Performance

Coordinator
Dec 10, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Just thought we could have a thread to post performance of the engine, or post concerns or questions about it.
Coordinator
Dec 10, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Edited Dec 10, 2007 at 1:00 AM
12/09/07 - We're getting around 950fps on an NVidia 7900gs go 256mb RAM, rendering a single ship model.

  • This translates to a single frame time of 0.00105 seconds.
Dec 10, 2007 at 12:41 AM
For performance measurements, its probably best to use frame times (seconds per frame). The numbers are more meaningful that way.
Dec 10, 2007 at 4:37 AM
Edited Dec 10, 2007 at 4:37 AM
We need to pick a base machine, having a lot of different setups is nice, but in order to compare performance numbers we need a fixed setup. I guess that your machine, LorkIkon, could serve as the baseline machine?

Can you provide your specs?
Coordinator
Dec 10, 2007 at 4:54 AM
Sure, I also have an older computer that could serve as a way to make sure we're running ok on old hardware.

My specs for my main computer (laptop) are:
Intel Core 2 Duo T7200, Dual Core, 2 x 2.0Ghz, 667Mhz Bus
2.0GB RAM at 667Mhz
NVidia 7900gs go 256mb (supports up to SM3.0, and DirectX 9).
7200rpm HD
Windows Vista Business

I'd say those are the specs that matter.

My specs for my old computer:
AMD AthlonXP 2500+, 1.6Ghz, 333Mhz Bus
512MB RAM at 333Mhz
ATi Radeon 9800se 128mb (the SE version of the 9800 was a bastardized version, with only 4 pipelines instead of 8, and lower performance memory). Supports up to SM2.0, DirectX 9, and does support 32-bit index buffers.
7200rpm HD
Windows XP SP2
Dec 10, 2007 at 5:33 AM
It might not be a bad idea for us all to state our dev machine specs, so we know what we're working with as far as dev hardware goes. For instance, if not everyone has SM 3.0 hardware, I know that I shouldn't commit new test code that requires SM 3.0 hardware to run. Obviously there wouldn't be a SM 3.0 requirement on releases, but for in-between test builds, it may be advantageous.

My machine:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 clocked at 3.0GHz per core
2 GB RAM clocked at 1000 MHz
nVidia 8800 GTX - 768 MB VRAM
Vista Business x64 / XP SP2

Dec 10, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Ive run on this:

Intel Core 2 Duo E660 running at 2.4ghz per core (how stable is your 3ghz overclock Shaw?)
2 GB of DDR2 about 600 mhz (I think)
nVidia 7600gt 256mb
Asus P5N-E SLI
Vista Home Premium

and my Vista performance index is 5.0.

Ive also got a Dell Pentium D and an old custom Athlon XP I could test on if needed.
Dec 10, 2007 at 5:11 PM
It's pretty stable at 3 GHz. I had a couple issues with blue screens in Vista, but taking the CPU down to 1.25 volts seemed to fix it. I think the RAM's the weak link anyway. It's only DDR2-6400 (800 MHz). Under gaming loads, both cores are around 55 degress C on normal air cooling.
Dec 10, 2007 at 6:06 PM

shawmishrak wrote:
It's pretty stable at 3 GHz. I had a couple issues with blue screens in Vista, but taking the CPU down to 1.25 volts seemed to fix it. I think the RAM's the weak link anyway. It's only DDR2-6400 (800 MHz). Under gaming loads, both cores are around 55 degress C on normal air cooling.



Nice! Ill see if i can boost mine to 2.8 or so (im not very brave!). Ive read most get to 3 with no problems though so I may try it. As I want pure CPU performance Ill use a memory divider if the memory cant cope. Thanks for the advice
Coordinator
Dec 11, 2007 at 5:50 AM
I won't be OCing my laptop :(.

Ok, I guess that isn't completely true. My video card is overclocked about 8%. When the 9 series NVidias with DX10.1 support start coming in XPS laptops I may upgrade. Some XPSs now come with Ageia cards standard, which is pretty sweet. My company is starting work on some Ageia games, so it kinda sucks when I can't play them on my own computer.

Now that I'm not going to be in school I'm tempted to get another desktop instead of laptop. They're easier to upgrade, and have a lot lower cost/performance ratio. Hmmmm, graduation present? :) </off-topic spiel>