G400 doesn't perform well with Quake 3 Crusher demo????

[ManojM]

Hi guys!

Recently a crusher demo for Quake 3 was released.

You can get the file over here:

ftp://ftp.telefragged.com/avatar/compkill.zip

Let me give you my system specs and my Quake 3 settings again.

I have a Pentium III 450 overclocked to 558Mhz with my Matrox G400 Max (32 bit Z buffer disabled)

Color Depth - 32bit
Full screen - on
lighting - lightmap
geometric detail - high
texture detail - full
texture quality - 32bit
texture filter - bilinear
sound enabled and set to high quality

My compkill results:

640 by 480 - 21.1 fps
800 by 600 - 21.1 fps
1024 by 768 - 20.8 fps

Seems like Matrox need to do more adjustments to the TurboGL drivers. Something is wrong here.

Why don't you guys try out the benchmark and give us your feedback as well?

Regards,
Manoj Mahtani


[This message has been edited by ManojM (edited 12 October 1999).]

[Ali]

how do you get it to work?

Ive put it in q3test folder,and q3test\demoq3

Ive made folders called demos in both q3test\ and q3test\demoq3\ with the file in

I always get the error 'cant open demos/compkill.dm3'

any ideas anybody?

[tish beta2]

This topic belongs in the Matrox Gaming forum.

[Ricardo]

Hi Ali,

You need a crack.

You can get it at http://www.agnhardware.com/html/agnh...0/11/1999#6593

There is also instructions.

Regards,
Ricardo

------------------
P3-500, Shuttle HOT-661/P, 512Meg HSDRAM,WD Expert 18GB, Segate Medalist 6GB, AOpen 40X CDROM, HP 8100i CD-RW, G400 MAX, SB Live Value, 3Com 10/100 (3C905B-TX) , Sony F400 19"

[Ali]

thanks for the help.

I used the same settings as the first post, and have a P3 600 with 128MBCAS2 RAM and a G400DH clocked at max speeds.

Only tried 1024, and got 21.9 fps

I dont think this is a very good demo though. If you look hard enough you see that the player is getting disconnected from the network every now an again. This is causing a 'stall' that might explain the low scores.

also, its more a CPU test than a graphics card test, so I would be surprised if people get much more than 25ish unless thay have a K7 or G4

------------------

[ManojM]

Ok! That may be the reason. I was surprised to see such low scores. Probably the scores will be way better with the Geforce 256.

Regards,
Manoj Mahtani

[Micko]

Yes, but probably the scores will be way better with the MATROX G-9000!!!

...or with Intel Pentium 5 200MHz!!!

Micko,
I'm tired...

[WayneHu]

It seems the TurboGL still does a good job. I just test it with Celeron 300P@558 + G400 DH 32 MB & the similar configuration except 32 bit Z-buffer. (5.30 ICD, not the beta-ICD)

640x480 13.7fps
1024x768 12.4fps

I think we need the Processor Array like SGI's highend workstation to increase the polygon rate of geometry computation...

[Ricardo]

Hi,

My results with my P3@560, some settings as Manoj:

640x480 20.9 fps
800x600 20.9 fps
1024x768 20.8 fps

I agree with Ali, this demo puts much more stress in the CPU than in the graphics card.

Regards,
Ricardo

------------------
P3-500, Shuttle HOT-661/P, 512Meg HSDRAM,WD Expert 18GB, Segate Medalist 6GB, AOpen 40X CDROM, HP 8100i CD-RW, G400 MAX, SB Live Value, 3Com 10/100 (3C905B-TX) , Sony F400 19"

[Maggi]

Hi Wayne,

how do you get the Turbo working woth a Celery ???

------------------
Cheers,
Maggi
________________________

Working Rig:
Asus P2B-DS @ 103MHz FSB
Double Pentium III-450 @ 464 MHz
4 x 128MB CAS2 SDRAM
Matrox Millennium G400 32MB DualHead
Nokia 445Xi (21")
Nokia 447Xpro (17")

Home Rig:
Asus P2B-S Bios 1010 @ 112MHz FSB
Celeron 300A @ 504MHz
2 x 128MB CAS2 SDRAM
Matrox Millennium G400 32MB DualHead @ 150/200MHz
CTX VL710T (17")

[Snake-Eyes]

I think Wayne means that he tested the benchmark/card with a Celery, not the TurboGL. In fact, if you look at the parenthetical part of his comment, you see the drivers he used. He's trying to make the point that the TurboGL provides a big boost, since it gives 20+ FPS versus that 12-13 FPS with the standard 5.20 ICD.

------------------
Ace

[AlteX]

Well, more TurboGL or any other software tweaks won't help much here, since the Crusher demo really stresses the CPU with alot more game-related calculations than during other demos, and since (it's a known fact that), unfortunately, G400 lacks a decent triangle-setup engine, CPU needs to do all the triangle-setup engine work for it, and it just doesn't have the speed for everything... I think that it's one of the biggest flaws of the G400 chip (along with lack of any DVD Motion Compensation support), which makes it pretty much unsuitable for intensive online gaming and very much CPU-dependent. Notice how the scores don't change with resolution, clearly CPU is the bottleneck, offloading some work off it would certainly help...

I hope Matrox fixes this in their next chip and make it much less CPU-dependent. Actually, I hope the next 'G' will have T&L implementation that will make GeForce [b]2[b] designers scratch their heads for months wondering how Matrox pulled it off... ;-)


------------------
... There's No Spoon!

[WayneHu]

Thanks you, Ace!

I am sorry that I don't mention my condition very clearly.

Maybe the reason that this demo works better in PIII than that in Celeron is not Turbo-GL, but Larger L2 cache. So we need the result of Athlon to do some comparasion.


I think every graphics chip company has his market policy and position. If you make a super excellent product but only 1% people can afford it, will it be successful?

[Kruzin]

You guys think you're getting bad scores...look at all these TnT2 users complaining...they're getting half the scores you are

http://anandforums.gisystech.com/mes...threadid=74294

[DuRaNgO]

jim

------------------
PIII-500mhz @ 620!
Abit BE6 mobo
128mb pc-100
Mill G400(YAHOO!!!) 32mb @ 165/205 with MGATweak)
PD 5.30
Maxtor 13.2 gb Uata66 hdd
SB Live!
Winblows 98se
DX7
FOUR BIG FANS, six little ones and a case that sounds like a turbine engine...doh!