Create an account


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

- 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<-
MY NOOB STATS:
[Image: 788.png]
Reply

Is it preferable to use the regular 0.6 release or the autobuild for the benchmark?
Reply

(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! Smile
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

(04-09-2013, 01:31 PM)edh Wrote: Still, the main reason to use the autobuild is because it's a better game! Smile

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.
Reply

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
Reply

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.


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark.zip (Size: 118.5 KB / Downloads: 0)
Reply

I updated the Wiki page with the results that were posted here: http://dev.xonotic.org/projects/xonotic/...quirements
[Image: 9216.png] Web: YouTubeSoundCloudFlickrzykure.de[unconnected]
IRC: #uc.xonotic #xonotic #xonotic.de #xonotic.pickup
Reply

(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/...quirements

Yay, I have the lowest 3 results! ...and 5 of the lowest 7 results! Worth doing to prove what doesn't work.
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

(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 Big Grin
[Image: 9216.png] Web: YouTubeSoundCloudFlickrzykure.de[unconnected]
IRC: #uc.xonotic #xonotic #xonotic.de #xonotic.pickup
Reply

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!
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

(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/...quirements

I really wonder why my benchmark runs don't qualify for making it into the table...

* Halogene shrugs
[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

(04-14-2013, 11:09 AM)Halogene Wrote: I really wonder why my benchmark runs don't qualify for making it into the table...

* Halogene shrugs

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.
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

(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...

* Halogene shrugs

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.

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 Wink
[Image: 9216.png] Web: YouTubeSoundCloudFlickrzykure.de[unconnected]
IRC: #uc.xonotic #xonotic #xonotic.de #xonotic.pickup
Reply

Ok I try again, then:

Code:
User: Halogene
System: Owl
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500 CPU
GHz: 3.30 GHz
Cores: 4
RAM: 8GB
Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
Card: GL_RENDERER: GeForce GTX 560/PCIe/SSE2
Driver: GL_VERSION: 4.3.0 NVIDIA 313.30
OS: Linux
Arch: x86_64

MED: 10510 frames 24.3719971 seconds 431.2326129 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 250 450 992 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 24.8128481 seconds 423.5708840 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 257 444 1008 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 27.3306000 seconds 384.5506499 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 222 412 1012 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 28.9489448 seconds 363.0529565 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 202 390 965 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 32.3020561 seconds 325.3662855 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 181 351 847 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 37.1275780 seconds 283.0779857 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 149 308 590 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 61.4009888 seconds 171.1698818 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 50 192 389 (336 seconds)

Code:
User: Halogene
System: Owl
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500 CPU
GHz: 3.30 GHz
Cores: 4
RAM: 8GB
Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
Card: GL_RENDERER: GeForce GTX 560/PCIe/SSE2
Driver: GL_VERSION: 4.3.0
OS: Windows 7
Arch: 64bit

MED: 10510 frames 36.9760000 seconds 284.2384249 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 185 292 596 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 37.8610000 seconds 277.5943583 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 183 287 608 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 40.7260000 seconds 258.0661003 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 166 270 608 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 45.1640000 seconds 232.7074661 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 148 243 508 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 48.8080000 seconds 215.3335519 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 136 226 443 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 51.8460000 seconds 202.7157351 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 120 216 470 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 73.8770000 seconds 142.2634920 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 42 160 295 (336 seconds)

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
System: MacBookPro
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2635QM CPU
GHz: 2.00 GHz
Cores: 4
RAM: 8GB
Vendor: AMD
Card: GL_RENDERER: AMD Radeon HD 7400M Series
Driver: GL_VERSION: 4.2.11903 Compatibility Profile Context
OS: Linux
Arch: 64bit

MED: 10510 frames 37.2183599 seconds 282.3875102 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 140 295 594 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 39.8287401 seconds 263.8798006 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 147 277 563 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 45.7042820 seconds 229.9565715 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 124 245 508 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 52.4782779 seconds 200.2733401 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 97 213 376 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 93.8694189 seconds 111.9640467 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 53 120 198 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 144.8829579 seconds 72.5413130 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 32 79 151 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 296.1871419 seconds 35.4843223 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 17 38 77 (336 seconds)

Code:
User: Halogene
System: FortKnox
CPU: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU  330
GHz: 1.60 GHz
Cores: 2
RAM: 2GB (shared, I believe)
Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
Card: GL_RENDERER: ION/integrated/SSE2
Driver: GL_VERSION: 3.3.0 NVIDIA 313.30
OS: Linux
Arch: x86_64

MED: 10510 frames 210.5964479 seconds 49.9058750 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 30 52 103 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 212.8991950 seconds 49.3660862 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 32 51 107 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 232.3846331 seconds 45.2267427 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 27 48 105 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 243.8666899 seconds 43.0973168 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 25 46 94 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 298.4193540 seconds 35.2188954 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 21 37 55 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 626.5749550 seconds 16.7737314 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 8 18 30 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 1437.8230391 seconds 7.3096617 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 3 8 14 (336 seconds)


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)
[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

(04-15-2013, 04:40 AM)Halogene Wrote: Ok I try again, then:

[...]

Updated! Congratz halogene, you made it to 2nd place! Big Grin
[Image: 9216.png] Web: YouTubeSoundCloudFlickrzykure.de[unconnected]
IRC: #uc.xonotic #xonotic #xonotic.de #xonotic.pickup
Reply

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)


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark.log.txt.zip (Size: 171.37 KB / Downloads: 0)
Reply

(06-10-2013, 07:23 AM)Halbyrd Wrote: 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

Thanks for posting the results; I updated the wiki page accordingly: http://dev.xonotic.org/projects/xonotic/...quirements

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? =)
[Image: 9216.png] Web: YouTubeSoundCloudFlickrzykure.de[unconnected]
IRC: #uc.xonotic #xonotic #xonotic.de #xonotic.pickup
Reply

(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.
Reply

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.
Reply

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
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
CPU Frequency: 2.00 GHZ
CPU Cores: 2
RAM: 1GB
Vendor: GL_VENDOR: NVIDIA Corporation
Card: GL_RENDERER: GeForce 7950 GT/PCIe/SSE2
GL_VERSION: 2.1.2 NVIDIA 304.88
OS: Arch Linux (kernel 3.9.8)
Arch: x86_64

Benchmarking on omg
MED: 10510 frames 83.0185258 seconds 126.5982489 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 74 131 241 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on low
MED: 10510 frames 86.6121299 seconds 121.3455899 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 76 126 251 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on med
MED: 10510 frames 97.3165941 seconds 107.9980254 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 64 114 242 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on normal
MED: 10510 frames 101.3024299 seconds 103.7487453 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 57 110 240 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on high
MED: 10510 frames 121.1566379 seconds 86.7472074 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 48 95 208 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on ultra
MED: 10510 frames 153.6523528 seconds 68.4011654 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 34 75 137 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on ultimate
MED: 10510 frames 253.8688221 seconds 41.3993334 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 12 47 101 (336 seconds)

I'll do a run on another machine in a minute.


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark.log.zip (Size: 168.42 KB / 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

Next run finished on mcbuntu:

Code:
System: mcbuntu (MacBook Pro 8,2)
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2675QM CPU @ 2.20GHz
GHZ: 2.20 GHZ
Cores: 4 (8 with HT)
RAM: 8GB
Vendor: Intel Open Source Technology Center
Card: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Sandybridge Mobile
Driver: 3.0 Mesa 9.1.3
OS: Ubuntu 13.04 (kernel 3.8.0-25)
Arch: x86-64

MED: 10510 frames 54.0825930 seconds 194.3323984 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 122 200 318 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 58.9386599 seconds 178.3209869 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 115 184 330 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 65.6893311 seconds 159.9955401 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 91 168 305 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 85.6670380 seconds 122.6842932 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 65 129 194 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 125.4982581 seconds 83.7461823 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 49 87 117 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 192.4612088 seconds 54.6084069 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 27 58 88 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 295.0244529 seconds 35.6241657 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 18 38 66 (336 seconds)

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


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark.log.zip (Size: 168.22 KB / Downloads: 1)
[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

Did minor tweaking (disabling desktop effects) on whisper, and got a slight fps increase:

Code:
System: whisper
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
CPU Frequency: 2.00 GHZ
CPU Cores: 2
RAM: 1GB
Vendor: GL_VENDOR: NVIDIA Corporation
Card: GL_RENDERER: GeForce 7950 GT/PCIe/SSE2
GL_VERSION: 2.1.2 NVIDIA 304.88
OS: Arch Linux (kernel 3.9.8)
Arch: x86_64

Benchmarking on omg
MED: 10510 frames 80.5169880 seconds 130.5314600 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 77 135 255 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on low
MED: 10510 frames 84.6293170 seconds 124.1886425 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 77 129 267 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on med
MED: 10510 frames 93.1220920 seconds 112.8625847 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 66 119 263 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on normal
MED: 10510 frames 99.2326488 seconds 105.9127225 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 60 112 248 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on high
MED: 10510 frames 115.9083071 seconds 90.6751230 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 53 98 226 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on ultra
MED: 10510 frames 138.9789681 seconds 75.6229532 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 36 83 148 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on ultimate
MED: 10510 frames 228.2489910 seconds 46.0462057 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 13 53 126 (336 seconds)


Attached Files
.zip   the-big-benchmark.log.whisper.zip (Size: 168.42 KB / Downloads: 1)
[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

Hi,

finally I run a benchmark, sorry that it took so long. Wink
http://forums.xonotic.org/showthread.php?tid=4133



Code:
The Big Benchmark
=================

Benchmarking on omg
MED: 10510 frames 63.0812380 seconds 166.6105538 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 121 169 252 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on low
MED: 10510 frames 76.2140191 seconds 137.9011385 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 102 141 211 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on med
MED: 10510 frames 80.6580582 seconds 130.3031618 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 83 134 205 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on normal
MED: 10510 frames 89.8846071 seconds 116.9276959 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 75 121 195 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on high
MED: 10510 frames 112.6680660 seconds 93.2828651 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 56 96 136 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on ultra
MED: 10510 frames 157.9225969 seconds 66.5515905 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 35 70 108 (336 seconds)
Benchmarking on ultimate
MED: 10510 frames 219.1653371 seconds 47.9546635 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 24 51 94 (336 seconds)

Please provide the the following info to the Xonotic developers:
- CPU speed Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3230M CPU @ 2.60GHz
- memory size size: 6GiB SODIMM DDR3 Synchronous 1333 MHz (0.8 ns)
- graphics card Intel HD 4000
- operating system  lubuntu 13.04 64bit
- graphics driver version
            *-display
             description: VGA compatible controller
             product: 3rd Gen Core processor Graphics Controller
             vendor: Intel Corporation
             version: 09
             width: 64 bits
             clock: 33MHz
             capabilities: msi pm vga_controller bus_master cap_list rom
             configuration: driver=i915 latency=0
http://www.xup.in/dl,54032852/the-big-benchmark.7z/
Reply

New hardware - new benchmark:

Code:
Username: Maddin
System: maddinsrechner
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) II X3 455 Processor
GHz: 3.3
Cores: 3
RAM: 8G
Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
Card: GeForce GTX 660/PCIe/SSE2/3DNOW!
Driver: 4.3.0 NVIDIA 313.30
OS: Linux
Arch: x86

MED: 10510 frames 48.9262807 seconds 214.8129767 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 126 222 437 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 48.6165913 seconds 216.1813430 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 140 225 480 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 53.8391474 seconds 195.2111151 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 113 207 470 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 56.2960973 seconds 186.6914492 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 108 198 445 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 60.8900564 seconds 172.6061793 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 99 184 396 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 68.1538885 seconds 154.2098365 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 86 166 372 (336 seconds)
MED: 10510 frames 92.0923594 seconds 114.1245601 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 22 135 349 (336 seconds)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3106...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?
Reply

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.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

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