Fresh Quake 3 scores with New Celeron TurboGL

[Sitting Bull]

Hi all,

Using the new TurboGL driver under Win 98 SE, here is what I have now gotten
for fps on the Quake 3 demo with High settings;

System - ECS P6BX-A+ Motherboard, Celeron 300a O/C 464MHz (4.5x103), 128
Megs PC100 RAM, G400 (Vanilla OEM) 32 Meg Dual Head, IBM Ultrastar 9ES 4.5 Gig
U2W SCSI hard drive.

640x480 at all colour depths: 48 fps

800x600 at all colour depths: 47-48 fps

1024x768 16 bit: 45 fps
32 bit: 40 fps
default: 45 fps

1152x864 16 bit: 39 fps
32 bit: 32 fps
default: 39 fps

1280x1024 16 bit: 30 fps
32 bit: 24 fps
default: 30 fps

1600x1200 16 bit: 21 fps
32 bit: 16 fps
default: 21 fps

I saw no point in going to higher resolutions, as the game is hardly
playable at 1600x1200! Apparently 16 bit and Default colour are identical. This
is clearly a BIG step forward in game performance for the OpenGL crowd, and I
think everyone should give Matrox a big round of applause for coming to the
rescue of a very tiny segment of their customer base with these new drivers.

[Maniac]

Pretty good scores I guess, but you didn't post your previous scores as a comparison point. Overall I'm impressed that this driver was able to give such a boost to lower resolutions. It even rivals the scores that P3's are getting. Guess Matrox really tweaked out the full speed cache of the Celeron

------------------
Celeron 300A@464 2.0V, Abit BH6 G400 16meg DH@150/200, Western Digital Expert 18gig, Ricoh mp7040A, Pioneer 6X DVD slot load, Motorola Cable Modem w/DEC ethernet card, Soundblaster Live Value Ver. 2, Viewsonic GT 775

[Sitting Bull]

Hi Maniac,

You know, I don't remember what my scores were with the old OpenGL ICD! But I'm sure that everyone must be getting fairly similar improvements in their scores and if anyone wants to post their old fps from a Celeron 300a O/C to 464, well, that would probably be the definitive comparison.

Any takers?

[moreau]

This is clearly a BIG step forward in game performance for the OpenGL crowd, and I think everyone should give Matrox a big round of applause for coming to the rescue of a very tiny segment of their customer base with these new drivers.

It's amusing that when we were all G200 users screaming for a full ICD, we claimed to be an army of gamers being neglected by a heartless and incompetent corporation. !)

I'm glad that Matrox has worked the kinks out enough so that most of us can probably agree with Sitting Bull's praise (except for the tiny part).

What amuses me in hindsight, is that a company with a good customer support reputation for so long let the whole ICD G200 thing get so bad.

Aside: I think the lingering stink from that ICD thing has tainted some otherwise intelligent review sites (tom's, sharky, anand). All their reviews of the G400 said great card, OGL still needs work. BUT: I've been pulling 50+ at most resolutions in 16bit on my celery 400@83frontside. Thats with PD 5.25 mind you, so no TGL. I feel no need to apologize for those scores.

[Sitting Bull]

Moreau,

Those are great framerates! Why don't you post an exhaustive listing of them at all reasonable resolutions so we can make a comparison? I'd love to see them and I bet a lot of other people would too.

[moreau]

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum5/HTML/006321.html
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum5/HTML/006321.html

There's two teasers till I can do some more benches. I plan to do some comprehensive testing later this week, when I can bring my pooter into work and download the newest drivers, bioses, etc. For my own curiosity I want to see pre and post TGL scores. Plus, if I upgrade my ASUS bios I'm going to try playing with my system mem timing, and see if they make any noticable difference.

And, if my kids ever start going to bed at a decent hour, I'm going to make a web page. On that page I hope to put things like bios and system configs, just for comparison and to get feedback from people.

Sigh, so much to do, so little time for deathmatch...

------------------
G400DH 32MB
PD 5.25, bios 1.3-20
DX 6.03.bunchofnumbers
Win98SE
Celeron 400(500 oc'd)
Asus P3B-F 1.01A
Bios 1.003A (I should really flash!)
256MB PC100
SBLive Value, liveware 3.0
Microsoft Intellimouse USB (IntelliEye, baby)
CTX VL710
Holding on to my G200 16M SG, looking for a good home.

[moreau]

As Promised, here are my scores. This is Q2 demo1.dm2, straight outta the box. That is, no tweaking of chunk size or z-tricks or any other Brett Jacobizations. V-sync was disabled.

I'll add to it when I change the color depths and again when I install the TGL.

<table BORDER COLS=3 WIDTH="400" BGCOLOR="#FFFFCC" >
<tr>
<td><font size=-1></font>&nbsp;</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>16bit/16bit&nbsp;&nbsp; 126/168</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>16bit/16bit&nbsp;&nbsp; 150/200</font></center>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<center><font size=-1>640X480</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>69.9</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>69..9</font></center>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<center><font size=-1>800X600</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>68.9</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>69.5</font></center>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<center><font size=-1>1024X768</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>56.4</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>63.1</font></center>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<center><font size=-1>1152x864</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>48.3</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>55.1</font></center>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<center><font size=-1>1280X960</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>40.9</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>47.7</font></center>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<center><font size=-1>1600x1200</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>26.0</font></center>
</td>

<td>
<center><font size=-1>27.4</font></center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
------------------
G400 DH 32MB
PD 5.30, bios 1.5-22
DX 4.06.03
Win98SE
Celeron 400(500 oc'd)
Asus P3B-F 1.01A
Bios 1003.A (I should really flash!)
256MB PC100
SBLive Value, liveware 3.0
Microsoft Intellimouse USB (IntelliEye, baby)
CTX VL710
Holding on to my G200 16M SG, looking for a good home.

[This message has been edited by moreau (edited 15 December 1999).]

[This message has been edited by moreau (edited 15 December 1999).]

[Sitting Bull]

Those are VERY impressive scores!

I should point out that my scores were done with V-Synch on.

The more I look at these things, the more I am of the opinion that overclocking a Celeron is simply the smartest and most effective thing anyone who wants high performance at a diminutive cost can do! If you can get a Celeron running at about 400MHz then you can be assured your G400 is running well.

Bus speeds seem to be of minimal importance, eh?

[Rogier]

Some scores with a C300@464 you asked for:
Q3A (1.08) HIGH, 32-bits, G400DH32
800x600: 38.6 fps (beta ICD), 43.8 (TGL)
1024x768: 28.1 fps (beta ICD), 31.3 (TGL)

Definitely not as good as your results , I didn't fiddle with any settings though. Gives an impression of the improvements using TGL.

Some Q2 comparison material:
Q2 3.20 demo1, al settings max, vsync off
800x600x16: 68.8 (ICD), 76.1 (TGL), 45.4 (W2K)
1024x768x16: 60.2 (ICD), 69.0 (TGL), 44.6 (W2K)

The Win2K driver performance comes close to the win95 drivers that came with my G400 (Sigh..), I do not believe the overhead of W2K is to blaim: Unreal Tournament (D3D) shows the same or even better results on W2K compared to W98.

Abit BH6, C300@464, 128Mb PC100, G400DH32, 2x9Gb7200 Quantum, SbLive, Pioneer DVD303, 3C905TX

[Agent31]

Those are pretty good! Just out of curiosity, what is the lowest framerate you recall seeing during those demos?

[Sierra]

Hey Guy's,

Just thought that I'd add a couple of results that I got with my Celeron.

Sorry, I don't know how to do all the flash graphs like moreau, so you'll have to make do with plain old text ;-)

All benchmarks were run on Quake 2 Demo1 at 1024x768 at 16 bit color and everything set to max.

366Mhz: NoTGL 49.9 FPS: TGL 53.7 FPS:

417Mhz: NoTGL 54.6 FPS: TGL 60.1 FPS:

458Mhz: NoTGL 60.0 FPS: TGL 66.3 FPS:


Cheers

Alan.



------------------
Celeron 366 @ 413; Abit BH6; 128M PC100; Matrox Millenium G400 MAX; 28Gb Seagate Barracuda; 6.4Gb IBM; SB Live; HP CDR-W; ViewSonic 19" monitor;

[Greebe]

Sitting Bull, your not supposed to benchmark with the Vsync on. You'll never see what the card is capable of by limiting it with your monitors (specific) refresh rate.

Q2demo1.dm2, same settings as Moreau, PD5.41, TGL2, Voff, except Max OC'd 20%
16x12 = 33.7
12x8 = 51.1
10x7 = 77.2
8x6 = 116.9
6x4 = 144.7

[Vinz]

Not only are you forcing it to the refresh of your monitor, you are forcing it to an integer divide of your refresh rate (is that correct english? whatever)

For example: if your screen is set to 100Hz at that specific resolution, your game will run in 100fps or 1/2*100=50fps or 1/3*100=33.3fps or 1/4*100=25fps etc.

So always turn V-Sync off for benchmarking, and turn it back on when actually playing (it looks better, no tearing images onscreen).