The Big Benchmark - Printable Version +- Xonotic Forums (https://forums.xonotic.org) +-- Forum: Creating & Contributing (https://forums.xonotic.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=10) +--- Forum: Xonotic - Development (https://forums.xonotic.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=12) +--- Thread: The Big Benchmark (/showthread.php?tid=2562) |
RE: The Big Benchmark - rainerzufalldererste - 03-27-2013 - system name : RZDE-Win8 - CPU : Intel i7 2600K - CPU clock frequency : 3,40 GHz (clocked up 3,74 GHz @heavy usage) - number of CPU cores : 4 Cores / 8 logical Cores - RAM size : 12 GB - operating system : Windows 8 Pro (6.2.9200) - architecture (32bit or 64bit) : 64 Bit ->logfile<- RE: The Big Benchmark - gamingwithnetbooks - 04-09-2013 Is it preferable to use the regular 0.6 release or the autobuild for the benchmark? RE: The Big Benchmark - edh - 04-09-2013 (04-09-2013, 11:27 AM)gamingwithnetbooks Wrote: Is it preferable to use the regular 0.6 release or the autobuild for the benchmark? Performance should be almost identical but the autobuild does obviously give you the latest game to play. In terms of the Big Benchmark in particular the script that runs it in the autobuild includes some improvements that I submitted specifically for making benchmarking easier. Still, the main readon to use the autobuild is because it's a better game! RE: The Big Benchmark - gamingwithnetbooks - 04-09-2013 (04-09-2013, 01:31 PM)edh Wrote: Still, the main reason to use the autobuild is because it's a better game! True that! It's nice to be able to see improvements being made on a daily basis. On an off-topic note, is there any kind of changelog for the autobuild? I'd like to see just what goes on in Xonotic's development. RE: The Big Benchmark - hutty - 04-10-2013 http://git.xonotic.org/?p=xonotic/xonotic.git;a=summary auto build is based off of the git ... so here is the history of all the changes ... ever ... all of them ... note that autobuild may be a day or two behind what you see here RE: The Big Benchmark - gamingwithnetbooks - 04-13-2013 Ok, thanks Hutty. I reran the benchmark using a new graphics driver and the 1375 autobuild. System: Gateway LT4004u CPU: Intel Atom N2600 (1.6GHz dual-core) RAM: 2 GB GPU: Intel GMA 3600 Driver: 3.0 Intel 8.14.8.1091 OS: 32-bit Win7 Starter 34/31/26/14/8/-/- Notes: Using Display1_DownScalingSupported hack to reach 1024x768 My previous benchmark results are invalid, due to counting the 1-second average framerate instead of using the correct (and lower) values. RE: The Big Benchmark - zykure - 04-14-2013 I updated the Wiki page with the results that were posted here: http://dev.xonotic.org/projects/xonotic/wiki/Hardware_Requirements RE: The Big Benchmark - edh - 04-14-2013 (04-14-2013, 06:00 AM)zykure Wrote: I updated the Wiki page with the results that were posted here: http://dev.xonotic.org/projects/xonotic/wiki/Hardware_Requirements Yay, I have the lowest 3 results! ...and 5 of the lowest 7 results! Worth doing to prove what doesn't work. RE: The Big Benchmark - zykure - 04-14-2013 (04-14-2013, 06:15 AM)edh Wrote: Yay, I have the lowest 3 results! ...and 5 of the lowest 7 results! Worth doing to prove what doesn't work. Yeah, that's the spirit! Everyone going to be in top-5 ... pfff, why not go for bottom-5 RE: The Big Benchmark - edh - 04-14-2013 Well my main system is 13th and most of the configs I have run on was just to see how they worked rather than making it playable. Go on, try and beat my low score! RE: The Big Benchmark - Halogene - 04-14-2013 (04-14-2013, 06:00 AM)zykure Wrote: I updated the Wiki page with the results that were posted here: http://dev.xonotic.org/projects/xonotic/wiki/Hardware_Requirements I really wonder why my benchmark runs don't qualify for making it into the table... * Halogene shrugs RE: The Big Benchmark - edh - 04-14-2013 (04-14-2013, 11:09 AM)Halogene Wrote: I really wonder why my benchmark runs don't qualify for making it into the table... I think he may only have edited in the recent ones. This thread is long and some people have added their results before and other people haven't. I have some results from systems dating from the early modern period through to the Crimean war and they've not been added either. RE: The Big Benchmark - zykure - 04-14-2013 (04-14-2013, 12:41 PM)edh Wrote:(04-14-2013, 11:09 AM)Halogene Wrote: I really wonder why my benchmark runs don't qualify for making it into the table... Oh, I just wen't back to when I posted my results here, and added everything after that. Thought that the table was up-to-date until then, but it seems I was wrong RE: The Big Benchmark - Halogene - 04-15-2013 Ok I try again, then: Code: User: Halogene Code: User: Halogene Interesting, both Windows and Linux values have improved over my previous benchmark runs probably due to driver or engine improvments, but Windows still remains significantly slower than Linux... :o) Code: User: Halogene Code: User: Halogene I still have on machine that I could run the benchmark on, but don't know when I get the time to do it, since that would require me to actually set that one up for operation :o) RE: The Big Benchmark - zykure - 04-15-2013 (04-15-2013, 04:40 AM)Halogene Wrote: Ok I try again, then: Updated! Congratz halogene, you made it to 2nd place! RE: The Big Benchmark - Halbyrd - 06-10-2013 system: Xenoglossicist CPU: Intel Core i5 2300 CPU clock frequency: 2.8Ghz number of CPU cores: 4 RAM size: 16gb operating system: Win7 SP1 architecture: 64bit GL_VENDOR: ATI Technologies Inc. GL_RENDERER: AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series GL_VERSION: 4.2.12217 Compatibility Profile Context 12.104.0.0 OMG: MED: 10510 frames 46.0570000 seconds 228.1954969 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 150 234 431 (336 seconds) Low: MED: 10510 frames 48.5990000 seconds 216.2595938 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 148 223 425 (336 seconds) Med: MED: 10510 frames 52.3490000 seconds 200.7679230 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 132 209 397 (336 seconds) Normal: MED: 10510 frames 55.6850000 seconds 188.7402353 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 122 197 383 (336 seconds) High: MED: 10510 frames 60.2830000 seconds 174.3443425 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 113 182 344 (336 seconds) Ultra: MED: 10510 frames 68.1100000 seconds 154.3092057 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 93 163 301 (336 seconds) Ultimate: MED: 10510 frames 87.3990000 seconds 120.2530921 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 25 137 277 (336 seconds) RE: The Big Benchmark - zykure - 06-10-2013 (06-10-2013, 07:23 AM)Halbyrd Wrote: system: Xenoglossicist Thanks for posting the results; I updated the wiki page accordingly: http://dev.xonotic.org/projects/xonotic/wiki/Hardware_Requirements Seems like your performance dropped a bit compared to your previous benchmark on "WisdomLikeSilence", although it should have increased given the faster CPU. Any ideas? =) RE: The Big Benchmark - Halbyrd - 06-10-2013 (06-10-2013, 08:41 AM)zykure Wrote: Seems like your performance dropped a bit compared to your previous benchmark on "WisdomLikeSilence", although it should have increased given the faster CPU. Any ideas? =) The CPU actually isn't any faster, I just misreported the clock speed last time. (-_-;;) As for the performance drop, I'm not sure if it's the changes to the AMD driver or what. I'll try manually disabling Aero and running the numbers again. Edit: Disabling Aero didn't help noticeably. Not sure if it's the new animation features or changes under the hood in the video drivers. Either way, I'll be backing off from Ultimate settings for now. RE: The Big Benchmark - rafallus - 06-30-2013 Table could use a bit of cleanup, certain information about core count of some CPUs is misleading. For example i7 2600K is listed in 2 different systems, once as having 4 cores and once as having 8 cores. Problem is "HyperThreading" which makes amount of threads a CPU can handle more than actual physical core count (2 per core). Ie. i7 2600K is quad core processor, but has HT, therefore can handle up to 8 threads at once. Same deal with i7-920, 930 or 960. Core i3-2100 also has HT, but has 2 physical cores, therefore can handle up to 4 threads. Also, certain CPUs are listed as having "?" number of cores. All processors marked that way in this table (Athlon XP's, Sempron 2800+) are single core. RE: The Big Benchmark - Halogene - 07-01-2013 As my "Owl" just broke down mysteriously due to some hardware error, I was forced to set up my previous PC "whisper" again and did a benchmark run on that one. Though being fairly dated already, it performs quite well. OUTDATED, updated benchmark two posts below Code: System: whisper I'll do a run on another machine in a minute. RE: The Big Benchmark - Halogene - 07-01-2013 Next run finished on mcbuntu: Code: System: mcbuntu (MacBook Pro 8,2) So far my attempts to use the radeon 6750M on this machine have not resulted in more FPS, I need to configure X properly and even when I thought I had done so the result was less FPS with the open source drivers... I'll re-post once I can run Xonotic on the radeon GPU instead of the integrated i915 chipset. Oh, and "Owl" is back up and running after removing CMOS battery and letting it sit for a while :oD RE: The Big Benchmark - Halogene - 07-12-2013 Did minor tweaking (disabling desktop effects) on whisper, and got a slight fps increase: Code: System: whisper RE: The Big Benchmark - kamp - 07-27-2013 Hi, finally I run a benchmark, sorry that it took so long. http://forums.xonotic.org/showthread.php?tid=4133 Code: The Big Benchmark RE: The Big Benchmark - Maddin - 07-27-2013 New hardware - new benchmark: Code: Username: Maddin https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31065422/Xonotic/misc/the-big-benchmark_athlonx3_gtx660.log EDIT: I found out that only one core of my CPU runs at 3.3GHz and the other two at 0.8GHz when I´m running Xonotic. Does this mean that Xonotic only uses one core of the CPU? RE: The Big Benchmark - tZork - 07-27-2013 yes. unless you use sdl (and in this case it just offload some sound related tasks) more or less: darkplaces is a single core engine. |