Author |
Message |
Duh102
happy carebear mom
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:40 am Posts: 7096 Location: b8bbd5
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
Hyperkultra wrote: Lower ... better? Seeing as they are measures of FPS, no, not really.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:04 pm |
|
|
TorrentHKU
Loose Canon
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:07 pm Posts: 2992 Location: --------------->
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
I find it hard to believe that some of those are measures of FPS. I mean, a 2 Ghz AMD Sempron getting over 400 FPS?
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:22 pm |
|
|
Duh102
happy carebear mom
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:40 am Posts: 7096 Location: b8bbd5
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
Well game simulation is not affected by render fps, like I tend to get 200 fps with nothing going on.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:26 pm |
|
|
FoiL
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:02 pm Posts: 1434
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
The P8xxx seem to be winning, which I find kind off odd, due to the low clock.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:29 pm |
|
|
TorrentHKU
Loose Canon
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:07 pm Posts: 2992 Location: --------------->
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
FoiL wrote: The P8xxx seem to be winning, which I find kind off odd, due to the low clock. My point exactly. Is the rating more like milliseconds taken to complete, or something? Maybe? Yeah, after looking at it further, it makes more sense if the number is actually time taken to complete instead of FPS.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:34 pm |
|
|
FoiL
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:02 pm Posts: 1434
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
Still doubt that too. If that were the case the P8600 would be somewhat faster than my P8400.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:36 pm |
|
|
TorrentHKU
Loose Canon
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:07 pm Posts: 2992 Location: --------------->
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
I would say that it's small enough of a difference to be negligable. People have different programs running in the background, and different hardware too.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:42 pm |
|
|
FoiL
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:02 pm Posts: 1434
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
Yeah, the test results are very awkward. This pc barely runs the tester with nothing going on at 30FPS with a 0.60 timescale. Code: CC PERFORMANCE TESTER V0.2 COPYRIGHT 2010 GRIFFITH INDUSTRIES OS: Windows XP SP3 PROCESSOR: Celeron (R) 2.93 @3.23Ghz RAM: 512Mb RESX: 640 RESY: 480 PPM: 20 POSTPROCESSING: true MOD COUNT: 11 TIMESCALE: 1 DELTATIME: 0.016666699200869 TEST RESULT 1 : 28.89 TEST RESULT 2 : 64.38 TEST RESULT 3 : 224.21
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:45 pm |
|
|
Dragon239
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:23 am Posts: 63 Location: Michigan, USA
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
Told us not to post results directly to thread, so results are here: http://pastebin.com/wUSYNQVEApologies, not vista/an older CPU, but I figured I might as well test. Are those results good or bad? The FPS was 1000 firs the first 2 tests, and for the the third it would flicker to 500, then 333, then back to 1000 when everything was clear.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:48 pm |
|
|
TorrentHKU
Loose Canon
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:07 pm Posts: 2992 Location: --------------->
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
Those are very very good results. And they prove my theory about low numbers being better.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:53 pm |
|
|
Duh102
happy carebear mom
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:40 am Posts: 7096 Location: b8bbd5
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
Oh, my bad. I was reading off the graph and you were reading the results themselves.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:30 pm |
|
|
Geti
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:57 am Posts: 4886 Location: some compy
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
Yeah, lower results are better (Except for RAM), as they're deviations from "normal" FPS, not the actual FPS readings. Larger numbers mean larger impact of particle stress. I'll put the new results up once i've got them into the xls, I'm at school at the moment.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:43 pm |
|
|
whitty
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:31 am Posts: 2982 Location: Texas
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
I'll boot from Vista in a few and edit in the results.
*EDIT* Vista broke.
Last edited by whitty on Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:03 pm |
|
|
unwoundpath
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:19 am Posts: 1279 Location: Places. And things.
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
VISTA!!!! (that mod count is embarresing ) CC PERFORMANCE TESTER V0.2 COPYRIGHT 2010 GRIFFITH INDUSTRIES OS: PROCESSOR: RAM: RESX: 800 RESY: 600 PPM: 20 POSTPROCESSING: true MOD COUNT: 102 TIMESCALE: 1 DELTATIME: 0.016666699200869 TEST RESULT 1 : 52.53 TEST RESULT 2 : 73.67 TEST RESULT 3 : 359.77 i turn'd my volume up in the last test on accident.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:13 pm |
|
|
FoiL
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:02 pm Posts: 1434
|
Re: Performance Survey - WE NEED VISTA AND OLDER CPU RESULTS
Code: CC PERFORMANCE TESTER V0.2 COPYRIGHT 2010 GRIFFITH INDUSTRIES OS: Windows XP SP3 PROCESSOR: Pentium 4 2.66@3.04Ghz RAM: 1Gb RESX: 640 RESY: 480 PPM: 20 POSTPROCESSING: true MOD COUNT: 11 TIMESCALE: 1 DELTATIME: 0.016666699200869 TEST RESULT 1 : 39.4 TEST RESULT 2 : 57.85 TEST RESULT 3 : 164.07 Here's another one.
|
Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:13 pm |
|
|
|