rec.autos.simulators

Ok .. here's my take on different video cards and their performance differences.. I believe that
not all video cards are created equal.. proof:

I have a PPRO 200, 32 megs EDO. When I installed my cheap shit ATI Mach 64, I type 'gp2 log:on'. I get
a video score of 127!!! okok.. That's meaningless to some people so... When I go to graphics detail I
choose SVGA, I turn on ALL the details (textured mirrors, sky, etc....) And I get an estimated fps of
12.6. I *set* the frame rate to 17 fps. I do a quickrace in Brazil. I'm in the pole position and I
check the occupancy rating. It reads 120%-123% in the***pit. Now.. I swipe my brother's Matrox
Millenium and I install it into my system. The gp2 log gives me a video score of 475. The estimated
fps is 14.5. When I start Brazil I get an occupancy rating of 100%. So there... proof that a good
video card can make a BIG difference..

I should also note that Quake didn't improve that much from swapping the Matrox Millenium. The fps
changed from 54 fps to 55. Nothing to scream about... I'm thinking of getting the Hercules Dynamite
can someone comment on it's performance (maybe the video score would be nice..)

Oh.. and another thing.. Does anyone know if GP2 takes advantage of the linear frame buffer on a VESA
complient board? Because when I run fastvid 110. I get the same results as when I run fastvid 111..

I run FASTVID "011" and get a video score of "606" in GP2 log:on.
Try that setting and see what happens. Might be interesting.
The reason I do that is FASTVID tells me that the first setting is
already enabled on my system. What does the load up report give you
as a status when you run "110" or "111"???
I'm running a 4 meg Matrox Mill card, 32 megs EDO, and a Advanscsi 32
controller.

JEB in Vegas

: Ok .. here's my take on different video cards and their performance differences.. I believe that
: not all video cards are created equal.. proof:

: I have a PPRO 200, 32 megs EDO. When I installed my cheap shit ATI Mach 64, I type 'gp2 log:on'. I get
: a video score of 127!!! okok.. That's meaningless to some people so... When I go to graphics detail I
: choose SVGA, I turn on ALL the details (textured mirrors, sky, etc....) And I get an estimated fps of
: 12.6. I *set* the frame rate to 17 fps. I do a quickrace in Brazil. I'm in the pole position and I
: check the occupancy rating. It reads 120%-123% in the***pit. Now.. I swipe my brother's Matrox
: Millenium and I install it into my system. The gp2 log gives me a video score of 475. The estimated
: fps is 14.5. When I start Brazil I get an occupancy rating of 100%. So there... proof that a good
: video card can make a BIG difference..

Question:  What fps did you *set* for the Matrox?

This is not actually BIG proof.  What it does prove is that good video
card can help out with a game with BAD video code.  As your following
proof supports.

: I should also note that Quake didn't improve that much from swapping the Matrox Millenium. The fps
: changed from 54 fps to 55. Nothing to scream about... I'm thinking of getting the Hercules Dynamite
: can someone comment on it's performance (maybe the video score would be nice..)

: Oh.. and another thing.. Does anyone know if GP2 takes advantage of the linear frame buffer on a VESA
: complient board? Because when I run fastvid 110. I get the same results as when I run fastvid 111..

No it doesn't,  that's what I meant by BAD video code.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Just out of pure curiosity (no jealousy here..) what is the processor
score for your PPRO 200?

-------------
Richard Sobey
Are you browning your browns?