Hi Raff,

Good point - I already had WickedGL but I was using Mesa.  With everything on max and using 1024x768, I get 51.6 fps with Wickedgl and 37.4 with mesa.  

I noticed the graphics are much sharper with mesa - almost like wickedgl is using anti-aliasing. In fact setting 2-sample AA in the 3dfx control panel only knocks the wickedgl score down to 49 [and it looks no different].  But with mesa there is a huge performance hit - down to twenty-something [and it is less sharp, as you'd expect]. Does that seem right?  Maybe sharp is the wrong word, but you know what I mean.  

Anyhow, many thanks for the advice!

Best regards from the UK,

- Joe

I have set up a machine for using glide games under Windows 98 - I wanted to get Diablo 2 working without too many slowdowns, but using Glide because that looks best and without having to keep swapping the video cable [which means using either V2 SLI or a V3/V4/V5]. For various other reasons I ended up using a gigabyte 7ixe4 board with an athlon 1GHz and 512mb ram.

Diablo 2 runs faster than it did with k6/2+, though still some slowdowns [which I suspect are due to loading data from disk, so there's not much I can do there - it's a 7200rpm hard drive].

But being curious I tried quake 3, original release, timedemo on demo001. According to the [old] reviews you can google for, I should be able to get 70/80/90 fps with this system. But on 1024x768 with everything on max, all I get is 31.4. This is running amigamerlin 2.9 drivers.

I have found the system seems to speed up when I set the core clock to 166 [the default for v5?] compared to "disabled" [which ought to make no difference I think] but still nowhere near the reported fps figures.

This doesn't seem credible... I got similar scores to this with the card in a different machine [p3] running windows 2000.

Any ideas? The drivers report both vsa-100's and 64mb ram, so it doesn't look like one of the gpu's isn't working.