Some win2000 results

[PaulS]

I wonder how they got Q3 to run long enough to perform a benchmark?

Paul

[Scytale]

Interesting. W2K+G400 runs remarkably well with me, but unlike the guys from fusion hardware, I loose a bunch of fps in the process with any game (5-10ish).

[Q3 runs okay with me. Jerky mouse in one of the menus, but that's it.]

[LAMFDTK]

Why do I have the feeling that Games will never run as fast on W2K as on W98/Millenium?

[Scytale]

Actually, the guys at Fusion Hardware seem to prove the contrary - it's a pretty close pull. I wonder how they did get W2K to get that close to W98.

[LrngToFly]

I hate to say it, but last night on Microsoft's earnings conference call, they did say that Windows 2000 is geared towards businesses, and the guy even said something like: "Windows 98 is our platform for consumers, Windows 2000 isn't good for things like gaming" *

Arrrghhh! I wish Microsoft would take a different attitude towards gaming and Win2K/NT. Of course it was the CFO who made that comment- what the hell does he know...

Anyway, after WinMillinium, WinNeptune is the upcoming Consumer platform, based on Win2K/NT, and they'll HAVE to make sure Win2K/NT performs well.

*(Wall Street has high expectations for immediate sales of Win2K, and Microsoft was trying to downplay it- saying businesses take longer to purchase- unlike consumers who line up for midnight madness sales...)

[Justin]

With regards to G400 + w2k:

In q3a I never crashed, but the performance was about 10-15fps slower than in 98. Maybe this will resolve itself when Matrox gets non-beta drivers out for Win2000. I still get blue screens every time I try to play a DVD with any player under w2k.



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

[cswan]

Justin:

Heh...that's funny. I'm the opposite of you--no Quake3, but I can get DVDs to play Although for some reason they don't look as good as they did in 98 (more blocky, for some reason.) I'm thinking some of the scaling functions of the card are not included in these Win2k beta drivers.

[SteveC]

Some win2000 results

Hi Guys,

Dunno if this is old news, but found this earlier:
http://fusionhardware.com/reviews/vi...x-g400_5.shtml

The old 'win2k-hating' G400 doesn't look too bad!

HardOCP's words: "While the Matrox G400 may not be the speed-demon that the GeForce is, it is by NO MEANS a slouch. The girlz over at Fusion Hardware put it through it's paces and show us Win2k results. Wish they would have shown some 32 bit numbers, I hear that the card really stands out there."


------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"The chances of anything coming from Mars, are a million-to-one", he said.

[This message has been edited by SteveC (edited 19 January 2000).]

[kewlcat]

Strange results. I get only 25 fps (800x600x16, default settings) in Quake3, with a similar configuration. Or is there a 80% difference between a 500Mhz PIII and two Celerons at 550?

Either my computer is seriously misconfigured or he is smoking da crack!

Rahul

------------------
Abit BP6, Dual Celeron 366@550, G400 32MB DualHead, 128MB RAM, WD26500 6.4GB, SBLive! Value.
Running Mandrake 6.1 and Windows 2000.

[LAMFDTK]

LrngToFly, if developers and game designers do not develope for W2k then it will be the same story as gaming with NT4 is right now.

I heard the same thing as you did at a Tech-net seminar last summer when I raised my hand during Q&A and asked how Q3 was looking on W2K. hehehe Got the same response!. Too bad you and I won't have a choice in the selection of O/S's. That as already been made for us.

Check this out for information on Millenium..
http://www.win98central.com/millennium/

Nice new features.

------------------
PIII-450@600, 128 HDSRAM, Asus P3BF, G400/32, SBLive!,Brand stinkin' new Sony G400 19", (no Dual head) Nokia 447Xi 17",AOPEN DVD-1040 10x slot,PLEXTOR 8x4x32 ATAPI CD-RW,PromiseULtra66, and some fish,

[Laristan]

I have played with RC2 of W2K and never had problems with the matrox G400MAX under it, and I was using the beta beta drivers (the one without powerdesk).

I ran games on it ... I wanted to push the G400MAX as far as I could with the dual processor system I use. I admit I did not run Quake, but I was running Ultima 9 (DirectX mode) and rendering software.

Perhaps its just plain luck? Weirdness? Who knows. But personally I would reccommend W2K as a safe games machine, however the price will stop any game-only's from buying (and before anyone says anything about warez - DON'T).

Actually I am at an advantage at this moment in time, I just received an invite to the unveiling of W2K and attendees receive a full copy of W2K professional (time-limited for 120days) now if that's not a bargain what is. Since I reinstall my machine regularly just to clear out the clutter, I could be going strong for years to come.

David

[Punk]

kewlcat where those benchmarks under W2K? If so did you do anything special to the run Q3A... I have an Abit BP6 ,G400 Max,cleron 400 @ 530 and it just crashes on startup..even when I enable smp in the config file.

Run wintune 98 under Win98se and W2k and you know the sh*t(use compare on the internet). w2k will be fast when the drivers are optimized and you have a smp sytem

------------------
What I like about computing?2 much 2 mention

[kewlcat]

Punk,

Yes my numbers are for Win2k + 5.00 whatever beta drivers. I found out that AGP aperture is important:

64 MB - non-SMP works, SMP is faster but cinematic sequences don't play

256MB - non-SMP crashes suring opening animation, SMP works same as above

SMP is faster than non-SMP by 10-15%. Also I saw texture corruption with SMP, which was not present with the non-SMP.

Note: SMP was enabled with the r_smp cvar for Quake3.

Rahul

------------------
Abit BP6, Dual Celeron 366@550, G400 32MB DualHead, 128MB RAM, WD26500 6.4GB, SBLive! Value.
Running Mandrake 6.1 and Windows 2000.

[Scytale]

I get 25.6 for demo001 on my P3@560 (4.5x124), same settings as kewlcat. Not at all like the 54-66 that the guy from Fusion Hardware was smoking.

[LAMFDTK]

Here is a pretty good write-up on W2K http://www.2cpu.com/OSs/Windows/win2...2kintrop1.html