Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: CptTrips on December 28, 1999, 12:22:00 PM
-
My squad has asked if I could gather some data on the range of hardware performance that can be expected in this sim. I was wondering if you guys could post here your hardware specs and the average FPS you get. I will distill the information into some kind of chart and make it available to everyone. To give you an idea of what I'm looking for I'll add mine here. Thanks in advance to anyone who helps out with info:
Processor: 600 pIII
System RAM: 256 meg
3D Card: TNT2 ULTRA
3D Card RAM: 32 meg
OS: Win98
FPS: 60-70
-----------------------------------
Processor:
System RAM:
3D Card:
3D Card RAM:
OS:
FPS:
Thanks,
Wab
-
sure, here ya go
AMD K6-2 400
Viper 770 Ultra
64MB RAM (soon to be 128)
17" monitor
TM FLCS, WCS MkII, Elite pedals
average fps 30-35 when up close and personal with a bandit
-
Processor: P2 333
System RAM: 64 megs PC100
3D Card: TNT V34000
3D Card RAM: 16
OS: Win98
FPS: 34
Yeager
-
cel 366 emachine at 299.00
system 64 meg 66mhz bus (added 32 from basic)
voodoo 3 2000 99.00
16 meg
win98
around 40 at best lowest 25or so
interact jstick 39.00
you can do it on the cheap!!
-
P3-450
CL TNT-2U/32
SB AWE-128
128M Ram
Win98
40-50 FPS
1024 resolution
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 12-29-1999).]
-
Processor: PII 333 w/MMX
System RAM: 192mb (128mb PC100 and 64mb 66hz stuff)
3D Card: Diamond Viper V770 Ultra
3D Card RAM: 32mb
OS: Win95 OSR2
FPS: low 30's in furballs. typically mid 30's to mid 40's in flight that depends on wher eI'm flying, clouds, other aircraft, ground clutter on/off etc, etc....
(you really need to define one point to measure frames from within the sim if you want a real comparison between different people's setups)
-Westy
*** AND AT 1024 RESOLUTION
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 12-28-1999).]
-
CC that last comment Westy.
Unless frame rates are compared using the same processor load, ie the same amount of moving obejects in each frame, the comparisons are not going to mean much. The frame rate looking at a blue sky is going to be very different from that in the middle of a furball with ack flying and clouds above.
I believe Avin had set up a WB frame rate benchmark test which involved starting offline on a carrier with the escorts all shooting at you. Something similar needs to be defined here. (Obviously we have no CV's here, but you get the idea.)
-
Processor: PIII 550MHz
System RAM: 128MB
3D Card: Voodoo II
3D Card RAM: 8MB
OS: Win98SE
FPS: 50+ in the clear
40+ in mild furballs
25+ in heavy furballs
800x600 with HiRes artwork
[This message has been edited by Dingy (edited 12-28-1999).]
-
Processor: Cyrix 333
System RAM: 128 MB
3D Card: Suspect Voodoo 2
3D Card RAM: 12MB
OS:Win 98
800x600, no hi res textures
FPS: goes as low as 6 and as high as 17
Suspect is not the make of voodoo 2 but rather because i think something is wrong with it.
Are these framerates down to my card or is it just my processor is a bit weak?
Any help appreciated.
P.S. D3D games run much worse than openGL ones
[This message has been edited by jmccaul (edited 12-28-1999).]
-
P3 500 on intel 820 MB
128 meg ram
19in LLYMA mon
32 meg Guillemot?? Gmax (new nvidia chipset)
clone soundcard (quadzilla type)
X36 combo
Runs 25-40 FPS maxed out in res at 32bit hi res. Runs 45-55 backed off a bit. My understanding is FPS in the new nvidia chipset is roughly equal to TNT2 for current generation of games
-
the cyrix processor is a dog for 3D applications. Cyrix has always had problems with "floating" decimal point equations integral to 3D gaming. The only real solution is a better processor but the new GPU cards will take some load of of the CPU.
I'm not sure how much sense it makes to pay $250 for a vidio card vs upgrading MB and/or chip.
-
Thx humble
I knew the processor was a bit of a dog (you get what you pay for) but was also wondering about my card due to the fact i've had driver problems with it and also when i loaded up half-life it was alright in openGL (i don't know the FPS, how do you find out for games without a FPS counter?) but moved along at less at about 1 FPS, literally!
-
Thx humble
I knew the processor was a bit of a dog (you get what you pay for) but was also wondering about my card due to the fact i've had driver problems with it and also when i loaded up half-life it was alright in openGL (i don't know the FPS, how do you find out for games without a FPS counter?) but moved along at less than 1 FPS in D3D.
-
Heck, guess I should have asked what screen res people were running (that WOULD make quite a bit of diff ;0) )
LoL! oh well, this isn't scientific, just a rough survey.
Thanks,
Wab
"Lies,Damned Lies, and statistics"
-
Processor: PII 450
System RAM: 128 meg
3D Card: Voodoo2 SLI
3D Card RAM: 16 meg
OS: Win98
FPS: 40-50
Res: 1024
-
Processor: AMD Athlon 600mhz
System RAM: 128mb
3D Card: Viper v770 Ultra
3D Card RAM: 32mb
OS: Win 98
FPS: 30-40 fps at 1280x1024 resolution.
Gordo
-
c466
64mb
v770 TNT2
32mb
Win98se
40-50 oops forgot res! 1024
[This message has been edited by Camel (edited 12-28-1999).]
-
gawd.. i gotta dinosaur.
PII 266 Processor (putt putt putt)
128 Meg system RAM
Diamond v770 ultra Vid card; w/32 meg RAM
17" monitor
Win 98 (screw u, mr. gates)
1024 res
20-26 FPS inna da furballa, lots worse with clouds about
Hang
------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
-
OK. I admit it. I suck as a statistician.
This isn't scientific, and not particularly accurate. Its just designed to allow people to estimate their expected framerate in orders of magnitude.
So, this may be the worst, most inaccurate, fudged up pile of fantasy since the U.S. Census, but here it is. ;0)
NOTE: I picked a sampling of the most representitive data point and graphed them. It looks to be pretty linear. The data point at 400 mhz seem a little low but I chalk that up to being a non-intel chip. In reviewing these numbers I would suggest applying the following modifiers:
1. There didn't seem to be much difference between 16 and 32 meg vid cards but there did seem to be a drop between 8 and 16. So, if you only have a 8 meg vid card subtract 5 fps from whats charted.
2. Non-Intel chips seemed slower. Subtract 5 fps if you have a non-intel (except for the 400 mhz data point).
3. Subtract 3 fps if you run res more than 1024x768. Add 3 fps if you run less than 1024x768.
http://www.digitalsim.com/downloads/fps.gif (http://www.digitalsim.com/downloads/fps.gif)
For what its worth,
Wab
-
System Compaq model 4840
Processor PII MMX 266
SD RAM 64 MEGS
Video Card ATI Rage Pro 2 megs
Monster 3DII Add-on 8 megs
640x480
Frames 25 to 35. Averages 28 to 32. In a
B-17-usually low teens. (not sure why)
Old and slow, but does the job for me.
K-KEN
-
Processor: PIII 450 overclocked to 558
System RAM: 256 mb
3D Card: Creative Annihilator
3D Card RAM: 32 mb
OS: Win98 SE
FPS: 60 in the clear, slows to mid 40's in furball 1024 16 bit res
Running at 450 I see about 54 in the clear and low 40's in furball I think I really don't have time to notice ;-)
[This message has been edited by Toffer (edited 12-30-1999).]