I had a 386sx@25MHz too and I don’t remember it being that slow. Unless that demo has the detail cranked up to high or something like that. Although, like that first commenter I had a math co-processor, so maybe that helped.
Are you sure you didn’t set low-detail with the viewport cranked way down? I played it on the same model with a math co-processor and it could not handle high-detail and the large viewport in the video.
Edit: I’m fairly certain I had a math co-processor, but I’ll defer to you on this detail just in case. That would certainly make a sizeable difference.
I think the detail level made a pretty big difference. I definitely ran it in low and kind of forgot that high was an option, but the shotgun animation in that video is bringing up some traumatic memories.
40MHz is plenty for doom.
Ew, no. Even 386DX/40 is terrible for Doom:
Doom timedemo 386 DX 40 MHz DOS PC
486SX/33 is painful, you really want 486DX2/66:
Doom Timedemo - 486DX2/66MHz
Edit: grammar
Edit 2: These videos are accurate, btw. I upgraded from 386SX/25 to 486SX/33 just for Doom while my friend got the 486DX2/66 Packard Bell. Envy.
I had a 386sx@25MHz too and I don’t remember it being that slow. Unless that demo has the detail cranked up to high or something like that. Although, like that first commenter I had a math co-processor, so maybe that helped.
Are you sure you didn’t set low-detail with the viewport cranked way down? I played it on the same model
with a math co-processorand it could not handle high-detail and the large viewport in the video.Edit: I’m fairly certain I had a math co-processor, but I’ll defer to you on this detail just in case. That would certainly make a sizeable difference.
I think the detail level made a pretty big difference. I definitely ran it in low and kind of forgot that high was an option, but the shotgun animation in that video is bringing up some traumatic memories.
Can confirm. My dad had a 386DX-40 when I got my hands on a copy of Doom, and it was a fucking slideshow at best.