poor Quake III bench

[TimeFlies]

Any input as to why my quake III demo bench is so low?
By all accounts I thought I should be getting ~400 FPS...

Quake III
Demo version, 1.32 patch (point release 132)
Gl driver default
Gl: ON
640X480
16 bit
Medium detail
16 bit texture
bilinear

298 FPS

System:
P4 2.4 @ 2.898 (18 X 161) @ 1.65 v
Asus P4B533-E (latest bios)
ATI Radeon 9700 (no o/c)
Corsair xms 3000 2-2-2-6 (set at 1:1, running 320 mhz)
RAID = 2 X 80 WD JB
IDE = 1 X 80 WD JB
CD = Yamaha CDR-F1
DVD = Aopen 16X

Madonion 3Dmark 14998
Sandra Mem: 2434 / 2432
Sandra Multimedia: 11443 / 14331
Sandra Arith: 5601 MIPS / 3568 MFLOPS

 

[funnyperson1]

i dont know, but may i ask why it matters? just turn up the settings to 1600x1200 and 4X AA and get framerates that would still feel as smooth and give you the same response? thats the whole purpose of the 9700....its to turn up settings, not to play at crappy settings with 400fps lol

 

[IR1]

Can you show us where you got the idea that it would be running at 400 fps?.

Got a websites benchmark or a freind? maybe they have a better computer than you do, i dont know... but what FPS do you get at super max settings?

Pentium 4 2.4 ghz runs about equal to a athlon xp 2000+ which is about 1.8ghz... I dunno it could possibly be your cpu... but 2.4 ghz should be enough head room...

I dunno.. I am an AMD guys myself... cant really vouch for Intel.

Ian

 

[TimeFlies]

Check here for Quake III FPS stats.

PCSTats Review


or here:

HardOCP Review

or here:

Toms Hardware Review @ 1024 x 768 > 300 FPS

or here:

or here:

or here:

There are multiple sites over the net with over 350 FPS for 9700 pros.

I just feel like my under 300 benchies look more like a 4600 rather than a 9700, doh.

 

[Kingslayer]

Not to sound snide, but honestly, whats the difference between 300 and 400 framerates on an old out dated game?

 

[TimeFlies]

It's not a matter of a benchmark for an old an outdated game, it's a matter of "do I have something set wrong in my system". If an old and outdated game doesn't run right, isn't that some indication that overall system performance isn't optimal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your benchies were low, wouldn't you want to know why? The whole point of oc'ing is to get the most performance for the buck. If something isn't up to par, I'd like fix it.

 

[CrystalMethod]

If that's the case, I'd go with a 3DMark bench, rather than the QIII bench.

 

[funnyperson1]

if you just want to make sure your computer is functioning as it shouls run 3dmark2001....or turn up all the settings in QuakeIII...and then bench it with 1600x1200x32 6xAA 16aniso and you should still get 60+fps

 

[TimeFlies]

just a quick Q, how do you set AA on?

 

[funnyperson1]

try advanced properties in the control panel...

 

[TimeFlies]

aye, got it set to 6X, max settings, now have 81.8 fps.
reran tests (no AA)
343.1 fps @ 640X480
335.7 @ 800x600
334.5 @ 1024X768
319.2 @ 1280X1024 and
278.6 @ 1600X1200

with 6XAA, highest settings
180.2 @ 1024X768
118.2 @ 1280X1024
81.9 @ 1600X1200

Thanks for the help!

 

[funnyperson1]

and this is where the 9700Pro shines....a Ti4600 would be crying for mercy at 6xAA with 16x aniso and 1600x1200x32.....your machine is fine...i bet it looks a lot better too