Well, in a couple of years solid state drives should reach sensible prices, so we'll probably all be using those. (Yeah they've got a limited lifespan, but I just saw one that apparently lasts 1.5 million hours, i.e. over 170 years, so unless you plan to live forever and never upgrade your hard drive, you should be okay ).GuntherDW wrote:those days it weren't the fans which made the humming noise in your case but the HDD's
ZDoom on 486s
Re: ZDoom on 486s
Re: ZDoom on 486s
Most drives these days, the regular motorized ATA devices, the motor craps out after 10-15 years anyway.NiGHTMARE wrote:Well, in a couple of years solid state drives should reach sensible prices, so we'll probably all be using those. (Yeah they've got a limited lifespan, but I just saw one that apparently lasts 1.5 million hours, i.e. over 170 years, so unless you plan to live forever and never upgrade your hard drive, you should be okay ).GuntherDW wrote:those days it weren't the fans which made the humming noise in your case but the HDD's
Re: ZDoom on 486s
And I thought I had a fetish. You're an out and out hard drive obsessive.jallamann wrote:I know what you mean, I currently have seven hard disks, ranging from 120 GB to 1 TB in this computer.
Speaking of Terabytes, I remember the first 1GB HD that I saw. A friend of mine had it. In fact, he got the company he worked for to buy it and then persuaded them he needed it in his own computer so that he could do some work at home. The thing was so damned expensive that my mate certainly couldn't afford to buy one himself. Oh the joys of a techno-illiterate boss. To be fair, I don't think he had anywhere near enough stuff to justify that "massive" size either. Anyway, this thing needed its on SCSI card and drivers and was about the size and weight of a typical house brick. This would, maybe, have been around 1992.
Re: ZDoom on 486s
i think i'm more of a geek than himEnjay wrote:And I thought I had a fetish. You're an out and out hard drive obsessive.jallamann wrote:I know what you mean, I currently have seven hard disks, ranging from 120 GB to 1 TB in this computer.
Speaking of Terabytes, I remember the first 1GB HD that I saw. A friend of mine had it. In fact, he got the company he worked for to buy it and then persuaded them he needed it in his own computer so that he could do some work at home. The thing was so damned expensive that my mate certainly couldn't afford to buy one himself. Oh the joys of a techno-illiterate boss. To be fair, I don't think he had anywhere near enough stuff to justify that "massive" size either. Anyway, this thing needed its on SCSI card and drivers and was about the size and weight of a typical house brick. This would, maybe, have been around 1992.
9 HDD's internal, and 3 external because i had no more room inside my case and the little airflow there is in my case would get even crappier
(but only ~4.7TiB in total )
edit: altough this is getting too e-peen i guess
Re: ZDoom on 486s
Ugh hardly anyone knows what socket 3 did. Not that it matters... Quake killed the 486 since it was optimized for pipelined FPU. Mike Abrash and Carmack knew what they were doing. Since I lived through that it means something to me, not just a footnote.
Sorry leileilol. AMD 5x86 wasn't the fastest system you could build. Maybe with the right mobo you could tweak one up to 180mhz. But per clock Cyrix 5x86 wasn't just a name drop... mythical and unprovable yes, but fastest as far as i know.. but i can't prove it, so maybe I AM a lier. I wanted one so bad though, to put my mouth where the money was. But i could never find/get one so I have no proof. =( Now I could probably get one off of eBay, but... it's just not worth the effort. Which makes me sad =(
Zdoom on socket 3 (486) has to die. It... sucks. I'm not going on the bandwagon with "zdoom is an advanced port".... but... Doom as a game has to evolve past it's original container, unless it is to be entombed as a game of the past. Another example is i remember fighting to get an mp3 to play on an AMD 5x86 (160mhz) w/o skipping in win 3.11. Hearing "Mission Impossible" from a computer at all in 1993 was mind-blowing. But now when playing an mp3 doesn't even register on Task Manager (<1%).
I can't even fathom restricting ANY programmer to those shackles of yesteryear.
I had a weird "inter-generational" VLB motherboard that would let you use both socket 3 and socket 4 processors on it. So while the Pentium option probably was a joke (Pentium 60 or 66 and crap chipset) it did have one very interesting side effect. A socket 3 board that would let you select 60 and 66mhz bus. Sadly nothing I had would run on that =( Wish I still had that board, I'd send it to you to play with. Imagine the joy of (with enough cooling) to make a 486-66 POTENTIALLY run at 120 or 133. I know unrealistic, but ugh I REALLY wish i had that board for finding bottlenecks. Yes I do kick myself for not keeping it, only now do i realize how rare a thing it was. ARGH.
But the sad lesson from that board, is even having the mythical 486 board with bus speeds over 50mhz is... nobody cares now =( I don't say this to be mean, I honestly think it would be cool. But it's irrelevant. As entertaining as seeing a 486 at ... 200mhz would be, it would be slow and nobody cares =(
... my avatar isn't just for show, I was a complete Socket 7 whore. I bought a K6-3. Bought 2 K6-2+'s. Found and bought finally a K6-3+ and used to go to LAN parties playing Quake 3 as the "K6-3 Avenger." Overclocked to 672 (112fsb*6). It was/still is a good machine. Running windowsXP even. Too bad the AGP interface on socket 7 boards sucked. Geforce 2 MX on socket 7 was CPU bound, and even then wasn't sure if it was raw CPU speed or just that the AGP interface sucked.
In the end though, you have to let go. It sucks.
I finally bought an Athlon Thunderbird @ 1Ghz. Newer stuff is just so much faster.
One doesn't play Zdoom to see how well it runs on a Cyrix 386DLC-40, they run it to see how well it runs in WindowsXP or whatever their OS of choice is. And if it isn't fast, or stutters for backward compatibility they throw it away.
Sorry leileilol. AMD 5x86 wasn't the fastest system you could build. Maybe with the right mobo you could tweak one up to 180mhz. But per clock Cyrix 5x86 wasn't just a name drop... mythical and unprovable yes, but fastest as far as i know.. but i can't prove it, so maybe I AM a lier. I wanted one so bad though, to put my mouth where the money was. But i could never find/get one so I have no proof. =( Now I could probably get one off of eBay, but... it's just not worth the effort. Which makes me sad =(
Zdoom on socket 3 (486) has to die. It... sucks. I'm not going on the bandwagon with "zdoom is an advanced port".... but... Doom as a game has to evolve past it's original container, unless it is to be entombed as a game of the past. Another example is i remember fighting to get an mp3 to play on an AMD 5x86 (160mhz) w/o skipping in win 3.11. Hearing "Mission Impossible" from a computer at all in 1993 was mind-blowing. But now when playing an mp3 doesn't even register on Task Manager (<1%).
I can't even fathom restricting ANY programmer to those shackles of yesteryear.
I had a weird "inter-generational" VLB motherboard that would let you use both socket 3 and socket 4 processors on it. So while the Pentium option probably was a joke (Pentium 60 or 66 and crap chipset) it did have one very interesting side effect. A socket 3 board that would let you select 60 and 66mhz bus. Sadly nothing I had would run on that =( Wish I still had that board, I'd send it to you to play with. Imagine the joy of (with enough cooling) to make a 486-66 POTENTIALLY run at 120 or 133. I know unrealistic, but ugh I REALLY wish i had that board for finding bottlenecks. Yes I do kick myself for not keeping it, only now do i realize how rare a thing it was. ARGH.
But the sad lesson from that board, is even having the mythical 486 board with bus speeds over 50mhz is... nobody cares now =( I don't say this to be mean, I honestly think it would be cool. But it's irrelevant. As entertaining as seeing a 486 at ... 200mhz would be, it would be slow and nobody cares =(
... my avatar isn't just for show, I was a complete Socket 7 whore. I bought a K6-3. Bought 2 K6-2+'s. Found and bought finally a K6-3+ and used to go to LAN parties playing Quake 3 as the "K6-3 Avenger." Overclocked to 672 (112fsb*6). It was/still is a good machine. Running windowsXP even. Too bad the AGP interface on socket 7 boards sucked. Geforce 2 MX on socket 7 was CPU bound, and even then wasn't sure if it was raw CPU speed or just that the AGP interface sucked.
In the end though, you have to let go. It sucks.
I finally bought an Athlon Thunderbird @ 1Ghz. Newer stuff is just so much faster.
One doesn't play Zdoom to see how well it runs on a Cyrix 386DLC-40, they run it to see how well it runs in WindowsXP or whatever their OS of choice is. And if it isn't fast, or stutters for backward compatibility they throw it away.
- leileilol
- Posts: 4449
- Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:16 am
- Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
- Location: GNU/Hell
Re: ZDoom on 486s
lolThis post was made by zwouth who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
- Project Shadowcat
- Posts: 9369
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:33 pm
- Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 10
- Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
- Location: Blacksburg, SC USA
- Contact:
Re: ZDoom on 486s
Last I checked, ignorance wasn't bliss.
- BlackRabite
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:12 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: ZDoom on 486s
?This post was made by Project Dark Fox who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
- Project Shadowcat
- Posts: 9369
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:33 pm
- Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 10
- Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
- Location: Blacksburg, SC USA
- Contact:
Re: ZDoom on 486s
You're funny.
Re: ZDoom on 486s
I should have realized this sooner, but there's a pretty obvious reason for this: FMOD Ex's entire DSP network is floating point. On modern processor, this is fast. On ancient processors like the 486, it's much slower than integer math, especially if you're using an SX without a coprocessor. You'll probably have better results with an older ZDoom version that used FMOD 3, since that defaults to integer processing.leileilol wrote:Zdoom's slowness is clearly from the processing in FMOD
Short version: FMOD Ex is optimized, but not for 486s.
Re: ZDoom on 486s
Also: 486s are optimized, but not for the software of the year 2008.randy wrote:Short version: FMOD Ex is optimized, but not for 486s.