VERY (I mean very) disappointing results with Q3 and TurboGL

[troop]

The only thing I can figure which explains the difference in scores on similar cpus is screensize. I can add 20% to a test result by running at less than full screen on this 19"
Hitachi 751. Maybe Ant and Anand are running high cpus on puny screens ?

------------------
In Harm's Way

[tish beta2]

I just wanto whine a little here with Jon on the winNT subject. How long has there been an OGL ICD out for the G200, and how much has it improved? If Nvidia can do it, why not Matrox? Aren't they as good as people say? Now even reviewers put up the good old "OGL ICD for win98, winNT and win2K" sentence when they talk about any TNT cards (1, 2, geforce etc).

I would have fired this up really good in a desperate effort to catch Matrox' attention and get them to work harder on that thing, hadn't it been for a careful warning from Ant . Hey, we wanted an option utility for the G400, we got it. We wanted the good Beta ICD and we got it. Maybe if we whine and scream loud enough in these forums....

Anyway, it's good the TGL thing is sorted out (thanks to Manoj). I guess the beta TGL Ant benched with had those things disabled.

5.21: reviewers get a beta ICD that gives 30% increase. We get the "final" ICD, and get dissapointed.

5.30: reviewers get a beta TGL that gives 40% increase. We get the "final" TGL, and get dissapointed.

See the pattern? big M is a sly devil here... most folks will give their attention to the reviewed beta drivers, and only discover the truth if they actually has the card for themselves.


Thanks + Best Regards
Fish

[Ozymandis]

Are you stupid tish? Why would the reviewers get a TurboGl that was so much better? Damn that Matrox...(insert paranoid rant)...they're always...(insert useless comment)...enough said!! I get big improvements in gameplay from the TurboGl, so I am quite pleased with it.

[troop]

What would be nice is for MURC to redo the tests under simple conditions with fixed parameters. I suggest Q3demo1 @ the " High "
quality level as set by the demo and the only variation from all default settings is in resolution.For the video card itself , 32b ZB is off.

Along the lines of the suggestion that somehow the original test was run on a bilinear filter with 32b ZB off , I notice that on this system , those are the default conditions . After the driver is updated , 32 bit ZB is not checked here in display properties,though I suppose it could be enabled if the update wre to copy current settings from an installed powerdesk. But most users now uninstall first and it appears that the default condition is 32b ZB off.

Next I noticed here that the Turbogl defaults to bil filtering in Q3 on installation. I have to reset tri filtering to get that when I reinstall the Turbo.
SO ,did the published testers not examine the settings in the demo and for the card to specify these items after installing the 5.30 and Turbo ?
Can MURC redo the PIII 600 Turbo test ?


------------------
In Harm's Way

[troop]

As far as this thread is concerned , nothing
has been figured out . There is only a suggestion that the Z buffer and Trilinear filtering may have been set to off for the TGL results published everywhere which seem unattainable by consumers. We are waiting for further information on these points. The screen size is also important as one can see
when that size is varied between tests.

------------------
In Harm's Way

[tish beta2]

<self-defense mode>

Why would the reviewers get a TurboGl that was so much better?

Well, they did, didn't they? Like I said, if Matrox give out an early beta of some drivers that disable features to get things faster to reviewers, folks that read their reviews will say "wow that OGL has really improved!"

I too get improvements from the TGL, just like I got improvements from the 5.21 driverset. But not what the reviewers got. I read two reviews of the TGL driver that said it gave 40% performance boost in 1024@high in Q3, but I got 5%. And I had the excact same system as the reivewer!

Ozymandis, I'm not saying Matrox is always useless low-lifes (like it appeared as I felt in your post), I'm merely exeviating my thoughts around the OpenGL performance in windows98.

You may be pleased with win9x OGL performance. Ok, so am I. But I'm not pleased with what the dissapointments I've had, and the winNT ogl situation.

</self-defense mode>

As far as this thread is concerned , nothing has been figured out

According to one of the BetaBoyz (tm), it has already been;

Quoting Gurm

Read elsewhere on these forums. Manoj figured out where the speed decreases were coming from - Trilinear (30% speed hit) and 32-bit Z-Buffer.


Thank you + Yours Sincerely
Fish

[Sean Segel]

Add to that list:

Turning the Texture Quality slider to the max contributes to lower framerates.

Thanks,

Sean

[tish beta2]

No problem.

Hey, now I get exact same results as Ant did! +/- 1 fps! Hmmmm...... then pherhaps Texture Quality, 32 bit Z-Buffer AND trilinear filtering were disabled in the drivers Ant got to preview!





I guess we sorted that one out too...

[troop]

Absolutely not---the MURC review of the beta Turbo was @ 6oo MHz with "trilinear filter" and no mention of ZB.
Feeling sleepy?


------------------
In Harm's Way

[Ricardo]

The Murc review was @ 500 and with sound disabled.


Regards,
Ricardo

[troop]

Yup--sorry 'bout that. @500MHz --and he scored over 40 fps at High quality with tri filter and max textures ??--I get 33 fps on a P600, 19" screen, 110Hz, with 3/4 textures.

------------------
In Harm's Way

[tish beta2]

Troop you misunderstood me

Everybody know that Ant's preview of the TurboGL was tested on quake3 with High Quality Settings. It's obvious when we look at the other scores with the Beta ICD.

What I said was, there is a conspiracy theory that trilinear filtering and 32-bit z-buffer was actually completely disabled in the TGL drivers for Q3. Since that driver is a miniGL developed spesifically for four games, It's not hard to just cut away that special feature for that game...

I have a P3 450@504 and 192 mb ram, the Max (not overclocked) and clean win98se install, and my normal setting was exactly Ant's TGL High quality results +/- 1 fps. In all resolutions...

No wonder I'm a little paranoid