68kMLA Classic Interface

This is a version of the 68kMLA forums for viewing on your favorite old mac. Visitors on modern platforms may prefer the main site.

Click here to select a new forum.
What FPS do you get in Quake on your machine?
Posted by: killvore on 2025-09-25 06:55:30 A friendly user on the TD Discord ran some tests and posted these numbers: - Power Mac 6500/225 overclocked to 300MHz - 136MB RAM (8MB added onboard, 2x64MB sticks) - stock L2 cache - generic 2GB CF card - Mac OS 9.1 - virtual memory on - Screen at 256 colours 1024x768 - Quake at 320x200. - 320x200, 29.6fps - 320x200 (pixel doubled) 29.4fps - 640x480, 15.5fps They also have TERRIBLE performance when running the RAVE version, apparently the 6500 has issues with hardware acceleration when running Quake or Unreal
Posted by: mndeaves on 2026-05-13 04:35:57 I’m working on a version of Quake to squeeze as many frames per second with as many visual effects as possible. https://github.com/matthewdeaves/old-mac-quakespasm Requires Panther or better at the moment, I am tempted to see if I can get a Mac OS 9 build.
Posted by: Byrd on 2026-06-19 16:49:27 I have setup a spreadsheet to benchmark Mac computers on Quake: Thanks for the PM spam, reported
Posted by: lolo799 on 2026-07-01 06:16:12 I ran it on 6100/60, 40MB, L2 256KB, AV card and Mac OS 7.6: 320200 10.7fps 320200 doubled 9.5 320200 doubled and interlaced 10.2 640480 3.9
Posted by: Snial on 2026-07-01 06:29:33 I ran it on 6100/60, 40MB, L2 256KB, AV card and Mac OS 7.6: 320200 10.7fps 320200 doubled 9.5 320200 doubled and interlaced 10.2 640480 3.9 Feel free to add it to @noglin 's proper Quake spreadsheet: quake on mac docs.google.com It would be the lowest RAM 6100 and slowest 6100. Oddly enough @killvore has two 6100/66/264 entries with apparently the same setup, but the first does 9.0 fps and the second 8.2. Yours is 19% (or 30%) higher despite the lower clock speed and RAM. I guess the AV card makes all the difference (as it should)?
Posted by: Phipli on 2026-07-01 06:37:13 Feel free to add it to @noglin 's proper Quake spreadsheet: quake on mac docs.google.com It would be the lowest RAM 6100 and slowest 6100. Oddly enough @killvore has two 6100/66/264 entries with apparently the same setup, but the first does 9.0 fps and the second 8.2. Yours is 19% (or 30%) higher despite the lower clock speed and RAM. I guess the AV card makes all the difference (as it should)? AV card will give slower scores. Also if you have a cache or not. Then OS version makes a fair difference for speed on early PPCs as they ported QuickDraw and stuff from 68k.
Posted by: lolo799 on 2026-07-01 06:47:48 I don't have the 6100 video cable adapter so I can't test it with the onboard video chip. Virtual memory is off, disk cache is 96K. I will try to remove the L2 cache stick later. And I can update to MacOS 8.x too.
Posted by: killvore on 2026-07-01 11:27:33 Ah the 8.2 should be without the 256kB L2 cache @Snial , whereas 9.0 is with. I also got a 1MB cache but it's on loan to Bolle! I'm getting a big pile of 630-compatible boards in a few weeks, and I also realized I have a 601 accelerator I can stick in a Quadra 700 for the slowest Quake framerate imaginable. Who wants to bet which one is slower - a 6200 with cache, or a PPC 700 without cache? Will find out this summer! 😄
Posted by: Phipli on 2026-07-01 11:34:13 Ah the 8.2 should be without the 256kB L2 cache @Snial , whereas 9.0 is with. I also got a 1MB cache but it's on loan to Bolle! I'm getting a big pile of 630-compatible boards in a few weeks, and I also realized I have a 601 accelerator I can stick in a Quadra 700 for the slowest Quake framerate imaginable. Who wants to bet which one is slower - a 6200 with cache, or a PPC 700 without cache? Will find out this summer! 😄 I see your 700 and lower you a IIvx with a Turbo 601 😆
< 3