Quake 2 Crusher

K7 550 Quake II crusher.dm2 Results
Setting	Score (fps)
640x480x8 (software	21.6
640x480x8 (software + 3DNow!)	21.8
640x480x16 (TNT1)	42.8
640x480x16 (TNT1 + 3DNow!)	44.7
640x480x16 (TNT2U)	41.5
800x600x16 (TNT1)	40.2
800x600x16 (TNT1 + 3DNow!)	41.0
800x600x16 (TNT2U)	40.0
1024x768x16 (TNT2U)	39.4
P3 500 Demo1 results with non-Ultra TNT2
800x600x16 (TNT2 140/166)	54.0
1024x768x16 (TNT2 140/166)	50.8

Crusher Analysis

Ouch. Can you say "brick wall?" Even at 1024x768, it looks like 40fps is all that's going to be allowed by the K7 at 550 Mhz. This particular lack of impressiveness in K7 performance is somewhat disturbing. Take a look at the reference P3 500 results, featuring an Elsa Erazor III at 140/166 (significantly lower than the 150/183 TNT2 Ultra for the K7). With lower clock rates across the board, the Intel machine is still able to surpass 50fps.

Are specific display driver or game source optimizations going to be a requisite for the K7, or are we seeing indications that this next-generation processor might not be the best choice (yet again) for all applications, including 3D gaming?

Voodoo2/3 results could have been a real eye-opener for 3Dnow! results, but for a CPU with such a purportedly strong pipelined FPU (twice the throughput and at least 30% faster overall), why should there even a need for 3DNow? If you recall, 3DNow! allows a K6 series CPU to match or slightly beat the performance of an equivalently clocked Pentium II in Quake II. However, it's starting to look like the K7 has its own ups and downs.