NASCAR on P166 w/ PB256K cache, Stealth 64 2MB VRAM runs at 20+ fps in SVGA full detail

Also got a chance to try the standard version of NASCAR on a P166 w/ Pipeline Burst 256K cache, 32MB EDO Ram and a Stealth 64 2MB VRAM. (Which BTW, bench marks at 142.6 on 3D Bench - taking only about 4 secs to complete the test loop - visually very, very fast.) NASCAR also runs fast at a very smooth 20+ fps in SVGA mode with all details on except grass texture (which I never use). In hi-res mode, NASCAR even looks good on a 20" Viewsonic monitor! In fact, I almost prefer it because you can get a better sense of immersion with the bigger screen. ( unless your in low-res VGA mode - then of coarse you need the smallest screen possible.) This is almost as fast as my AMD486-120 with a 3D Blaster (see my previous post) but a whole lot more money. ($350 w/ 5 titles for the Blaster vs. $3,000 + for the P166 setup w/ no software - but runs like a bat out of hell with just about any software you do buy.) I did notice the opening demo around the track seemed a bit faster on the P166, but not during actual driving. (maybe they didn't spend much time on accelerating that first part when they ported it to the 3D board.) P.S. WinTach 1.0 running under Win 95 on the P166 benched at 330+ overall with some tests running 500-600+. (ludicrous speed.) Stackman

I think you may have imagined the decreased speed of the opening sequence with the 3D Blaster w.r.to the P166 'cos I doubt they would code the game engine for the opening sequence any differently than for the rest of the game... Fraser

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>I did >>notice the opening demo around the track seemed a bit faster on the >>P166, but not during actual driving. (maybe they didn't spend much >>time on accelerating that first part when they ported it to the 3D >>board.) >I think you may have imagined the decreased speed of the opening sequence >with the 3D Blaster w.r.to the P166 'cos I doubt they would code the >game engine for the opening sequence any differently than for the rest of >the game... >Fraser

On second thought, the P166 probably runs the opening sequence faster (it was not my imagination) because with the relatively large number of cars on the track in that view, it is probably slightly more processor (computational) intensive then usual (on top the huge graphical processing load), due to calculating all the individual car trajectories, etc. The 486 won't have the computational headroom the P166 has, so the scene is slower due to the processor not being able to drive the 3D chip to its full capacity. During normal driving, (with fewer cars in view) the bulk of the processing is graphical (effects, perspective correction, etc) which the 3D chip can take care of handily, without bogging down the cpu. In the case of the P166, it is doing all the processing, (both graphical and computational - of coarse with the help of the video card accelerator to some extent) so it doesn't matter to the P166 which load is greater. If both loads become equally intensive, it too will bog down (I have seen in replays containing many cars (in close view) at higher velocities - the frame rate goes way down). Of coarse this is just my theory, but it does seem to fit the facts (as represented by me). Stackman