Back in those days i had a 486DX/4 120. It could play Quake in the lowest resolution fairly well. Any other resolution ( like the ..."hi-res" 640x400 ), and it was a slideshow.
I ran this back in the day on my Am5x86/133 clocked to 150(3x50MHz bus), and I remember it running a lot better than it does on this machine. It also had a Diamond Stealth 32 VESA VGA card in it, I want to say it was around 15fps on Demo1, and it was fairly close in speed to a Pentium 75 for running Quake.
@sandmanxo I'm sure an Am5x86 system could be made to run faster than the one in this video. In addition to craving a good FPU, Quake is very sensitive to both memory and video bandwidth. On a 50MHz bus, your system had about 50% more bandwidth for both (since VLB is clocked the same as the system bus). That could explain most of the difference, plus the Am5x86 supported write-back L1 cache on compatible motherboards though it was not enabled on this system.
@BlackSquirrel7 I forgot that VLB ran at bus speed, and I did have a board that supported write-back cache. I ended doing some test back then, and it ran faster 3x50(150) than 4x40(160), which didn't surprise me since it was much faster memory access, I guess it shouldn't surprise me that 133 on a 33MHz was a lot slower than at 150MHz.
Just commenting that the plug-in pentium overdrive 83Mhz in a 486 slot was a LOT faster than any of these 5x86 solutions as the pentium had a significantly faster FPU.
Cyrix or Amd processors had a bad fpu so it wasnt playabele with 133mhz or more. A pentium with 166 mhz was faster in this kind of games than an amd or cyrix with 233 or 300 mhz. i updatet my old pentium 166 with a cyrix 300mhz. That was a bad idea.
On my 486 DX2 66 it didnt run good even with small screen size,but on 486 DX4 100 it runs very well with 320x200. I think a 486 with 100 Mhz was minimum requirement for the game. Later with 3dfx it was playabele with less than 100 mhz.
I remember having one of these 5x86 133Mhz procs back in the day with 16MB of RAM, and a 420MB hard drive. I never felt that it compared to a Pentium at the time, but I was pretty bad ass compared to my buddies 486 DX66. My current system is running a 3.3GHz 6 core FX-6100 with 16GB of RAM and 9.5TB of hard disc space.
@kellsarah Yeah, and your computer with those specs is practically worthless. At least back then a computer had longevity. Now-a-days, no matter how great your computer is, it's basically crap and designed to be thrown away.
Yea, people would always go on about this "Pentium killer" chip from AMD... But Quake was clear proof that it wasn't a Pentium killer at all: the FPU was far too weak, despite the high clockspeed.
A Pentium 66 or 75 would run the game better than a 5x86 at 133 MHz.
I had used a am5x86 ADW 133 @ 150 Mhz 256KB 12ns SRAM, 50Mhz FSB, 25Mhz PCI and an S3 964 1MB PCI card runnin Quake at avg 16FPS and teamfortress 2.6 on it, still have it.
With UMC chipset and 16MB FPM ram.
Good old time, time to dig it up, hope battery is not leaking. :-)
BTW it was as fast at quake on par with Pentium 66Mhz due to lower Floating point score of AMD 486 but with integer performance up to Pentium 100 (Playing Blood back then)
great video glad to see that people still use there old machines, i use to do this kind of stuff back when the 486sx - pentium 75 good times! amazing how far we have come
Back in those days i had a 486DX/4 120. It could play Quake in the lowest resolution fairly well. Any other resolution ( like the ..."hi-res" 640x400 ), and it was a slideshow.
GR8TM4N 1 week ago
I ran this back in the day on my Am5x86/133 clocked to 150(3x50MHz bus), and I remember it running a lot better than it does on this machine. It also had a Diamond Stealth 32 VESA VGA card in it, I want to say it was around 15fps on Demo1, and it was fairly close in speed to a Pentium 75 for running Quake.
sandmanxo 2 weeks ago
@sandmanxo I'm sure an Am5x86 system could be made to run faster than the one in this video. In addition to craving a good FPU, Quake is very sensitive to both memory and video bandwidth. On a 50MHz bus, your system had about 50% more bandwidth for both (since VLB is clocked the same as the system bus). That could explain most of the difference, plus the Am5x86 supported write-back L1 cache on compatible motherboards though it was not enabled on this system.
BlackSquirrel7 2 weeks ago
@BlackSquirrel7 I forgot that VLB ran at bus speed, and I did have a board that supported write-back cache. I ended doing some test back then, and it ran faster 3x50(150) than 4x40(160), which didn't surprise me since it was much faster memory access, I guess it shouldn't surprise me that 133 on a 33MHz was a lot slower than at 150MHz.
sandmanxo 2 weeks ago
2:08 argh! It's not the smell, but my screen is melting!
conek2 3 weeks ago
Just commenting that the plug-in pentium overdrive 83Mhz in a 486 slot was a LOT faster than any of these 5x86 solutions as the pentium had a significantly faster FPU.
oldtwins 1 month ago
Cyrix or Amd processors had a bad fpu so it wasnt playabele with 133mhz or more. A pentium with 166 mhz was faster in this kind of games than an amd or cyrix with 233 or 300 mhz. i updatet my old pentium 166 with a cyrix 300mhz. That was a bad idea.
Jehuty1979 1 month ago
On my 486 DX2 66 it didnt run good even with small screen size,but on 486 DX4 100 it runs very well with 320x200. I think a 486 with 100 Mhz was minimum requirement for the game. Later with 3dfx it was playabele with less than 100 mhz.
Jehuty1979 1 month ago
Meh, I would have rather played Doom. At least then it would run smoother :)
spartan132 2 months ago
..This brings back some memories!! MY DX66 would chug along but i loved the game! Still play!
eGax 2 months ago
Comment removed
eGax 2 months ago
Wow, 320x200 resolution, software render - even it looks nice, this is giving to me a such nostalgia. Even you can count fps on fingers :]
crogeek 2 months ago
I remember having one of these 5x86 133Mhz procs back in the day with 16MB of RAM, and a 420MB hard drive. I never felt that it compared to a Pentium at the time, but I was pretty bad ass compared to my buddies 486 DX66. My current system is running a 3.3GHz 6 core FX-6100 with 16GB of RAM and 9.5TB of hard disc space.
kellsarah 3 months ago
@kellsarah Yeah, and your computer with those specs is practically worthless. At least back then a computer had longevity. Now-a-days, no matter how great your computer is, it's basically crap and designed to be thrown away.
ImoenOfTelengard 2 weeks ago
Yea, people would always go on about this "Pentium killer" chip from AMD... But Quake was clear proof that it wasn't a Pentium killer at all: the FPU was far too weak, despite the high clockspeed.
A Pentium 66 or 75 would run the game better than a 5x86 at 133 MHz.
Scalibq 3 months ago
I think the AM5x86 133 is unusually slow in this benchmark. Use a PCI video card!
leileilol 3 months ago
@leileilol I was thinking the same. I ran quake smooth and nice on my good ol' AMD 486 @ 100MHz. (That I later on overclocked to a whooping 140 MHz.)
sysghost 2 months ago
@sysghost Yeah my am5x86 @160MHz had gotten 12-17fps avg in the demo1 timedemo because of a low memory waitstate (0, 0) and a PCI S3 Trio64v+.
leileilol 2 months ago
lol A fart 2:08 :P
alecdepalect 3 months ago
Comment removed
j1234okey 3 months ago
what if you put there a i7 in? what would happen?
sulmann26 6 months ago
@sulmann26 You'll end up with i7 that has bent all it's pins :D
KubaPSP 4 months ago
@KubaPSP i7s have Land Grid Arrays... no pins...
Dant2142 3 months ago
@Dant2142 True, It's like 775 right? I never owned actually something newer from intel so I don't know ;)
KubaPSP 3 months ago
I had used a am5x86 ADW 133 @ 150 Mhz 256KB 12ns SRAM, 50Mhz FSB, 25Mhz PCI and an S3 964 1MB PCI card runnin Quake at avg 16FPS and teamfortress 2.6 on it, still have it.
With UMC chipset and 16MB FPM ram.
Good old time, time to dig it up, hope battery is not leaking. :-)
MrFlooperke 7 months ago
BTW it was as fast at quake on par with Pentium 66Mhz due to lower Floating point score of AMD 486 but with integer performance up to Pentium 100 (Playing Blood back then)
MrFlooperke 7 months ago
2:08 um... was that a fart? lol
diskoman44 8 months ago 26
@diskoman44 Yeah that was a bit unexpected! I'm ashamed to say I laughed out loud at that.. ^_^
RetroRepair 4 months ago
@RetroRepair lol so did I!
ebfivan 4 months ago
@RetroRepair
I came looking for old PC systems, and here I am with tears in my Eyes thanks to the ripper at 2.08.
Ain't it great having a fart mentality? ;-)
elshiftos 2 months ago
@RetroRepair i think you shitted your pants right there
ecorobo 2 months ago 3
@diskoman44 Can't fucking give you enough thumbs up for the way you phrased that comment. Simply genius!
Szederp 1 month ago
@ajajajajajahjajhahj xD
EdgarIX 1 month ago
I had enough of a hard time getting stable frame rates on a Pentium 75. As soon as Pentium 100's were introduced, it made the gameplay a lot better.
terracon 9 months ago
great video glad to see that people still use there old machines, i use to do this kind of stuff back when the 486sx - pentium 75 good times! amazing how far we have come
pab887 11 months ago