software 60 fps, glquake 6

[golden_boy]

Not really a help request, just something strange.

I installed Quake on this old computer, a PIII 450 or somesuch, with 128 RAM and an ATI Rage IIc PCI.

Software runs at 60 fps, glquake is unplayably slow... after getting rid of the all-white textures :-P

I assumed it would be FASTER with hardware acceleration. Is that old ATI card really that shitty?! Is it even possible that hardware is slower than software?

I have no opengl32.dll in my quake folder, and the Rage is properly reported in the Windows hardware thingy. (yes, this thing has windows 98.) Very strange. ^^

In general, what's more important for FPS rate, CPU or graphics card?

(i.e. should I get a new used computer, or can I just spend the same money on a graphics card and upgrade my old one?)

[Dooomer]

Even if rage is properly installed, it does not necessarily mean it has OpenGL acceleration installed as well.

I used to have a Celeron466+TNT2+64MB PC, Glquake runs quite OK. I think the hardware spec is around the same level as yours. So your machine should run Glquake OK too, unless, as I said, OpenGL acceleration is not installed.

[Spirit]

Forget about glquake on that card.

[Dooomer]

Try this:
http://www.quakeone.com/index.php?in...single&ide=122
It's D3D accelerated.

[golden_boy]

Spirit: I'm not serious about Quakin' on that machine anyway. I'm just puzzled by the mechanics behind this. I always assumed that as soon as you have ANY 3D hardware installed, Quake will run lightning fast... seems I was assuming too much!

So the card is the bottleneck, huh?

Dooomer: I might just give that a try, yeah. Even though it's just an experiment.

It did look purty, even at 6 fps. I might get myself some new hardware after all... only the lighting in GLquake looked weird ... for someone who's used to software.