G400 and GLquake

[Shoyu]

Oh OK.
Just that Wombat's post made me think the ICD is supposed to be faster - when the results I got showed that TGL is faster.
Thanks again.

[cjolley]

I tried to use the straight ICD for glq, but had strange errors such as the status bar being in the vertical center of the screen.
I am using the latest beta driver.
So, I went back to the ICD.
Works great.
chuck

[Shoyu]

It's weird. I get better performance with PD5.50.10 w/TGL than PD5.30 w/TGL.

[HollyBerri]

Shoyu, I'm still using TGL (copied the dll) for GLQuake since I haven't gone to 5.50 yet.

But:[list=1][*] Quake is so old that it runs fast on today's CPUs and using today's video cards anyway;[*] I keep hearing that the ICD is about the same speed;[/list=a]

... so I don't quite know what you're asking here.

-----------------------------
Holly

[Sammer]

Foxm...

I don't know if anyone might have mentioned this in any of the other posts but have you installed AGP support for win95b...You didn't mention this in your origonal post...If you haven't installed AGP support you can find it on your win95b cd at \other\usb\usbsupp.exe...this would make a huge difference in the bandwidth throughput of your agp slot...

Hope this helps

[foxm]

Thanks for the answers - I'll have a look.

Sorry for late reply, I am travelling,
and also for the multiple posts.

[foxm]

Sammer:

this could me most relevant, thanks.
Indeed I am using Win95a (bound to office network) and it seems that it doesnt support AGP at all - is this true ? Then no wonder...

Question: what are then the frame rates
one could expect for a G400/PIII-600 ?
Some tell they get ~60fps like me
(pretty resol independent), others say 120 - so how far am I off ? All I can say that it is a bit slower than on my PII/333 with Voodoo 2.

[Shoyu]

What procedures are you taking to measure your fps performance?

[foxm]

Indeed, the procedure should always be
specified... I use "timedemo demo2",
close the console, sound off,
and the screen size
such that the image just touches the
status bar at the bottom.
Clearly, with a smaller screen size the fps goes up... and I get to >100fps even wiht my old computer.

At any rate, apart from comparing absolute
fps, my new comp with PIII/600/128/G400_32/
is slower in GLquake at 800x600x16
than my old PII/333/64/Voodoo2_12/ -
either my setup is not right, or for
some reason the GL implementation of the
G400 is simply quite bad...

Again, what's an AGP miniport ? Do I have to
install something else besides the Matrox
drivers ? Indeed if I run the DirectX7a
diagnosis util, then it says: AGP not enabled. Can it enabled at all under Win95a ?
Thanxx !

[HollyBerri]

Indeed if I run the DirectX7a diagnosis util, then it says: AGP not enabled. Can it enabled at all under Win95a?

Well, that's a good question, foxm... but I suspect not, as Microsoft didn't just release the USBsupp.exe as a standalone patch, but instead created OSR2.1.

If you're running a P3 I don't think you need any mobo AGP drivers... but if you're running Win95a you need to upgrade your version to OSR2.1

Win95a is <u>incapable</u> of recognizing your AGP slot!!!!!

...Well, it sees it as a strange mutant PCI slot, actually... but AGP came into its own after Win95 had been released as did USB. So OSR 2.1 included the program USBsupp.exe to enable USB and AGP support...but that was less than perfect as well (both in terms of the install and the implementation), thus MS suggests that users upgrade to Win98 which has native support for USB and AGP.

You might consider following their advice.

----------------------------
Holly

[foxm]

Holly,

thanks for a very clear answer.
Indeed I would have upgraded already,
were it not so that the office network
I am connected to supports only w95a ;-(
- that's why...
grrumple, case closed , thanxx all !

(I'll then consider a separate W98 installation on another partition).

[foxm]

Now I did it - installed W98 on a
separate partition (fortunately),
installed DX7a, installed
Intel INF drivers (Version 2.20) for 440BX
for AGP support (verified AGP support
via DX7 diagnostic tool).

Having all other parameters
the same as for the W95a installation,
the frame rate for GLquake in 1024x768/32
dropped from 66fps to 47fps.

This not changing too much when installing
various different drivers (5.13, 5.41, 5.52). Fastest still is 5.41 with 5.13 ICD...

So, after this lot of work of installing
W98, it's quite disappointing that the
frame rate dropped substantially .. I'd
expected to increase a bit, due to AGP support . )-(
I guess something must be wrong...

[Belshy]

Anyone know the console command so I can see what GL Quake looks like at 1024x768?

Thanks in advance :0)

[cjolley]

You can't do it from the console.
Do "glquake -width 1024" on the command line.
It doesn't realy look much better than 640x480 to me.

chuck