Explanation for LOW FPS in Q3

[Speedy2k]

System Specs:
Abit Bh6
Celeron 300a@450
196 pc100 sdram
15 gig 5400rpm Quantum HD
TNT2 16mb 160 core /175 memory w/Detonator 3 drivers.
Windows 2000 Professional

FASTEST - 58.2 FPS
FAST - 52.1
NORMAL - 50.8
High Quality - 42.9

Do these look right or too low?

 

[Icy]

Those scores are pretty good with the setup you have. The TNT 2 is it an ULTRA? What is your Q3 setup? 16 or 32 bit? What res?
Icy

 

[Speedy2k]

It is a regular TNT2 16mb with default 125/143
I overclocked it to 160/175

And I have a heatsink and fan so it's stable.

My quake3 setup is default

I just changed from fastest to high quality and I never changed anything else. And the resolution wasn't changed either. I just switch the defined fastest, fast, normal and hq. I think hq is like 800x600 32bit and etc.. I never change any of the settings. Just leave them the way they were set.

 

[Speedy2k]

I just compared my scores to some of other benchmarks done on other sites and hell my fps are way lower then theirs. Maybe its because of win2k or the detonator 3 drivers.

 

[Speedy2k]

anyone ?

 

[snow patrol]

What scores did you compare to (links?). Those look ok to me. Your low detail/resolution scores will be limited by your relatively low CPU speed.

 

[The Wildcard]

Yes those fps results aren't that bad and i got very similar scores to those back when I had my Celeron 300a @ 450 on a Abit Bx 6 rev.2 and a Tnt2 ultra.

 

[Speedy2k]

Check this out:
Link for benchmarks

However the texture detail isn't known and neither is the lighting detail etc... that changes the fps a lot too

However I think the mode "Normal" is 640x480 @ 16bit

I get like 50 fps in 640x480 16bit and that benchmarks shows like 70

 

[Dark4ng3l]

those scores are fine(just a bit lower than mine)

 

[Speedy2k]

Check these out, Celeron 450a is much faster?

Benchmarks for Celeron 450a

Benchmarks for PIII 450

 

[LocutusX]

Those benchmarks are of Q3Test 1.08 ... is that what you're using? The Demo in that could be completely different from what you are running (WHAT demo are you running anyway?). Also that was the beta release of Q3A, not final.

BTW You should read that review again to find out what drivers he was using for those TNT2 cards and try those ones instead. I have heard Det3's are not particularly good for TNT2 users.

 

[Speedy2k]

I am using q3 1.11.

I used the detonator 3 drivers and then switched to detonator 2 5.32

Not much of a difference, maybe a couple of fps more.

 

[NOX]

The benchmarks, which you are referring to, were done using Win98SE, and not Win2k, which makes a difference in performance. That would suggest the lower FPS you?re getting under Win2k. Considering that, your numbers are fine.

I?ll get 59FPS in Q3 Timedemo demo001 HQ w/ my V5 and Dual PIII?s at 933MHz. Not much more then you as you can see.

 

[The Wildcard]

Wow win2k hindered your performance that much?

 

[Speedy2k]

That's what I am trying to figure out.

 

[NOX]

If you?re running at 8x6 HQ 32-bit, like you say, and getting 42.9FPS, what?s you concern? Anands TNT2 is getting 45FPS at the same setting under Win98SE. There are many things you should take into account, and yes, Win2k is one of them. Considering you?re only running a few FPS lower compared to Anands benchmarks using the same card, you?re fine.

 

[Speedy2k]

Yeah his tnt2 got 45 fps but it was clocked at 125/150

I overclocked mine to 160/175!

 

[NOX]

Yes, I saw that, even overclocked at best you'll see 4-5FPS increase. But like I said, I think Win2k is holding you back on the extra FPS. Try it in Win98.

[EDIT]

Take a look at this review Win2k Video Card Round Up. Only the Geforce seems to stay up, the rest fall back in Win2k. People like me who are using the V5 and Win2k are losing FPS. But I can live with the lose of a few FPS for stability.

 

[Speedy2k]

I see so overclocking doesn't really do that much. And I love win2k. NO comparison with win9x. No blue screens, no lock ups. I think I should just get a faster cpu

 

[The Wildcard]

Yeah that's what my friend said that his Win2k is rock stable. He hasn't seen one one blue screen yet.

 

[NOX]

Yes, Win2k it rock solid, I too have never saw a blue screen. The best thing I like about Win2k is when an app stops responding it doesn't take your whole system down like Win98 will do; sometimes. Win2k Task manager is the best, end task and try again, unlike Win98, when you try to end task it takes forever to end or when you try running the same app again without restarting you get more blue screens, that?s if your whole system didn?t stop responding already.

Here take a look at these benchmarks(there are more on Anands) even when overclocked you don?t see any magnificent increase at lower res 8x6. Though at higher res it'll help to keep your FPS up.

Try here also, good tip...for overclocking.