home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Simon Yardley wrote:
-
- > That sounds good but i'd prefer to do a quick test by loading a common WAD file and have
- > someone tell me what the FPS rating is on their FX-card, AfterBurner etc ...
- > I'm sure they would be very similar in doing a speed test ... (unless the FPS counter
- > isn't accurate ...)
-
- Well, after I finally got BM17 to work in my FX-Falcon, I made some
- comparisons... First, subjectively it seems like the new DSP binary
- doesn't speed up as much as 1.32 did. 50 MHz DSP, 18 MHz bus and 36 MHz
- CPU clock should improve things quite a bit, but perhaps texture mapping
- doesn't utilize these that much. Oh, I forgot Fast-RAM...
-
- Using full window I got between about 7 and 10 FPS. Funny, but one
- WAD that used to give astronomical FPS-rates (very few objects) now
- texture-mapped only gives about 7.8 FPS (used to make 20..60 ;-) !
-
- Using something like 160x100 gave me 15..20 FPS. I wonder, whether
- RGB performs here better than VGA..?
-
- Tommi
-
-