Direct3D performance

[astocky]

I don't know if others are having issues with Direct Draw performance, but I was having trouble running doom on a 486DX4/100 - getting 75-90% speed with dynamic recompiler switched on. Switching to Direct3D cause PCem to crash. I have just found out that Optimus was the issue (or at least the Intel HD on board) and solved the problem by forcing the NVidia GPU. Now I am able to run a Pentium233MMX (using direct3D) with only a brief drop to less than 100% during loading. CPU use in the status menu is also a fraction of what it was previously (65% avg now vs 90% before).

I just thought I would point this out in case anyone else is using direct draw and having trouble getting good specced machines to run at 100%.

My Laptop specs are:

Intel i7-5700HQ
16GB Ram
Nvidia Optimus GTX950M (Intel HD 5600)

[SarahWalker]

What version of Windows is your laptop running? I have a vague memory that on later versions of Windows (8 onwards I think) DirectDraw is basically emulated in software, which might explain the performance difference.

[astocky]

Windows 10, that could explain it. I didn't realise that, and I wonder if others are having similiar issues without knowing it.

Thanks for the fast response.

[Battler]

Interesting. For me on Windows 7, I actually get roughly 10% less with Direct3D than DirectDraw.

[Zacker]

My god am I an idiot. I changed to Direct3D from DirectDraw. Doom2 now plays fine, GLQuake now runs a 'lil less choppy but still far from playable. As for CPU percentage, in DD it was hovering at the 95-100 mark(75 mark at GLquake) and in D3D it's always no lower than 90, even in GLquake. Never got to other games, mainly because I'm switching over to Win98SE and doing the MS-DOS mode to make it play T2 properly.