.

Anyhow, these turbo drivers are really not very helpful at 1024x768, granted an extra 5 fps is nice, its no where near the 30% advertised by Matrox nor those astronomically ridiculous numbers posted by firing squad.
THeres is no logical explaination for an almost 30fps difference in framerates on identical systems. And accodring to firing Squad, they had everything turned on under high quality at 1024x768to get 72fps.. I wonder sometimes if these people at these web sites just pull numbers out of their arse from time to time.

**Grimace** · 8 October 1999, 20:49

That was the first thing I checked but the Driver Info under Q3A says TurboGL. I just did another test (after I realized that the 32Bit Z-Buffer was not enabled) and am down to 27 FPS at 1024x768 HQ. (I was looking for another vsync setting I thought I'd missed.)

**Himself** · 9 October 1999, 08:53

Cool, I thought I had something arsed up, but the new OGL drivers really are slower than 5.25. I haven't mucked with it much, but I haven't been able to break 33fps in Q3Test at any resolution either. But I just installed over the old driver. Think I may as well go back to the 5.25 driver as it stands.

Havne't noticed any improvements in general, did notice that 3DExerciser no longer works, crashes when you start it. Haven't tried tirtanium yet. No improvment in 3dmark99max scores. Big yawn, here. BTW, where was that list of changes again?

**bobby2** · 9 October 1999, 09:31

Bugger! My Q3Test driver info doesnt appear to be reporting TurboICD info.

It gives:
1.1.3 5.30.006

What am I missing - the figures Ive been getting are not any different to 5.25 scores. Pleaaaaassee - help me.

bert

------------------
G400 32 D/H, PIII450@560, ABIT-BE6, MX300

**bobby2** · 9 October 1999, 09:59

Bugger - installed it wrong - works now and jesus its fast. Went from 43 to 66 at 800x600 HQ setting. Happy Happy Happy

bert

------------------
G400 32 D/H, PIII450@560, ABIT-BE6, MX300

**rickn** · 9 October 1999, 14:58

Quake3 is borked at high resolutions, no question about it. I have been talking to r0m, he says he is gonna check into it on Tuesday.

I did a fresh install of Win98, my scores are nowhere near what Ant got at 1024 in Quake3..and I have a faster cpu and my g400 is clocked at 160/200

[This message has been edited by rickn (edited 10-09-1999).]

**Marmita** · 9 October 1999, 16:10

The Beta ICD is faster then the PD 5.30 there is no mistake in my post.

These are the scores I get, I noticed too that the tests made by Ant and the FiringSquad review are giving better results.
Mybe the beta 5.30 is faster then the final release ??? I really have n idea how they got such high scores...

Announcement

Fresh TurboGL Q3Test Results

Fresh TurboGL Q3Test Results

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment