Quake

[Karlos]

Give it more RAM. And yes, a Picasso 4 will speed things up. I have a Cybervision 643D and I can do 800x600 on my 060, I think I run it in a 15bit mode.

Wait, what? You are running a 68060, software-rendered version of quake, in 15-bit at 800x600 ?

Are you sure?

[Karlos]

Yeah, no I wasn't! LOL. It was 15 bit 320x200. Best I got was 14 FPS.

I was about to say, someone must have gone in and optimised the hell out of it since I last looked, then. In reality 800x600 at 15-bit would need 937.5KiB per frame to be transferred over the bus. So, even with an infinitely fast CPU (where rendering and game logic takes no time at all), the best you could get out of for example the BVision would be about ~15fps. A mediator 1200 based graphics card would probably max out at about 8-9fps under the same conditions.

[Karlos]

That's what I've seen. The best performance I got was with PPC quake running with AGA screen. This was way before any AOS4 stuff. There was some illegal port or something I got hold of and that thing worked great, back in the day.

Kinda sad, that we can't get it to work better on an 8 Meg graphics card like B-Vision...

You can, you just need to leverage the card's 3D features rather than doing it in software.

[Karlos]

in my experience in 3d shooter' games ....AGA is always faster than any gfx card...even compared with the fastest zorro 3 cards like the picasso 4 or the cybervision 64 /3d
AGA in PAL mode or NTSC beats any gfx card
the few exceptions are of course if the game uses warp3d libraries where the 3d engine of the gfx card do all the work....for example GL quake

Correction. AGA is faster than Zorro II. Once the bus gets slow enough, C2P stops being the bottleneck. I can assure you that on the BVision, where even my 040 can shove 15MB/s to the card without any C2P required, AGA+C2P definitely slower.