🚀 go-pugleaf

OK here are some benchs
3D Mark99  at 800x600 16 bit default   7180  12010   this is not the Athlon
.dll's
3D Mark 2000 default 1024x768  4395
Q2   640x480  207fps   800x600 163fps 1024x768 137fps 1600x1200 68fps!
Q3  1024
fastest 88.0 fast 79.8 normal 78.8 high 52.3
Now you want to tell me that in UT that 42 fps at 1600x1200 and 50 fps at
640x480 doesn't sound a little odd?  Sure it does, just because you authored
a demo doesn't mean that the method that UT records the scores is anyway
near to being factual or correct.
<DeadDred@nospam mail.com> wrote in message
news:3881a1f8.59536214@perm.read.netcom.net.uk...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 03:23:59 -0500, "SilverBack" <downing7@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >It's also well known that the UT benchmarks are bogus.
> >How can you get aproximately the same fps at 1600x1200 and 640x480? I do
> >duh.
> >
> As the author of the Phobia demo, I wouldn't call the benchmarks bogus
> at all as the results posted over the various NG's do vary with
> different hardware and software combinations, but consistent with
> similarly specced machines.
>
> I get very different frame rates between 1600 and 640 resolutions. If
> you get the same then your processor is probably not powerful enough
> to feed enough data to the video card at 640x480.
>
> DeadDred (ShaMaN)