Randomer-
 
I take it your useing quake3 demotest 1.09, Nvidia 3.53, Win2k(rc2), and smp 1. Is this correct?

Yes it does seem to work, although not 100% reliably. You can now at least play as many games as you want in one session - previously it would bluescreen trying to start the second game.
 
I use build 2151, TNT2 with Nvidia 3.53 driver using the NT4 3.53 nvopengl file.
Using the new (1.09) build of Q3.
 
It works and plays fine, but after one SMP session of Quake3, quiting to the desktop and then restarting a second SMP session leads to the familiar "Process has locked pages" bluescreen.
 
I also got that bluescreen once when I started the game from a clean boot. Seems to not like starting a single player game from the menus on my PC (q3dm17 in particular), but seems happy enough starting a map from the console.
 
So it aint fixed - but it is now working if you are careful!
 
Good luck guys!

This is too sweet as they say in WCW. Someone needs to slap up some bench's with and without smp, so we can see what the preformance difference is! I think I am going to have to pull my extra processor out of the wifes machine to get smp up again. Thanks to all of you that have been submiting info at my request.
 
Later.

I have these benchmarks. They are from memory so may be 1 frame or so out.
 
All tests done in high quality mode settings with resolution the only change for 640x480 tests. Tests done in Q3 1.09 on demo001.dem
 
640x480 - SMP 0 - 47fps
640x480 - SMP 1 - 61fps
800x600 - SMP 0 - 41fps
800x600 - SMP 1 - 45fps
 
So I am starting to be card limited at 800x600. Need that GeForce DDR
 
By the way I am running 2 Celerons 366@528 on the ABit BP6. Video Card is a TNT2@160/166.

JonRico

Is the p1mp!

I need more numbers and info folks.
 
Cant get my SMP Q3 stable.
 
Anyone else got any info or reports?
 
PLEASE!!

Alright boys and girls. I did a little testing this last Friday. Dual p2 400's 450 MB RAM, and a tnt2 card(3.53). Useing quake3 1.09, and rc3 I thought we had a winner. SMP mode worked with no problem, I was suprised that everything other then the install of the drivers went smooth. Now to the benchs, which will cover all 3 of my machines. I will post just the best results for each machine.
 
Machine 1 P2 400 with sli voodoo2's 128 MB RAM Win98se
 
640x480 Normal settings, 3dicons 0 simpleitems 1 drawattacker 0
 
54.6 fps
 
Machine 2 P2 400 with tnt1(3.53) 128 MB RAM Win98se
 
640x480 Fastest settings, 3dicons 0 simpleitems 1 drawattacker 0
 
79.8 fps
 
Machine 3 dual p2 400 tnt2(3.53) 450 MB RAM Win2k rc3
 
640x480 Fastest settings, 3dicons 0 simpleitems 1 drawattacker 0
 
58.4
 
640x480 Normal settings, 3dicons 0 simpleitems 1 drawattacker 0
 
49.3
 
Conclusion
 
I have found that the voodoo cards run with more options on with less of a hit to fps. Where the TNT cards tend to run extremely fast with all options off. I was disappointed in the Dual machine, both of my other machines pounded it in every way except load time, must be the ****load of ram. There is article on thresh's firing squad that confirms what I found with SMP, and that is that you don't gain much. If anything, dual processor machines would mack great servers, but your better off buying a processor twice as fast rather then two at half the speed. If you disagree, tell me about, and post some benchs.
 
Later..

Wouldn't a more interesting test be to do timedemo's with and without r_smp turned on, using only the dual CPU machine ? What possible relevance are figures from your other two machines ?
 
 
------------------
Andy Duplain <andy@trojanco.demon.co.uk>

Yes it would have been better to do a but load of benchs with and with out smp. But time did not allow, the dual machine we built was more or less three computers slapped into one. We built it on our bar hoping night so we didn't leave it together for long, can't miss out on penny picthers. As for the relevance of the other machines. They both out preformed the dual machine with earlier generation hardware. I have talked to a few people about running duals and have come to the conclusion the something must have been a miss in oour setup. Others have had better marks with the same setup. My guess is alot of our problems or slowdown came from a bad cab14 for win2k, we had to modify a few things to get it to work, as well as force the driver install.
 
Later..
Asy.

So you people have got it working under NT4 with a Voodoo3? I can't get mine working...

Ok people... more Q3A SMP results!
 
System: Dual 366 Celerons @ 550MHz, 256Mb RAM, Creative TNT2 Ultra @ 170MHz core/ 200MHz memory, Creative PCI128 sound, NT4 Workstation SP6a.
 
Quake 3 ver 1.09 with v-synch enabled, sound on, 32bit colour & textures, max texture detail, billinear filtering, timedemo = 1.
 
Results: R_SMP =
0 1
demo001.dm3
640x480 55.7fps 65.2fps
 
1024x768 32.2fps 31.6fps
 
demo002.dm3
640x480 53.3fps 62.8fps
 
1024x768 33.0fps 32.2fps
 
Summary
Obviously fill-rate limited at 1024x768, but at 640x480 that second CPU is making a difference. I am getting hold of a GeForce card next week and will post more results then. Of course all scores will be higher, but I'm expecting to see the 1024x768 scores pick up with SMP enabled.
 
What have others found/think about these results?

I agree with your results entirely.
 
Its what I would expect. Still not seen any results with a GeForce in SMP so I will be very interested in your next post. Is the card a DDR?
 
I dont think you will see much SMP improvement in 1024 with an SDR card.

Now for GeForce Q3A SMP results!
System: Dual 366 Celerons @ 550MHz, 256Mb RAM, Creative GeForce @ 120MHz core/ 190MHz memory, Creative PCI128 sound, NT4 Workstation SP6a.
 
Quake 3 ver 1.09 with v-synch enabled, sound on, 32bit colour & textures, max texture detail, billinear filtering, timedemo = 1.
 
Results: R_SMP 0 / 1
 
demo001.dm3
640x480 71.7fps / 84.8fps
 
1024x768 39.1fps / 38.8fps
 
demo002.dm3
640x480 69.0fps / 84.3fps
 
1024x768 40.1fps / 39.5fps
 
Summary
Good performance increase over the overclocked TNT2 Ultra. Still fill-rate limited at 1024x768, but at 640x480 that second CPU is making a BIG difference.
I wasn't very lucky with the Creative GeForce card I received, as it is not stable above its default core speed of 120MHz. Even 125MHz causes Q3A to spit-the-dummy BIG TIME. Memory (5ns) at 200MHz seemed to have the odd problem as well, but seeing the core is such a DOG its probably not al the memory's fault!

good lord I cant belive this discussion has gone on this long and nobody with some actauly knowledge has come up. good lord there is so much to say I dont think if I have enough pateince or time to say it all...
 
You or NOT fillrate limited with that geforce or the tnt2 at 1024x768...... not with ur system at least
 
with a tnt2u at 1024x768you can get around 50 fps with a geforce u can get about 80. You have to have a hi end system to meet a graphics card fillrate especially when its at 480.
 
Smp in q3 can give u a 15-80 percent performance boost using smp depending on the scene that is being rendered. Just because u got a dual 550 dont think enabling smp in q3 will give u a 1100 mhz worth of power being directed to q3a. It would be nice if it was coded like that but it jsut isnt. Check ur cpu usage in taksmanager when q3a is running in smp ull notice they are nowhere close to being maxed out.
 
The usage will get much higher in intense fire fights with lotsa models on the screen and particles.
 
3dfx cards CANNOT!! do smp because they do not have an actual opengl ICD. they got that gheto minigl stuff going on.
 
Ivv been very brief and concise, when I have more time Ill write more, I must go now.

http://media.agn.com/newsposts/101199/nvidia.gif

Note to The Man, JimmyK
 
Thanks for insulting all of us on your first comment.
 
I have been playing and tweaking quake since the first quake1 test was released. I have also owned every generation graphics card other then the gforce which I plan on buying as soon as my wife says its okay. Hehehe. So lets knock off a few comments with some answers.
 
Fill rate and limits.
 
vertical res * horizontal res / fillrate gives us the rough amount of fps that can be achived per second.
 
The geforce I agree is not fillrate limited or is less fillrate limited then other cards, due to the fact that everything is handled by the gforces cpu. As for the ultra tnt2, it hits the main cpu pretty hard and is therefore limited by the cpu. Which could mean fillrate, or could mean triangle calculation, this is highly dependent on what cpu you are useing. So, dependent upon what res you are running a utnt2 at will make the difference of being fillrate limited or not.
 
Your bench marks or bench guesses, don't make much sence with out adding in a cpu speed. A utnt2 at 1024x768 can get around 50 fps on a ???, my guess is a p3 500. The geforce can probably pull the 80 on any machine, I would agree with that. As for saying that you have to have a hi end system to meet a graphics cards fillrate limit. This is true for the last generation of graphics cards, but the gforce doesn't have this problem. Due to the fact that the card is handling all the graphics. The fillrate of gforces available now is 240Mps, unless someone has released the ddr version of the geforce and I happened not to notice.
 
I don't think anyone that has posted here has said anything about two processors doubling the amount of total processing power. But as for everything else you said about smp, I would have to agree.
 
I hope you keep posting JimmyK.

Bro, your right I should apologize for my first comment, my mistake.
 
 
But man again there are many misinformed coomments in ur last post as well. I dont mean to be condescneding or rude at all I apologize if I am but its the truth
 
1. "The fillrate of gforces available now is 240Mps, unless someone has released the ddr version of the geforce and I happened not to notice."
http://www.digital-clips.com/Hardware/Reviews/CLGeForce256/rev02.htm
 
"Peak fill rate of 480 million bilinear filtered, multi-textured pixels per second "
 
and that is the SDR version NOT the DDR. I mean for gods sake the TNT2's fill rate is around 250-300 million bilinear filtered, multi-textured pixels per second.
 
2."The geforce I agree is not fillrate limited or is less fillrate limited then other cards, due to the fact that everything is handled by the gforces cpu. "
 
If you are referring to the onboard GPU you are wrong again. That is mainly for T&L, while T&L is implemented into all opengl coding, not to the extent that would deliver the proper usage of the geforces onboard GPU.
 
If a game was to properly use the GPU processor it would yield 5!!! times the performance of a tnt2ultra. For current games the processor is hit just as hard by the geforce as the tnt2u.
 
If you had taken the least amount of time to look at the link I gave you. YOu have noticed when the onboard GPU was being used there was a 480%!!!! increase in performance over the tnt2u. now thats phenomenol. The large increase is only there because that benchmark takes advantage of the GPU properly.
 
With current games where no "special" advantage is taken there is about a 20-80 percent increase in performance.
 
But still because of the geforces monster fillrate/quad pipeline the faster ur processor the betteer ur performance is going to be.
 
3. They arent guesses, if its being limited at 1024x768 at 50 fps (the tnt2u) that obviously means that it doest matter what cpu u have. I mean if you have ap3 600 or a athlon 750 your getting the same perofrmance because the card is limited.
 
Now my geforce number is only applicable to the athlon 700 because that is the fastest processor that has been used in geforce benchmarks. But it is still not fill rate limited with a athhy 700....
 
4. "The geforce can probably pull the 80 on any machine, I would agree with that. As for saying that you have to have a hi end system to meet a graphics cards fillrate limit. This is true for the last generation of graphics cards, but the gforce doesn't have this problem."
 
Sorry bro but thats wrong again, I partially explained that above taking about the GPU. NO GAME up to date has taken any special use of the GPU. ANd if q3a did you would be getting around 180+ fps on ur rig witha geforce.
 
I hope u understood my correction of comment #4 if not Ill repost and be more specific.

Once again I dont mean to be an ass and I apologize if I sounded like one. I just have 3 things in life, college, computers, and the gym, so Im a lil harsh when I think something concerning my 3 things is a little misrepresented .
 
here read some reviews.
http://www.agn.com/html/agn3d-search_display.cfm?ArticleID=18652

Thanks for the apology.
 
I think our communication is a little off here. I don't know where you got the idea a sdr card could run 480Mps, probably from your links, which I admit, I am ignoring and shouldn't be.
 
 
In reference to the sdr card this little line here screams for some correction.
 
"Peak fill rate of 480 million bilinear filtered, multi-textured pixels per second "
 
taken from www.nvidia.com
"Four independent pixel-rendering pipelines deliver up to 480 million 8-sample fully filtered pixels per second. Guarantees highest color quality and texturing special effects at maximum frame rate"
 
The SDR card is the one that hits 240Mps, the DDR card runs twice as fast, up to 480Mps.
 
I think the real question we need to ask is how much processor power does the geforce free up off the processor. Because the freed power can then be used to push a higher fill rate. and therefore a higher resolution. Correct?
 
The other question should be how much processor does it take to increase fill rate.
 
For the most part I agree with everything you said, but I don't think your right in saying I am wrong. Even if the gpu is not being used to its full, your still freeing up processor for use with fill rate.
 
This conversation is getting interesting. I don't claim to know it all, but I know enough to be dangerous.. Hehehe.