🚀 go-pugleaf

Just something to compare with: I also got a Pentium 133, 64 Mb, and an ordinary
2D graphic card (ATI WinCharger w 2Mb). In NT 4/SP3 running the same timedemo as
Mark in 640x480 I get 7.8 fps. So, a VooDoo card would give almost 3 times the
fps on a P133 box.

/Per Olsson

Mark wrote:

> In article <6amhu9$7pp$1@guysmiley.blarg.net>,
> Brian Jenkinson <jenk@blarg.net> wrote:
> >heres a bit of info....
> >I recently purchased a Pure 3d. I have a P133 and 48m ram. With all of the
> >tweaking and testing I have done over the past month I have found that the
> >most to be expected out of my system running Quake2 is around 20fps, which
> >is not bad for the great resolution, but I do notice slowdowns and basically
> >Quake 2 is such a monster that it eats up my P133 and wants more. Take it
> >from my experience....invest your money into a faster cpu and wait for
> >voodoo2.
> >
>
> Hmm, I have a Orchid Righteous 3D on a p133 with 64mb of ram and Quake2
> gave me 20fps on win95 at 640x480 and 8 bit textures. I've never measured
> Quake so can't quote a figure in that respect.  Anyway, 20fps looks great,
> I don't see how it could look much better.  Only noticeable glitch is when
> maybe three or four explosions fill the screen, and it slows down a tad.
> Other than that it runs like a dream.
>
> One point of note, I recently (today) installed Win98 Beta3, and it's
> native 3dfx drivers, and now get an increased fps of 24 in Quake II.
> This might be due just to the speed of the 98 kernel, which is meant to
> be superior and faster than 95's.
>
> And yes, this is all on a p133/64mb ram, using timedemo 1/demo1.dm2