5 ms·
Quake ran just fine on P133. I know because I owned one at the time. Even though that game hardly did any video card magic IIRC it still was one of the major bo
by agentgt 9y ago
Quake ran just fine on P133. I know because I owned one at the time. Even though that game hardly did any video card magic IIRC it still was one of the major bottle necks so probably not having a good video card was your problem (I had Number 9 something or another).
I remember when winquake/opengl quake or whatever it was called came out that allowed use of the DRX/opengl drivers. It was a major improvement speed wise (as well as not having to boot into DOS and it allowed higher resolutions reliably).
However Linux Quake network wise (and startup speed) was absolutely faster than both winquake and the DOS TCP/IP stack version. A lot of people/clans that played competitively would use Linux because of this reason (as well of course the server version).
Quake was one of the things that kept me on Linux most of the time (highschool circa 1997-1999).
- krylon 9y ago> Quake ran just fine on P133. I know because I owned one at the time. In the absence of hardware acceleration, the Pentium 133 outperformed the Cyrix CPU by a wide margin when running Quake. You are correct that with hardware acceleration, the CPU was far less of an issue. But all I had was a crummy ATI Mach 64, which was not even a good 2D card. So for me, the CPU was the bottle neck. Ironically, on integer workloads, the Cyrix was a lot faster than the counterparts made by Intel. But their FPU performance was rather underwhelming. On top of that, Quake had hand-rolled assembly code that took advantage of the Pentium's architecture. I never knew that people used Linux primarily to play Quake. ;-)