I'm building a Win98 retro project of my own, using a PCI-e motherboard along with ATI Radeon X850 XT PE. For comparison reference, I used this video: .
But for some reason there's quite a gap between stats in that video vs. what I'm getting. The person in that video is using a P5PKL-AM SE, with 1 GB RAM, X850 XT PE, C2D E8600 processor, Win98. I'm using P5PKL-AM PS, with 4 GB RAM, X850 XT PE, C2D E8500 processor, Win 98. The Win98 3DMark 2001 SE score in that video seems to be 37k for this setup. However I'm getting 30K score. Also his avg. FPS for Quake 3 is around 600 or so at 1024x768 resolution, while I'm getting slightly more than 400 (I've been careful to match the display settings).
Also, using another one of that person's video, I compared performance in WinXP too. There the performance in 3DMark 2001 SE was matching - around 40k.
So I'm a bit confused - what could be the reason for the large discrepancy in Win98? I've matched the hardware (almost) and the VGA driver.
But for some reason there's quite a gap between stats in that video vs. what I'm getting. The person in that video is using a P5PKL-AM SE, with 1 GB RAM, X850 XT PE, C2D E8600 processor, Win98. I'm using P5PKL-AM PS, with 4 GB RAM, X850 XT PE, C2D E8500 processor, Win 98. The Win98 3DMark 2001 SE score in that video seems to be 37k for this setup. However I'm getting 30K score. Also his avg. FPS for Quake 3 is around 600 or so at 1024x768 resolution, while I'm getting slightly more than 400 (I've been careful to match the display settings).
Also, using another one of that person's video, I compared performance in WinXP too. There the performance in 3DMark 2001 SE was matching - around 40k.
So I'm a bit confused - what could be the reason for the large discrepancy in Win98? I've matched the hardware (almost) and the VGA driver.