Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

ZDoom LE, Pentium 133's, Windows 98, and DOS 3.1 all go here! A bygone era, of particular interest to some folks.

Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby invictius » Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:34 am

P3-700 slot 1, 512mb ram, geforce 4 agp: 140fps.
P3-1ghz socket 370, 512mb ram, intel onboard: 75.

Vsync off, 320x200, zdoom software mode. Surely the intel onboard video isn't crippling it to this degree. Similar result for an e1m1 timedemo also. And finally, the 700 is running windows me, the 1ghz running xp. Might put me on the 1ghz but it would be a shame because the xp install has all the drivers etc.
invictius
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2012

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby Rachael » Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:49 am

Yes, older Intel GPU's are very bad with acceleration and processor clocks. Have you tried "r_forceddraw true" on that particular system?
User avatar
Rachael
Webmaster
 
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Discord: Rachael#3767
Twitch ID: madamerachelle
Github ID: madame-rachelle
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby invictius » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:09 am

Rachael wrote:Yes, older Intel GPU's are very bad with acceleration and processor clocks. Have you tried "r_forceddraw true" on that particular system?


2.8.1 doesn't recognize that command. Nor does zdoom le.
invictius
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2012

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby wildweasel » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:26 am

Have looked it up: the command's actually vid_forceddraw. That'd explain why it wasn't recognized. =P
User avatar
wildweasel
change o' pace.
Moderator Team Lead
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2003

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby Rachael » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:30 am

Oops. :oops:

We definitely need to consolidate the r_ and vid_ namespaces. Having them separate is certainly annoying. :P

I think r_* is meant for the actual rendering code and vid_ is supposed to deal with the hardware code, itself.
User avatar
Rachael
Webmaster
 
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Discord: Rachael#3767
Twitch ID: madamerachelle
Github ID: madame-rachelle
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby wildweasel » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:32 am

Rachael wrote:Oops. :oops:

We definitely need to consolidate the r_ and vid_ namespaces. Having them separate is certainly annoying. :P

Well, I also tend to forget ZDoom doesn't have a cg_ namespace, and keep trying to toggle cg_drawFPS out of habit from Quake 3. =P
User avatar
wildweasel
change o' pace.
Moderator Team Lead
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2003

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby invictius » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:25 am

wildweasel wrote:Have looked it up: the command's actually vid_forceddraw. That'd explain why it wasn't recognized. =P


197 on the 1ghz, 343 on the 700. This is on LE, I've been liking the fact that that and CE use the one config file for all systems instead of creating a new one for each pc name, solves a lot of headaches when benchmarking all systems equally. Although the intel drivers appear to be the ones that came with xp, might try hunting down some real ones - would it cause that much of a performance difference though?
invictius
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2012

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby Rachael » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:40 am

Yes, it would.

Vendor supplied drivers are almost always better than Microsoft supplied ones - although in Windows 10 that's been changing for the better, thankfully.
User avatar
Rachael
Webmaster
 
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Discord: Rachael#3767
Twitch ID: madamerachelle
Github ID: madame-rachelle
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby invictius » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:56 am

Rachael wrote:Yes, it would.

Vendor supplied drivers are almost always better than Microsoft supplied ones - although in Windows 10 that's been changing for the better, thankfully.


I've got a p4 2ghz with a similarly named intel chipset that gave me about 70fps... putting in a lowly geforce 2 mx gave me 400fps. Unfortunately the 1ghz doesn't have an agp slot, would a lowly pci s3 trio with 2mb ram be any better than the intel?
invictius
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2012

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby wildweasel » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:57 am

invictius wrote:would a lowly pci s3 trio with 2mb ram be any better than the intel?

From my experience, an S3 chip of any model would produce worse results than software rendering.
User avatar
wildweasel
change o' pace.
Moderator Team Lead
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2003

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby invictius » Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:25 pm

wildweasel wrote:
invictius wrote:would a lowly pci s3 trio with 2mb ram be any better than the intel?

From my experience, an S3 chip of any model would produce worse results than software rendering.


Might have to start a gofundme for a pci gf 5500 off of ebay. I chucked my pci voodoo banshee in and it wouldn't even POST.
invictius
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2012

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby drfrag » Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:18 pm

On LE the username is only used on win2k and later. Also there's a setting in display options to switch between d3d and ddraw. The runme cmd file is included just in case you mess things up.
User avatar
drfrag
I.R developer, I.R smart
Vintage GZDoom Developer
 
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Location: Spain

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby invictius » Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:29 pm

drfrag wrote:On LE the username is only used on win2k and later. Also there's a setting in display options to switch between d3d and ddraw. The runme cmd file is included just in case you mess things up.


In what ways is using direct3d as a renderer different from running gzdoom?
invictius
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2012

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby wildweasel » Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:47 pm

invictius wrote:
drfrag wrote:On LE the username is only used on win2k and later. Also there's a setting in display options to switch between d3d and ddraw. The runme cmd file is included just in case you mess things up.


In what ways is using direct3d as a renderer different from running gzdoom?

Direct3D is used as a rendering surface for the software renderer, not as the renderer itself. The game renders at the usual 8bpp, but draws that to a D3D surface in true color, thus making it effectively immune to Windows 7's palette glitch, as well as enabling smoother window resizes if running windowed. (Oh, and supporting true-color HUD graphics.)
User avatar
wildweasel
change o' pace.
Moderator Team Lead
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2003

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby koverhbarc » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:36 pm

Yes, that's the confusing bit. Direct3D is, as this user found, likely to be slower on systems where it matters. Why is DirectDraw not the default for XP and earlier?
koverhbarc
Banned User
 
Joined: 06 Dec 2010

Next

Return to Legacy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest