Speed tests

Psycho Siggi · Post by **Psycho Siggi** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 0:07

With dynamic lights: 21
Without dynamic lights: 29

System:
AMD 1600+ ~1.4 ghz
512mb RAM
GeForce FX5700LE 256mb
Windows XP Pro SP2

Other info:
Texture filtering mode: none (mipmapped)
Anisotropic filtering: 16x
Antialiasing: none
Resolution: 1280x1024

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 0:23

Psycho Siggi wrote: Other info:
Texture filtering mode: none (mipmapped)
Anisotropic filtering: 16x
Antialiasing: none
Resolution: 1280x1024

You should turn off the anisotropic filter. With your texture filter settngs anything above 4 is overkill.

Psycho Siggi · Post by **Psycho Siggi** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 0:47

Graf Zahl wrote:You should turn off the anisotropic filter. With your texture filter settngs anything above 4 is overkill.

At 4x I got 24fps with dynamic light and 34fps without. Switching it off alltogether didn't give much an improvement on that.

But something I noticed which is very impresive about GZDoom's performance is that Deus Vult map 02 is playable on my system where as when I played it using Risen 3D it wasn't.

entryway · Post by **entryway** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 19:39

Specs:
Intel Pentium4 2.8 (overclocked to 3.2)
GeForce 9800SE (overclocked to 9800PRO)
Catalist 5.8 driver
1024mb RAM

resulution: 640x480

Stats:
gzdoom - 59 fps

P.S.
zdoom - 66 fps
my glboom - 116 fps
doom3 on high quality without AA, timedemo demo1.demo - 67 fps :)

lemonzest · Post by **lemonzest** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 20:19

@entryway, is that 59fps with or without dynamic light's enabled? and i don't really think graf asked for other game scores just GZDoom so that's just willy waving and besides i could blow you out of the water.

entryway · Post by **entryway** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 20:22

with
but without lights.wad
it seems to me, the gzdoom without additional graphic effects should not be more slowly than a zdoom. in any resolutions.

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 21:33

Running the game at 640x480 on that machine is a total waste. You should get almost the same performance out of 1280x1024. That level is mostly limited by the CPU, not the graphics card. At 640x480 the CPU can't keep up with the speed at which the geometry is rendered.

As for 'your' GLBoom, without providing some specs of what it can do that number is useless.

Willis · Post by **Willis** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 21:47

entryway wrote:GeForce 9800SE (overclocked to 9800PRO)

errr....

entryway · Post by **entryway** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 21:58

Graf Zahl wrote:Running the game at 640x480 on that machine is a total waste. You should get almost the same performance out of 1280x1024. That level is mostly limited by the CPU, not the graphics card. At 640x480 the CPU can't keep up with the speed at which the geometry is rendered.

But should not be more slowly. It seems to me.

As for 'your' GLBoom, without providing some specs of what it can do that number is useless.

This boom-compatible level is limited only by the CPU (and others too). The FPS should not differ strongly. And in any case - many thanks for your port. I dreamed of it for a long time.

entryway · Post by **entryway** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 22:05

Willis wrote:
entryway wrote:GeForce 9800SE (overclocked to 9800PRO)
errr....

.\RivaTuner\PatchScripts\ATI\SoftR9x00\SoftR9x00 w2k.rts

chaoscentral · Post by **chaoscentral** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 22:07

[offtopic] Just a quick note to people who are getting video cards... stay AWAY from ATi 'SE' cards... they are stripped down versions of the real ones and nVidia's 'LE' cards are the same thing... you will get less performance from those types of cards...[/offtopic]

Anyways... In a couple days I'll let ya know how my speed test goes... I'd do it sooner but my new case isnt here yet. So im looking at a pile of parts...

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 22:16

Here's my complete numbers:

OpenGL fullscreen 640x480: 60 fps
OpenGL fullscreen 1280x1024: 60 fps
OpenGL fullscreen 1600x1200: 60 fps
Software fullscreen 1600x1200: 20 fps
Software fullscreen 1280x1024: 22 fps
Software fullscreen 640x480: 40 fps
Software window 640x480: 35 fps

all on a P4 3.2 GHz with a Geforce 6800. I'm wondering how your software mode can run so much faster. Our computers seem to be quite evenly matched otherwise.

entryway · Post by **entryway** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 22:21

chaoscentral wrote:[offtopic] stay AWAY from ATi 'SE' cards... [/offtopic]

Not in all cases. Only if there is no opportunity of a choice of the card. My 9800SE works as 9800PRO without any bugs

chaoscentral · Post by **chaoscentral** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 22:23

that may be... but the difference between the 9200SE and the 9200 is very big... mostly the fact the 9200SE is 64-bit and the 9200 is 128-bit But if you have the option to get the non SE card. spend the extra 20 to get the normal version

entryway · Post by **entryway** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 22:31

Graf Zahl wrote:Here's my complete numbers:
OpenGL fullscreen 640x480: 60 fps
Software fullscreen 640x480: 40 fps
all on a P4 3.2 GHz with a Geforce 6800. I'm wondering how your software mode can run so much faster. Our computers seem to be quite evenly matched otherwise.

It seemed to me strange too
http://www.geocities.com/e6y/DOOM0002.png