RichM499
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 783
- Location
- Spaceballs Mega-Maid
I recently finished building my vintage gaming PC. I wanted a machine I could play my really old Windows and MSDOS games with as well as some of the 1996-1999 3D games.
Specs:
AM5x86 p75 133mhz @ 160mhz
1GB HDD using on-board controller (This will be 8GB with Promise Ultra ATA/100 controller soon)
Voodoo 3 3000
32MB 72pin EDO RAM (This will be 64MB soon)
Yamaha OPL3-SAx sound card 100% sound blaster compatible
I decided to purchase a Pentium Overdrive (P24T) 83mhz socket 3 chip to measure the performance compared to the AM5x86 p75 chip, and to my surprise the AMD chip far outperforms the Pentium Overdrive. In QuakeGL I was able to get 13FPS average with the AMD chip, and the Pentium Overdrive only delivered 8FPS. I am convinced I can get the FPS up to around 15FPS with the AMD chip. I was unsuccessful at getting Super Pi 1.5 XS to run on this system, but I will be trying some older benchmarks over the next few days and posting the result screenshots here.
Do you have any ideas for good benchmarks that work in Windows 98 or MSDOS?
So far the games that work and are completely playable on my AMD 486 chip are Forsaken, QuakeGL, GLHexen II, Monster Truck Madness, Space Quest 6, and some other 2d titles. The OpenGL games run very smoothly most of the time, but they slow down to around 8-10 FPS during scenes of heavy action.
Do you have any recommendations for methods for increasing performance?
Edit: Changing the PCI burst write and CPU - PCI write/read settings improved performance slightly. Also, l2 cache WriteThrough seems faster than WriteBack for some reason. This old motherboard doesn't give me DRAM timings or specifics, but changing it from slowest to fastest seemed to make a small difference. I was able to get 14.4FPS in QuakeGL which makes it pretty smooth for the most part. It's very playable, and I was able to get through a few levels without major slowdowns except for the areas with a bunch of enemies in open spaces. Interestingly, there is no performance difference between 320x200 and 512x384 resolutions (i.e. they both scored 14.4 FPS in Timedemo demo2), and 640x480 is only very slightly slower (it's 14.3fps). I did not expect this result. I thought for sure the lower resolution would perform better.
Specs:
AM5x86 p75 133mhz @ 160mhz
1GB HDD using on-board controller (This will be 8GB with Promise Ultra ATA/100 controller soon)
Voodoo 3 3000
32MB 72pin EDO RAM (This will be 64MB soon)
Yamaha OPL3-SAx sound card 100% sound blaster compatible
I decided to purchase a Pentium Overdrive (P24T) 83mhz socket 3 chip to measure the performance compared to the AM5x86 p75 chip, and to my surprise the AMD chip far outperforms the Pentium Overdrive. In QuakeGL I was able to get 13FPS average with the AMD chip, and the Pentium Overdrive only delivered 8FPS. I am convinced I can get the FPS up to around 15FPS with the AMD chip. I was unsuccessful at getting Super Pi 1.5 XS to run on this system, but I will be trying some older benchmarks over the next few days and posting the result screenshots here.
Do you have any ideas for good benchmarks that work in Windows 98 or MSDOS?
So far the games that work and are completely playable on my AMD 486 chip are Forsaken, QuakeGL, GLHexen II, Monster Truck Madness, Space Quest 6, and some other 2d titles. The OpenGL games run very smoothly most of the time, but they slow down to around 8-10 FPS during scenes of heavy action.
Do you have any recommendations for methods for increasing performance?
Edit: Changing the PCI burst write and CPU - PCI write/read settings improved performance slightly. Also, l2 cache WriteThrough seems faster than WriteBack for some reason. This old motherboard doesn't give me DRAM timings or specifics, but changing it from slowest to fastest seemed to make a small difference. I was able to get 14.4FPS in QuakeGL which makes it pretty smooth for the most part. It's very playable, and I was able to get through a few levels without major slowdowns except for the areas with a bunch of enemies in open spaces. Interestingly, there is no performance difference between 320x200 and 512x384 resolutions (i.e. they both scored 14.4 FPS in Timedemo demo2), and 640x480 is only very slightly slower (it's 14.3fps). I did not expect this result. I thought for sure the lower resolution would perform better.
Last edited: