dp 800 gf3 q3=120fps dp1ghz gf4mx q3=115 ???

serranoserrano
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html"; target="_blank">benchmarks here</a>



also i found out theres a command to enable smp in quake 3 over at arstechnica



[quote]Originally posted by strepidus:

I'm just hoping that when Apple did the new dual 1GHz tests with Q3A and reported an fps of 115, they had forgotten to enable symmetric multiprocessing (r_smp 1). I mean, even a dual 800 with a GF3 can get over 120 fps with everything maxed out at 1024x768. So unless the GF4 MX really sucks, the dual 1GHz box should be doing much better than "just" 115 fps.<hr></blockquote>



<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



that about sums it up, how does the 7500 compare, why isnt the gf3 still offered, when is the 8500 coming... because apparently this gf4mx just can't cut it... someone get kidred to test his dualie out in q3 with smp on...



[edit]<a href="http://www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html"; target="_blank">heres</a> where i got the 115 from, in case anyone hasn't seen it already[/edit]



[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: janitor ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    idogcowidogcow Posts: 111member
    Bare Feats is full of bull...period.
  • Reply 2 of 7
    guitarblokeguitarbloke Posts: 125member
    There have been reports that the earlier model with the GF3 gets better fps; in a low-rez test with eye candy off, I'd imagine the newer model is appreciably faster.



    Do you seriously think Apple would forget SMP in their tests?
  • Reply 3 of 7
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
    Since you generally don't refresh you rmonitor more than at most 100 times a second (I run my iMac at 95 Hz), the difference in fps above 100 doesn't matter, even to an electronic sensor, let alone the human eye.



    Still, it is strange, the difference in fps betweern the old and the new. Logic of Moore's Law dictates that the new are always faster and more efficient, at the same price or lower.
  • Reply 4 of 7
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    The GeForce 4 MX probably does suck compared to the GeForce 3. IIRC, people are saying the GF4MX is architecturally not much more than the GF2.



    GF4MX != GF4.



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 7
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    [quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:

    <strong>Since you generally don't refresh you rmonitor more than at most 100 times a second (I run my iMac at 95 Hz), the difference in fps above 100 doesn't matter, even to an electronic sensor, let alone the human eye.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Common n00b mistake. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    The high framerate is important because that is an average. In games like Quake 3, the framerate will drastically drop when there are a lot of sprites performing on the screen. That 100 could drop down to 30 or 40 -- VERY noticeable to the eye and distracting -- during some intense games.
  • Reply 6 of 7
    idogcowidogcow Posts: 111member
    I'm guessing Apples tests were done under OS9..Macworld gave a DP 800 108fps under OSX and it got something like 78fps under OS9.
  • Reply 7 of 7
    cakecake Posts: 1,010member




    Still diggin' my 533DP and GF3 combo, but I think I'm offing this machine to get a 933.



    I don't play Q3, but UT rocks pretty well with this setup. I have a clan battle in a couple of hours - is the Apple Store in Glendale still open?!
Sign In or Register to comment.