/vr/ - Retro Games

How much was actually considered a good framerate in the late 90's? When did 60 FPS become the rule rather than the exception?

>>8342750
Low latency > smooth frame rate

>>7756715
>Dude it's just like the PC version.webm

Zoomer confirmed. In 1996 most people were still running decent to higher end 486 based PCs, which would only play Quake at 320x200 with the viewport reduced to the size of a postage stamp. An "enthusiast" might have a Pentium 60 or P100, which would run Quake decently but still have major framerate drops.

The only way to run Quake with a consistent framerate on machines at the time was with the then bleeding edge Penium 166, which had an MSRP of over $600 at the time, so it was pretty rare in home PCs. It was the Crysis of its time.

Meanwhile, by the time Quake launched for the Saturn, the system was already discounted to $199. It's the same choice people make now, you either pay out the ass for a PC and get the best experience, or you pay less for a console and get a compromise that still runs and plays ok but isn't as good.

How the hell did people play Quake at an average FPS of 20 and think it was a great experience?

>>6390282
No, you could at best get an FPS lock at half the refresh rate.
There aren't even really options to choose from. The best you can do it change the resolution, and this is already the very lowest (unless you also reduce the screen size).
This is in spite of Pentium-specific assembly optimizations that went into Quake.

What's the latest hardware you can use to build a retro PC with? Does the millennium rule still apply?

>>4871150
so this....is the power....of running quake....on period correct hardware....

woah....such power...

>>4466363
>quake on software
Really gets the ol' noggin accelerating

>>4280520
>le n64 had bad framerates compared to typical PCs of the era
Not this tired argument again

>>3995064
>>3995069
thanks for your input our fellow historical revisionists

>>3695656
>I had an average computer back in the day when quake came out and It ran fine on any resolution.
what's your definition of running "fine"

an "average" computer in 1996 was a pentium 90

>>3556504
>I had a Pentium 200Mhz and it ran buttersmooth

Yes. Quite.

>>3507486
>Too bad Goldeneye was marred by crappy console controls

Mustards can stop beating this horse to death. They were fine for Goldeneye.

>5-10FPS gameplay.

Hyperbole, it was more like 15-20 FPS. Not that PCs ran Quake a whole lot better.

>>3221735
>PC games at that time were usually 640x480.

You're not going to be playing complex 3D games in software mode on 1996 hardware anywhere near 640x480. High resolutions hit CPUs extremely hard in software mode.

You want 640x480 you need a 3dfx Voodoo.

>>3146443
>I can't hear you over the sound of Quake running better on my P133 than it ever could on PS or N64.

32fps at lower than console resolution and no sound

so...this...is the power...of...PC

Why do pro-PC posters perpetrate the myth that PC games during the 5th generation were smooth while 3D games on consoles at the same time (Playstation, N64, Saturn) were laggy 20 FPS affairs?

Here is a benchmark showing Quake's framerate on contemporary 1996 hardware. The Pentium 200 was the latest, greatest and most expensive CPU available at the time, and it can't even crack 45 FPS. Most people weren't using something like this. Pentium 75 (Quake's minimum specification) and in particular, the Pentium 90 were far more common.

It's pretty clear that PC weren't signifcantly better off than consoles unless you had absolutely the best hardware. And even then you were nowhere near 60fps.

And this is running at 320x200 (lower than console resolution). With sound disabled.