Win2k user, could you please share your opengl performance.

[Nuno]

I think I´m doing something wrong here. Athlon 600 + Gigabyte 7ix + 128 Mb + G400 32 Mb DH @150/200.
I´m only getting 63 fps in quake2 timedemo1. In win 98 I get 130 fps. Is this normal?
I would like to see Q2 and Q3 benchmarks to compare. Athlon users are welcome But I would like to see Intel systems as well.

Thanks!

[Nuno]

Gee, is that hard to run a couple timedemos?

After a little nightmare to install 5.04 I´m getting 73 fps now.

[fds]

Last time I tried playing in Win2k I got the spectacular performance of the whole system crashing under 5 minutes.

So I just decided not to bother with it. Games work so much better under 98SE as of now, it's worth a reboot to 98SE.

[YoKoMo [1]]

I had Win2K installed and played Quake3 fine for awhile, then went back to Win98SE. I don't see any problems related to the card or it's drivers, in fact ti appeared to look and play smoother then under Win98SE.

------------------
PIII 650E at 805Mhz, G400Max, Asus P3B-F (ain't none better!), 384MB PC133 Memory, 2 Seagate 18GB Cheeeeetazzzz.

[DosFreak]

At 1024X768 with all settings to the max in Windows 2000 I had the same performance as in Windows Me.

[Damien Green]

One small thing, Nuno, I see that you're running an Athlon processor. Are you also running the 3DNOW enabled version of Quake 2? You can get it from AMD's website (www.amd.com). I installed it on my machine, and my FPS jumped by around 30% under Win 2000.

[Nuno]

Hi guys, thanks for replying.
Damien: Yes I have the 3dnow! patch. What´s your system and what numbers you get in crusher and timedemo 1 (640x480x16, bilinear, 32 bit z-buffer)?

That 130 fps in win98 isn´t fair, that´s with turbogl. With 5.50 ICD I got around 105 fps.

I´m just curious, because I play games a lot, but I won´t let Win2k just to get a few extra fps. The stability can´t be compared with win9x.