Create an account


Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Big Benchmark

#26
SG03:
- Core 2 Duo E8200
- 2.66GHz (stock)
- 2 cores
- 2x1Gb PC6400
- Geforce 9600GT (stock)
- Arch Linux
- x86-64
- NVIDIA 290.10 binary driver
- OpenGL 3.3.0

OMG: 292.2290502 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 148 306 519 (336 seconds)
Low: 287.2665403 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 151 303 510 (336 seconds)
Medium: 255.1943961 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 131 275 499 (336 seconds)
Normal: 236.4151600 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 119 252 396 (336 seconds)
High: 187.8120991 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 107 196 269 (336 seconds)
Ultra: 82.6684807 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 19 92 154 (336 seconds)
Ultimate: 42.3868993 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 17 46 79 (336 seconds)

I'm also benching at the moment on a P3-550MHz and intend to bench an Athlon XP2400+ with a whole series of different AGP cards to gauge performance of hardware of the age. I will update with progress.


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark-0.6-E8200-9600GT-2012-02-19.log.zip (Size: 198.45 KB / Downloads: 1)
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#27
- 1x Pentium 3 550MHz (Katmai)
- 320Mb RAM
- Radeon 9000
- Arch Linux
- x86
- Mesa DRI R200 (RV250 4966) x86/MMX/SSE TCL DRI2
- OpenGL 1.3 Mesa 7.11.2

Drum role please....
OMG: 11.5260349 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 6 12 19 (336 seconds)

... and then a few seconds into 'low' it crashed. From dmesg this was down to an issue in the driver/mesa/kernel, not Xonotic.

Interesting none the less. A few points where the system was paging it did slow down on but I would think 512Mb RAM would solve that. This system is definitely below minimum requirements on both CPU and RAM.

I don't think the driver setup is ideal and it might be that some improvement can be had. I'm willing to put some time into experimenting as it will be a similar setup for anyone else using the free driver on older Radeon hardware.


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark-p3-550-radeon9000-320Mb.log.zip (Size: 33.71 KB / Downloads: 3)
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#28
SN45G:
-1x Athlon XP 2400+ (@stock 2.0GHz)
- 2x512Mb dual channel RAM
- Geforce 6600GT
- Sabayon Linux 3.4
- x86
- GeForce 6600 GT/AGP/SSE/3DNOW!
- OpenGL 2.1.1 NVIDIA 100.14.11

OMG: 67.1288991 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 36 70 128 (336 seconds)
Low: 63.8043010 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 36 67 141 (336 seconds)
Med: 57.2421704 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 30 61 139 (336 seconds)
Normal: 49.9242418 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 26 54 106 (336 seconds)
High: 17.4223785 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 3 31 78 (336 seconds)
Ultra: 9.8051507 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 2 16 50 (336 seconds)
Ultimate: 5.8129004 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 2 8 22 (336 seconds)

There is a real cliff for this system at the high settings and just by the 'min' numbers you can see that the slowdowns on those settings are massive. Clearly hardware of this age just doesn't cope well with realtime lighting. Normal remains very playable. This system is also CPU limited which gives an interesting thought: If an XP2400+ can do around 67fps on low settings and 30fps is the minimal playable then a 1GHz CPU with similar graphics card would still be playable. RAM wise no slow downs for paging were seen even though a full KDE desktop was running in the background. Hence I would suggest that 1Gb is a perfectly usable amount of RAM.


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark-xp2400-6600GT-1Gb-2012-02-20.log.zip (Size: 194.6 KB / Downloads: 1)
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#29
I would also suspect that the this system see a such a slow down at high+ due to the gpu memory needed for those higher presets.
Reply

#30
(02-20-2012, 07:29 PM)tZork Wrote: I would also suspect that the this system see a such a slow down at high+ due to the gpu memory needed for those higher presets.
I've looked at video memory usage using memstats from the end of the-big-keybench. Each time a new effects level was tried the texture cache was flushed with a vid_restart:

OMG: 147Mb
Low: 154Mb
Medium: 352Mb
Normal: 352Mb
High: 363Mb
Ultra: 363Mb
Ultimate: 372Mb

These numbers don't necessarily mean peak but are a pretty good indicator. They all fit in with the different texture quality levels shown in the effects menu.

These don't suggest that video memory is associated with the speed drop in going to effects-high.cfg as then a massive drop would be expected from low to medium due to the card only having 128Mb of memory.

From watching the demos on this system it really does look like it's the higher lighting effects that cause the slowdowns. I can try some more things with that system in the effects menu to try and pinpoint what causes the slowdown on high settings.

I have also with the same system done benchmarks using a Geforce FX5600 which I can upload some results for later. I still have a Geforce 4 MX440 which I could try as well in the same system.
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#31
Interesting, it was just a guess on my part. thanks for that info =)
Reply

#32
I've now got results for when the 6600GT is replaced with an FX5600. Why do this? It shows what hardware can and can't reasonably run Xonotic.

SN45G:

- 1x Athlon XP 2400+ (@stock 2.0GHz)
- 2x512Mb dual channel RAM
- GeforceFX 5600 256Mb
- Sabayon Linux 3.4
- x86
- GeForce FX 5600/AGP/SSE/3DNOW!
- OpenGL 2.1.1 NVIDIA 100.14.11

OMG: 57.1019629 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 23 60 91 (336 seconds)
Low: 18.8328760 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 8 20 39 (336 seconds)
Med: 14.9689194 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 6 17 39 (336 seconds)

Higher settings were skipped due to the time taken.

I'm quite suprised in a way just how poor this card performs even on low.cfg. I was expecting it to be substantially worse than the 6600GT, maybe 3 times worse at higher settings but the really poor performance on low just makes it unusable. Based on this I really can't recommend playing Xonotic on the FX5600 as all that is playable is OMG.cfg.

This is with an old driver on an old install (not updated in over 4 years) but I doubt a new distro with newer drivers would manage a staggering improvement. Something else to suggest here is that the whole Geforce FX series are out of support so new drivers do not support them. Would it be sensible based upon the performance levels given to not list such cards on the minimum requirements? Make the minimum requirements Geforce 6, Radeon HD2xxx (oldest fully supported by AMD), Intel i965 (first OpenGL 2.0 in Mesa), etc?

I'm not sure I'm even going to bother trying the MX440 now as it needs an even older 96 series driver just to work.


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark-xp2400-FX5600-1Gb.log.zip (Size: 82.94 KB / Downloads: 2)
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#33
(02-20-2012, 07:29 PM)tZork Wrote: I would also suspect that the this system see a such a slow down at high+ due to the gpu memory needed for those higher presets.
Coming back again to the performance drop on high settings with the 6600GT 128Mb I have done some testing with different settings. Switching the texture quality from 'good' to 'normal' more than tripled the framerate in the testing I did. So it could still be down to amount of video memory available for textures. Is there anything other than texture resolution which changes with the texture quality slider?

If it is only texture resolution that is different then we can easily see that a 128Mb card is not appropriate for the higher texture quality so the recommended has to be 256Mb. If anyone has access to some different 128Mb and 256Mb cards to test this would be interesting to see.

I have also tested my main system (E8200, 9600GT) again after doing an update. Framerates have crept up a little . Not sure if this is down to the latest rsync autobuild or NVIDIA 295 series drivers or other updates but it's good none the less.
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#34
Here are my results:

Username: adem
System: home pc
CPU: Intel Core i5-2320
GHz: 3.00 GHz
Cores: 4
RAM: 8 GB

Vendor: Intel
Card: Intel® HD Graphics Family
Driver: 3.1.0 - Build 8.15.10.2622
OS: Windows 7
Arch: x64

FPS:
----
OMG: 176
Low: 154
Medium: 136
Normal: 118
High: 81
Ultra: 50
Ultimate: 21

MED values:
------------
MED: 10510 frames 59.5610000 seconds 176.4577492 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 104 182 341 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 67.9730000 seconds 154.6202169 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 93 160 292 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 76.8150000 seconds 136.8222352 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 83 143 274 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 88.4460000 seconds 118.8295683 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 60 125 195 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 129.5820000 seconds 81.1069439 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 44 84 125 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 207.5830000 seconds 50.6303503 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 23 55 97 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 481.2270000 seconds 21.8400048 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 10 24 45 (336 seconds)

Notes: 1.5 hours of benchmark!

Benchmark Log


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark.zip (Size: 176.38 KB / Downloads: 3)
Reply

#35
Amazing to see such good numbers from the Sandybridge platform. How do the drivers seem? Any problems with games?

For Linux Sandrybridge users there are some improvements coming which do improve Xonotic performance, Phoronix even tested the development code in Xonotic!
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=ar...ktop&num=2
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#36
I've tried only Warsow, Doom3, Quake4, QuakeLive, NFS World and Xonotic on this PC. I'm not a fan of anything else Big Grin No noticeable problems have been found. Win7x64's drivers is ok. But there is some problems in WinXPx86, so now I don't use it.

About Linux, I have Ubuntu 11.10 x64 installed. I can make some tests if it's needed Wink
Reply

#37
(02-22-2012, 02:07 PM)adem4ik Wrote: About Linux, I have Ubuntu 11.10 x64 installed. I can make some tests if it's needed Wink
This would be interesting to see! Windows 7 vs Linux on the same hardware. Ubuntu is also a common enough distro that any issues found and possible resolution may help others. Even if you don't get good performance straight off, any work you have to do to improve it will be very useful to know.
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#38
As stated in an earlier post, it's slightly strange that my Ares is outdone by cards that are no where near as powerful in games like Crysis or Battlefield 3. I think it's down to the fact that Nvidia has superior performance when Open Gl is used. Huh
I will see if there are any noticable performance gains when I update the drivers (from 11.11 to 12.1), CAP profiles and overclock my cpu and ram a little. Smile
Reply

#39
I think there are a few things with the Ares. For a start it's 2 processors. Regardless of them being on one card or not this means there is a Crossfire setup going on which is never 100% efficient. I would not be too suprised if it does not work at all for Xonotic. If the Crossfire setup does not work then you will actually get negative performance boost due to the driver overhead, hence you might be better off with just one 5870 than the Ares.

You could test this hypothesis by monitoring the temperatures during use of the card in Xonotic. Maybe Speedfan (Google and download it) can detect the temps from each core and log them. If one core heats up substantially more than the other then the Crossfire setup is not working. Why might it not work? Got to look at how Crossfire works in different games and OpenGL/DirectX.

In terms of ATI and OpenGL, performance is a cause for concern. Look for any Doom 3 benchmarks (also OpenGL) and you'll see a similar tale vs. NVIDIA.

Oh, and for information on your earlier comment: 2Gb of RAM is way more than enough to run Xonotic. Go on, take some of your RAM out and benchmark again, see if there's much difference. ;-)
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#40
Oddly enough, my c2d-desktop system has 4850, and as you can see in results, it outperforms systems with similar nVidia cards (GTS 250) on ultimate settings. It confused me, because I expected it to be neck in neck all the way or below (according to that allegedly worse openGL ATI performance, also my version is 512MB GDDR3).

Still, even with one 5870, you should have more than 2x mine fps.
Reply

#41
Some ideas to improve the benchmark script a bit:
- Switch the in-game FPS counter on for the benchmarks
- We know that certain options and configurations can make some effects levels invalid. What about disabling the effects level from the run that are not valid? For example if +vid_soft 1 is enabled, don't do ultra and ultimate and if OpenGL < 2.0 then don't do normal or higher
- Add a timer option to stop the process if a user specified time (eg, 1 hour) is given
- Add an option to end the process if a user specificed FPS limit is broken, eg. the FPS falls below 20fps on a run so the process stops at the end of the run
- Add a shutdown option (sudo needed) so that if a user appended '-shutdown' for example, it would shutdown at the end of the benchmark
- Print the MED FPS to the console at the end of each effect level run

Thoughts? I can work on this now and come up with a patch to submit.
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#42
You're right! One of my cores is idling (42 degrees), while the other is a lot hotter (70 degrees). This means I'm actually running Xonotic with a 5870, instead of a 5970... Hmm, maybe if Xonotic gets a bigger following, ATI can actually do something about this.
Reply

#43
LianLi:
- 2x1GHz Pentium 3 Tualatin 256Kb
- 384Mb PC100
- Geforce FX5600 256Mb
- Arch Linux
- x86
- Nouveau, Mesa 7.11.2, Gallium 0.4
- OpenGL 1.5

OMG: 20.0796540 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 9 21 40 (336 seconds)
Low: 13.3231038 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 5 15 28 (336 seconds)
Higher settings not run due to time.

I've been interested in seeing how Nouveau performs for some time. Right now the legacy NVIDIA drivers for Geforce FX do not work with the latest Xorg (NVIDIA need to update their legacy drivers). This means now is a good time to try Nouveau on any NVIDIA TNT through to Geforce FX.

I would not expect it to perform as well as the propreitary driver at this stage but it does work at least. Some graphical corruptions are evident with console text being garbled, the odd texture problem and a common occurence of polygons stretching from the origin to a point on the screen. It's not so bad that you couldn't live with it but not ideal. I did play on some tweaked low settings on a bot match and things were OK. The Geforce FX implementation is known to cause these problems and is being rewritten:
http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/MesaDrivers

I'll keep working on this as it may be something better can be achieved. Once NVIDIA gets their legacy driver updated I will do a direct comparison on this hardware.

(02-26-2012, 09:15 AM)rocknroll237 Wrote: You're right! One of my cores is idling (42 degrees), while the other is a lot hotter (70 degrees). This means I'm actually running Xonotic with a 5870, instead of a 5970... Hmm, maybe if Xonotic gets a bigger following, ATI can actually do something about this.
Next thing to see is if you have the same situation in every other game. Could be there is something wrong with Catalyst? Here's a similar topic just in case it is in every game:
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showt...p?t=681855


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark-2x1GHzP3-FX5600-nouveau.log.zip (Size: 66.83 KB / Downloads: 1)
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#44
I added all the new data from this thread to the table for easy comparison. Thanks!
BRLOGENSHFEGLE (core dumped)

The Bot Orchestra is back! | Xoylent Easter Egg | 5bots1piano
My music on Google Play and SoundCloud
Reply

#45
If anyone wants to try testing with CrossfireX support, try RadeonPro to make a profile for the Xonotic exe files.

The place to set up CrossfireX is here: http://www.radeonpro.info/en-US/Manual/3...Tweaks-tab (the MVPU slider).

A series of benchmark results with various CrossfireX modes would be appreciated.
BRLOGENSHFEGLE (core dumped)

The Bot Orchestra is back! | Xoylent Easter Egg | 5bots1piano
My music on Google Play and SoundCloud
Reply

#46
Craptop:
- Via C3-2 'Nehemiah' 1.2GHz
- 256Mb PC2100 (shared)
- Via CLE266 onboard, set to use 16Mb shared memory
- Arch Linux
- x86
- OpenChrome 0.2.904, Mesa 7.11.2
- OpenGL 1.2

Realistically this system isn't going to play Xonotic. The CLE266 chipset just isn't made for gaming.

OMG: 10510 frames 1186.1382393 seconds 8.8606873 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 4 9 14 (336 seconds)

Low DID run but at around 0.1fps and having seen within a minute or two of this slideshow that the lava texture was being rendered black, this just isn't going to work with Xonotic so I aborted.

This was tested with the Openchrome driver which is the most advanced open source driver for Via graphics processors and certainly the one I'd recommend to anyone else unlucky enough to have a Chrome based graphics core. I get around 25% better on glxgears with it than with the older Unichrome driver that OpenChrome forked from. Just in case this is considered a poor performing driver I have benchmarked with Q3 (playable on low settings) on this system and it runs over twice as fast under Linux with the OpenChrome driver than on Windows with Via's own drivers! So don't even think about running Xonotic on a Via graphics core in Windows!

The OpenChrome driver has just had a new release, KMS is on it's way at some point and Mesa keeps moving so it may be that Via graphics performance under Linux can improve but at least for the CLE266, it'll never be playable on non-OMG settings. I did purposefully test with only the minimum 16Mb of RAM for video use which makes this result obviously worse case scenario. I will try to retest with 32Mb and 64Mb to compare. It does still show that the game theoretically runs on some appalling hardware!

Now who can beat this for poor performance? You've got to keep to proper, non-broken, drivers and no extreme underclocking! Tongue

Edit: I've now benched on 32Mb and 64Mb video RAM as well.
32Mb OMG: 10510 frames 1113.0167483 seconds 9.4428049 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 5 10 16 (336 seconds)
64Mb OMG: 10510 frames 1125.0383082 seconds 9.3419041 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 5 10 16 (336 seconds)

32Mb is faster than 16Mb due to the extra video RAM but 64Mb get's slower due to no graphical advantage and less system RAM available so more swapping. The black lava issue remains when starting on low. Just can't recommend anything remotely close to this chipset right now.


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark-viacle266-openchrome.zip (Size: 81.42 KB / Downloads: 1)
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#47
Thanks, I added it.
BRLOGENSHFEGLE (core dumped)

The Bot Orchestra is back! | Xoylent Easter Egg | 5bots1piano
My music on Google Play and SoundCloud
Reply

#48
Please consider adding System seven / System eight - Link
[Image: Sigsig.jpg]
Reply

#49
Ok with latest updates the benchmark ran through flawlessly now on my system. Finally. :o)

User: Halogene
Host: Owl
CPU: Intel i5 2500K 4x3.30 GHz
RAM: 8GB
GL_VENDOR: NVIDIA Corporation
GL_RENDERER: GeForce GTX 560/PCIe/SSE2
GL_VERSION: 4.2.0 NVIDIA 295.20
OS: Linux Arch
Arch: x86_64

Results:
MED: 10510 frames 22.1396391 seconds 474.7141511 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 259 497 1185 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 22.5602739 seconds 465.8631386 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 269 490 1231 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 25.0529690 seconds 419.5111569 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 231 451 1208 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 26.4031811 seconds 398.0580965 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 211 430 1153 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 29.9100990 seconds 351.3863324 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 181 380 939 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 48.1057551 seconds 218.4769781 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 37 273 574 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 63.2273881 seconds 166.2254334 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 40 193 383 (336 seconds)

Edit: if you need the log available as link, it's also here: http://ompldr.org/vY3k2aw/halogene-benchmark.zip


Attached Files
.zip   halogene-benchmark.zip (Size: 2.87 MB / Downloads: 0)
[Image: 249.png] Latest track on soundcloud: Farewell - to a better Place (piano improvisation)
New to Xonotic? Check out my Newbie Corner!
<ZeRoQL> i think i got 1 proper quad and that cunt halogen fuck me over with a laser
Reply

#50
I've now been experimenting with Nouveau again on the P3 2x1GHz 'LianLi' system listed previously. There was always before an alarming error message printed because S3TC texture compression is not found. This can be fixed however by an environment variable:
Code:
export force_s3tc_enable=true

Testing however showed it actually made things WORSE.

OMG: 15
Low: 10

This compares with 20 and 13 with it disabled. S3TC is not on in Mesa/Gallium by default due to patent issues in certain countries. This may be resolved soon but without more work on how this is implemented, it won't give any benefit.

As an aside, what does Darkplaces do with S3TC? How important is it that it is present?
I've also now done some more work on the 'SN45G' system:
-1x Athlon XP 2400+ (@stock 2.0GHz)
- 2x512Mb dual channel RAM
- Geforce 6600GT

The difference now is that I have done a fresh install of Arch Linux. This also includes moving up to the NVIDIA 295 series driver.

- Arch Linux x86
- GL_RENDERER: GeForce 6600 GT/AGP/SSE/3DNOW!
- GL_VERSION: 2.1.2 NVIDIA 295.20

KDE 4 was used as opposed to the previous KDE 3 but compositing was switched off to balance things out.

OMG: 79.9510729 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 43 83 151
Low: 77.5736303 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 44 81 169
Medium: 68.4270394 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 37 73 164
Normal: 61.6925022 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 33 66 135
High: 44.0730789 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 23 48 88
Ultra: 23.4846843 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 5 27 57
Ultimate: 11.1014881 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 5 12 24

The improvement over previous results is 20% on OMG, 22% on low, 20% on medium, 24% on normal, 184% on high, 152% on ultra and 94% on ultimate!

No hardware changes or overlocking were done to achieve this. The only configuration changes made were to increase the AGP apperture size from 64Mb to 256Mb and setting the CPU interface timing to aggressive. I can also confirm with the log files that this is the same build of Xonotic.

Increasing the AGP apperture size may have a substantial effect at higher settings but goes nowhere near the whole way of explaining the performance increase. I would have to say that the changes in the base system and the drivers would make up most of the change as it was a 5 year old Sabayon install which was pretty broken. As for the timings, this computer was already set up pretty aggressively so most things were already turned up and in previous experience only a fraction of a percent can be gained from such settings.

I would suggest these results replace the previous ones for SN45G and serve as an example of how the system setup should be looked at before resorting to 'r_draweverythingcrap 1' and 'r_1980s 3'.

Not bad for an 8 and a half year old system!


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark-p3-1GHzx2-FX5600-s3tc-1.log.zip (Size: 54.53 KB / Downloads: 0)
.zip   the-big-benchmark-xp2400-6600GT-arch.log.zip (Size: 195.78 KB / Downloads: 0)
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Forum software by © MyBB original theme © iAndrew 2016, remixed by -z-