Page 1 of 2

Need a new game for your K6?

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:52 pm
by l0new0lf
Just curious if I was the only brave sole to try and run Titan Quest on a k6 rig? By the way in case I am the only one crazy enough to do so :) , it actually does run and is very playable on my K6-3+ 600 Mhz paired with a radeon 9200.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:15 am
by DonPedro
what exactly do you understand by "playable"?

what is your screen resolution, colr depth, how much did you lower graphic candy?

afaik the game recommends a 1800 mhz cpu, am I right?

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:19 pm
by l0new0lf
I don't blame you for being skeptical. I couldnt believe it when it actually got past the boot screen without crashing seeing as how every other game released within the past two years at least the ones Ive tried all required SSE instructions. Anyway, I have the video options all turned to low and I killed the music and speech to help with fps but it's running at 640x480 and also ran at 800x600 (didnt have the 640x480 option available via the console so I had to edit the config file) but it still looks awesome and plays decently minus a hiccup or two everynow and then. Fps range from 4-30. Anyhow, I wish I had a way to post screen shots for you guys. For whatever it's worth I highly recommend this to anyone who liked the Diablo series.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:58 pm
by Uranium235
This is good news lonewolf. Thanks for the info. It never ceases to amaze me how capable these K6 machines can be. :D

Can you tell us what your system setup is? I.E. >RAM, motherboard, etc.
Thanks!

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:20 pm
by l0new0lf
K6-III+ ACZ 450 @ 600 MHz (120 x 5.0)
Tekram P5M4-M+ 512 mb L2 cache
392 mb Kingston SDRAM (2-2-2-5)
Radeon 9200 pci 256mb (316/470)

This system is highly tweaked and is still very stable. Think I must have gotten lucky with this mobo. :) What kind of vid card u running uranium?

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:11 pm
by Uranium235
I've got an AGP Radeon 8500 64MB in a FIC PA-2013 I'm running right now. I also have access to a PCI Geforce MX4000 64MB and a PCI Radeon 9100 64MB in other rigs. I'm not sure if any of these cards would run Titan Quest as well as your Radeon 9200 256MB.
I have a motherboard very similar to yours, a FIC PAG-2130 with the MVP4 chipset. Those integrated boards run exceptionally well with PCI video. :)
I've been looking to upgrade the video on one of my socket 7 rigs. The 9200 looks like an interesting possibility. :)

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:08 pm
by Guest
Uranium have u tried out the demo for tq? Minimum requirements for video are 64mb w/ pixel shader 1.1 so the mx wont work but the radeons should. Good luck!

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:56 pm
by DonPedro
@l0new0lf

now you made me curious :)

could you google for the tool "hot cpu 4.2.2" and run the built-in benchmark, then post the results here for comparison?

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:07 pm
by l0new0lf
Personally I've always preferred using Everest to compare systems. Do you have that proggie?

Hot CPU Tester Pro 4.2.2 - Benchmark Result
Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 21:53
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall : 1175
MetaBench to MHz ratio : 1.96
Integer Instructions : 193 M Instructions/s
Floating-point Instructions : 73 M Instructions/s
MMX Instructions : 408 M Instructions/s
3DNow! Instructions : 369 M Instructions/s
Memory fillrate memcpy method : 213 MB/s
Memory fillrate C++ method : 205 MB/s
Memory rep movsd : 207 MB/s
Memory FPU 8 bytes blocks : 207 MB/s
Memory Assembly 4 bytes blocks : 205 MB/s
Memory Assembly 8 bytes blocks : 212 MB/s
Memory fillrate MMX 8 bytes blocks : 212 MB/s
Memory fillrate MMX 16 bytes blocks : 212 MB/s
Insertion Sort : 8 K Items/s
Shell Sort : 294 K Items/s
Merge Sort : 546 K Items/s
Heap Sort : 290 K Items/s
Quick Sort : 1,141 K Items/s
Large Objects Sort : 263 K Items/s
Fast Fourier Transformg (Standard) : 679 KB/s
Fast Fourier Transformg (Optimized) : 840 KB/s
-----------------------------


Here's an old 3dmark score in case you're curious...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8735904

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:52 pm
by l0new0lf
JUst for kicks I ran it again with a couple other wpcredit tweaks and faired a tad better....

Hot CPU Tester Pro 4.2.2 - Benchmark Result
Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 22:41
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall : 1179
MetaBench to MHz ratio : 1.96
Integer Instructions : 193 M Instructions/s
Floating-point Instructions : 73 M Instructions/s
MMX Instructions : 409 M Instructions/s
3DNow! Instructions : 368 M Instructions/s
Memory fillrate memcpy method : 216 MB/s
Memory fillrate C++ method : 215 MB/s
Memory rep movsd : 216 MB/s
Memory FPU 8 bytes blocks : 209 MB/s
Memory Assembly 4 bytes blocks : 208 MB/s
Memory Assembly 8 bytes blocks : 209 MB/s
Memory fillrate MMX 8 bytes blocks : 209 MB/s
Memory fillrate MMX 16 bytes blocks : 209 MB/s
Insertion Sort : 8 K Items/s
Shell Sort : 294 K Items/s
Merge Sort : 553 K Items/s
Heap Sort : 289 K Items/s
Quick Sort : 1,140 K Items/s
Large Objects Sort : 260 K Items/s
Fast Fourier Transformg (Standard) : 679 KB/s
Fast Fourier Transformg (Optimized) : 844 KB/s
-----------------------------

Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:47 am
by DonPedro
sorry for this late response - was very busy in the last weeks.

well, your scores are very impressing. so it really pays if the memory speed can be raised ...

I am most impressed by your 3dmark2001 numbers, just great!

here for comparison my results for hot-cpu-bench. the test was run on an gigabyte 5ax, 768mb ram (@100mhz, 2225), K6-3+450 @550, NT4 operating system. I can't give you numbers for 600mhz because my cpu just won't take it :(

everest (2.20):
==========
read 348
write 169
latency 196

hot-cpu bench:
==========
Overall: 1025
MetaMark to MHz ratio 1.86
Integer Instructions 192 M Instructions/s
Floating-point Instructions 73 M Instructions/s
MMX Instructions 406 M Instructions/s
3DNow! Instructions 369 M Instructions/s
Memory fillrate memcpy method 177 MB/s
Memory fillrate C++ method 177 MB/s
Memory rep movsd 177 MB/s
Memory FPU 64-bit 176 MB/s
Memory Assembly 32-bit 175 MB/s
Memory fillrate Assembly 64-bit 177 MB/s
Memory fillrate MMX 32-bit 179 MB/s
Memory fillrate MMX 128-bit 176 MB/s
Insertion Sort 8 K Items/s
Shell Sort 275 K Items/s
Merge Sort 515 K Items/s
Heap Sort 274 K Items/s
Quick Sort 1,096 K Items/s
Large Objects Sort(Quick Sort method) 245 K Items/s
Fast Fourier Transform (Standard) 674 KB/s
Fast Fourier Transform (Optimized) 848 KB/s

super_pi:
=======
1 million digits: 350 seconds

Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:17 pm
by l0new0lf
Don thx for the reply. I ran Everest vs. 2005-Unlimited but I do recall getting better scores in the past but here's what I got today

Memory read: 344 mb/s
Memory write: 180 mb/s
Memory copy: 232 mb/s
Memory Latency: 112.1 ns

Have you tried increasing the voltage on the core? I did have one K6-III+ 450 that refused to budge past 550 (even trying 2.4 volts). What other options do you have for fsb? My board only allowed up to 110mhz via the mobo but I used cpucool to achieve the higher fsb so you might try that proggie just for kicks. If you need a copy just let me know ;)

Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:26 pm
by DonPedro
I am sorry but I can't provide numbers for the ultimate 2005 version - nowhere to download.

the ultimate 2006 version which I downloaded that moment unfortunately overwrites some results with "TRIAL version", so I just can give you numbers for

read 349
latency 116

as far as I have observed the bench-numbers of everest are comparable between home edition 1.5 until 2.20 but not with results from versions above. so for better comparison with my first numbers I found a place where you still can download the home edition 2.20. once there just click on the "Jetzt herunterladen" - text.

regarding the oc'ability of my k6-3+: I tried raising the voltage up to 2.3v but that didn't help either. I have 3 of them (all are ACZ-type), but none was able to pass my bench-suite without problems. at 600mhz :(

the board ga-5ax offers jumpersettings for 105, 110, 115 and some more but I don't want to go that route, it poses too much stress on pci and agp and shortens life of the mainboard.

I am curious how your system does the 1M PI-bench. You can download it here

Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:14 pm
by l0new0lf
Don for whatever it's worth I have run this system with the 120fsb for the past 4 years or so and this computer has never missed a beat. I can't offer you any concrete evidence that I havent done any damage running the pci cards at 40mhz but I'd bet the house that this would still be running 10 years from now exluding any events I cant control ;) . Anyhow, have you ever tried 110x5? I think youd definitely notice a difference not only in windows performance but games as well. Ill run the benchs you wanted to see tomorrow or perhaps late tonight if I get the time.

Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:06 pm
by Jim
Peter, I'd be willing to bet money, that it is the board causing your problems, not 3 different processors, - (Unless you bought all 3 of them second hand @ rock bottom prices). 600 Mhz should be a piece of cake for 9 out of 10 ACZs. - Though you may have to up the voltage to 2.1v. Some boards (ASUS) understate the voltage supplied to various components; and though I have not heard of it, it could be possible that others overstate it. But most likely it is caps starting to go bad, or some other problem with the mobo.