Quake

[Crumb]

Runequest: It is because Zorro vs. AGA bus speed. 4,2 vs. 5

With Mediator it si possible to get quite much higher FSP with quake I belive?

Try to find Clickboom Quake060.exe it is 2 fps faster than original exe

4.2MB/s on ZorroII is quite an optimistic value, 3.5MB/s is probably more accurate  :-) On AGA in optimal conditions you can transfer data to chipmem at 7MB/s. On OCS machines it's probably around 3.5MB/s with a good cpu accelerator.

I guess that games like Quake would benefit quite a lot killing the OS and writting to chipmem when there's no display and also crunching numbers while the c2p is being done.

[Crumb]

@LaserBack

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

with A1200 perhaps but not with A4000. Real ZorroIII cards like CV64 (not the 3D model)+Buster11 give a pair of frames more in games like Doom (using EDoom instead of ADoom for example)

[Crumb]

@Laserback

It depends on the bus speed of the RTG card more than the chip used in that card:*e.g. CV64 has faster bus than CV3D. On Quake I guess cpu crunching time and bus speed are more balanced. Anyway it also depends on the way the rendering is gone. If you write directly to RTG mem instead of doing a WritePixelArray() like some games do you get a nice boost.

@utri007
There's a huge difference between ZorroII and ZorroIII in terms of speed, open WarpOS Voxel demo (you don't need PPC IIRC) and try it on a ZorroII system and compare the performance with a ZorroIII/PCI one. In Quake the bottleneck is probably the cpu+ram but if you use a faster cpu you should get nice speed up using Zorro3, PCI & Permedia2 cards.

BTW, there was a patch that syncronized screen refresh with custom chip refresh that helped with gfx cards, it would be nice to test it with these type of games.