Voodoo2 SLI beats Voodoo5 5500?
The screenshot below shows a comparison between the two. Both done on the exact same PC.
The purple bar is the Voodoo5 5500(PCI 1.18DVI Bios)
(http://web.aanet.com.au/homeof/pc-physician/FinalCrap.JPG)
Overall Reality Marks for the Voodoo2SLI was 6.63, while the Voodoo5 5500 only got 6.16.
But check out the fill rate what goes on there? [V]
AOPEN MX3S (Pentium 1GHz) 512Mb PC133 SDRAM
Windows 98
FastVoodoo2 4.6
Raziel64 Evolution Driver Expert Edition V1.00.09
Can anyone provide me their results? Especially the fill rate!
Go Postal! :D
You can grab the benchmark here!
http://www.instantnetworks.net/mirror/finalreality/
1.16 use... or 0.9...
I know I've already sent this to you Trigger, but just showing everyone else here - I'm using WinXP Amigamerlin R11. Fill rate seems fine here. Does Win98 really make a difference?
Image Insert:
(https://www.3dfxzone.it/enboard/../public/uploaded/Chips/200582041249_final_reality.JPG)
55.94 KB
Yep.. I've tried different drivers under windows 98 but all return a crap fill rate.
If anyone has a decent fill rate for the voodoo5 5500 under Windows 98 please post details.
Much apprieciated.
I think the problem here is the CPU which only runs at 1GHz. Someone should compare the two with a more powerfull CPU (2400+/2.6GHz)
The Voodoo 5 isn't maxed out here because the CPU can't supply enough data to it.
Well, it's not Win98 and no fillrate ... but a nice result. :D Voodoo2 won't ever reach that.
(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/6876/fr17gi.jpg)
Tbred @ ~218x11 = 2392 MHz, 3dfx Voodoo5 5500 PCI 64 MiB @ 190/190, SFFT Alpha 32.
Greetings from Germany,
Raff
QuoteOriginally posted by NitroX infinity
I think the problem here is the CPU which only runs at 1GHz. Someone should compare the two with a more powerfull CPU (2400+/2.6GHz)
The Voodoo 5 isn't maxed out here because the CPU can't supply enough data to it.
Umm, so how do you explain my fill rate with the K6-III+ 550Mhz??:)