Bragging and Benchmarking

[Cujo]

I concede. I will revisit this one day when I have time, with a tougher game than Doom 3.

 

I'm not saying that you're not right...I'm just saying I know what I saw...one time.

 

be sure to post up if you find it. simply doing a google search for hard drive effect fps brings up several forum posts with the question and the majority of people seem to feel it doesn't. also, if it did, i'm sure most hard drive reviews would do at least one game benchmark.

[dragonfly]

Stock:

3DMark06 v1.1.0: 11702

SM 2.0 - 4843

SM 3.0 - 5752

CPU: 2821

 

Slight OC to 3.4 GHz for CPU, RAM down from 1066 to 1007 (ish), rest is the same system:

3DMark06 v1.1.0: 12116

SM 2.0 - 4915

SM 3.0 - 5765

CPU: 3180

[Tek-Almighty]

Stock:

3DMark06 v1.1.0: 11702

SM 2.0 - 4843

SM 3.0 - 5752

CPU: 2821

 

Slight OC to 3.4 GHz for CPU, RAM down from 1066 to 1007 (ish), rest is the same system:

3DMark06 v1.1.0: 12116

SM 2.0 - 4915

SM 3.0 - 5765

CPU: 3180

 

 

Change ram timings or voltage at all?

 

What were your clock and fsb settings to get 3.4?

 

thanks

 

 

btw...that is pretty good...

 

do me a solid and run the crysis cpu, cpu2, and gpu at that OC and post up.

 

kthnx

[Tracid]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=8223738

[dragonfly]

Tek, I sent you a PM with some of that info.

 

RAM timings are something like 5-5-5-15, v=1.9

FSB is 378 (they dont have 377.777777 as a bios option) with v=1.25 if I remember correctly.

 

I'll run the other tests later today or tomorrow.

[dragonfly]

Old stats:

Crysis

Benchmark_GPU:

Average(ish):

Play Time: 55.60s, average FPS:~36

Min fps: 24.96

Max fps: 42.63

Average Tri/Sec: -33706988, Tri/Frame: -936386

Rec/Play Tris ratio: -0.98

 

OC @ 3.4

 

Play Time: ~55s, average FPS:~36

Min fps: 26.06

Max fps: 43.69

Average Tri/Sec: -33650280, Tri/Frame: -936948

Rec/Play Tris ratio: -0.98

 

It's basically the exact same stats. I didnt bother running the cpu bench before, and I'm not going to go back to stock then run it I might try running it right now though.

 

CPU benchy: avg fps = ~32

Edited September 19, 2008 by DarkArchon

[bushwack]

Old stats:

Crysis

Benchmark_GPU:

Average(ish):

Play Time: 55.60s, average FPS:~36

Min fps: 24.96

Max fps: 42.63

Average Tri/Sec: -33706988, Tri/Frame: -936386

Rec/Play Tris ratio: -0.98

 

OC @ 3.4

 

Play Time: ~55s, average FPS:~36

Min fps: 26.06

Max fps: 43.69

Average Tri/Sec: -33650280, Tri/Frame: -936948

Rec/Play Tris ratio: -0.98

 

It's basically the exact same stats. I didnt bother running the cpu bench before, and I'm not going to go back to stock then run it I might try running it right now though.

 

CPU benchy: avg fps = ~32

Going from 3.0 to 3.4 is just a little more then 10% which really isn't a whole lot. Quit being pansies and crank it up to 4.0 already.

[dragonfly]

Bush is just getting nervous because I'm getting closer to his score

[bushwack]

Bush is just getting nervous because I'm getting closer to his score

You mean you haven't passed it yet? Com'on my cpu and video card together is worth well under $200.

[dragonfly]

Bush is just getting nervous because I'm getting closer to his score

You mean you haven't passed it yet? Com'on my cpu and video card together is worth well under $200.

 

Meh, the monies have to go somewhere.

[Tek-Almighty]

Ok..

 

set the FSB to 378 (1512) and my cpu is humming along at 3.401 ghz.

 

3DMark06 overall:

16,015 3dmarks

cpu: 3175

sm2: 7325

sm3: 8293.

That is with SLI.

 

Temps are interesting...

 

I am using speedfan (used before and didn't really like, but my options are scant.).

 

My cpu is idling at 32(@3.0ghz) or 37(@3.4ghz)

 

AT full load it is 43(@3.0ghz) or 53(@2.4ghz)

 

Now, speedfan lets you check the cores (core0 and core1) and they are usually 9-10 degrees above the "cpu"

 

ftw?

 

Hmmm.....

Edited September 22, 2008 by Tek-Almighty

[dragonfly]

Hmmm, my full load doesnt break 42C, and idle is around 32-34C for 3.4ghz. That's using PCProbe though. Ima find a working copy of coretemp online.

 

Heh, according to coretemp v. 0.99.3 or whatever it is, I'm running 2.3ghz (378x6) with 53C. Um, they're wrong

 

**************

I ran 3d06 today again and got 11057 (???) with 3.5GHz OC. So I got

the latest drivers from ati (8.9 vs 8.8) and it bumped my score back up

for the vid card to what it was before. I might OC the gpu a little tonight.

We'll see if the new drivers help in crysis at all.

 

Progress:

Stock: 8.8 drivers

3DMark06 v1.1.0: 11702

SM 2.0 - 4843

SM 3.0 - 5752

CPU: 2821

 

3.4 GHz, stock gpu, 8.8 drivers

3DMark06 v1.1.0: 12116

SM 2.0 - 4915

SM 3.0 - 5765

CPU: 3180

 

3.53 GHz (stock gpu, 8.9 drivers)

3DMark06 v1.1.0: 12212

SM 2.0 - 4906

SM 3.0 - 5775

CPU: 3292

 

3.53 GHz, GPU: 690/1118 (625/993 for stock), 8.9 drivers

3DMark06 v1.1.0: 13251

SM 2.0 - 5448

SM 3.0 - 6435

CPU: 3290

Edited September 24, 2008 by DarkArchon

[Tek-Almighty]

Just for Cujo.

 

Crysis GPU benchmark

 

Settings: All Medium, 1920 x 1200, 8x AA (forced through vid card drivers, because the game wouldn't let me change AA to anything other than none...wth?)

 

AVG: 36.35 fps

Max: 51.99 fps

Min: 19.24 fps

 

4 GB DDR2

3.4 ghz Core 2 duo (wolfdale)

2 x 8800 GT @ 650/1900 in SLI

 

As a side note. I got huge artifacting during this bench, but no really evident effects as far as FPS goes...Plus game wouldn't let me enable AA in game...so ftw...I don't know.

 

Just a reminder, my 3Dmark06 was:

16,015 overall

SM2: 7325

SM3: 8293

CPU: 3175

 

Apples...

[dragonfly]

Side note: I got major artifacting in crysis as soon as I started to OC my gpu, but not in any other game and the temps seemed fine. Scared me enough to set the clock back down though...

[Cujo]

from what i've heard the crysis benchmark isn't at all like actual in game. not sure though as i've never played it. still i don't think i could deal with that 19 fps minimum

 

care to give farcry 2 a go? i have it just not installed. i know it's got a built in benchmark that's realistic.

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MT...W50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

i think i'd win though. look at the difference between ati 512mb and 1gb.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Cujo

[Tek-Almighty]

from what i've heard the crysis benchmark isn't at all like actual in game. not sure though as i've never played it. still i don't think i could deal with that 19 fps minimum

 

care to give farcry 2 a go? i have it just not installed. i know it's got a built in benchmark that's realistic.

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MT...W50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

i think i'd win though. look at the difference between ati 512mb and 1gb.

 

I'll give it a try tonight if I get a chance. Yeah, there is some scuttlebutt revolving around crysis bench, but I think most of it surrounds the CPU tests. I've found that my gains in the GPU bench have been very good and on scale with improvements in other synthetic benches like 3dmark06.

 

Here is what I got from my first few Far Cry 2 benches.

 

I will try 8xAA later on.

 

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1920x1200 (60Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(None), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Custom), Vegetation(High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

 

* Total Frames: 3238, Total Time: 51.00s

* Average Framerate: 63.49

* Max. Framerate: 95.57 (Frame:485, 6.62s)

* Min. Framerate: 46.95 (Frame:2298, 35.73s)

Only thing changed was AA set to 4x

 

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1920x1200 (60Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Custom), Vegetation(High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

 

* Total Frames: 1633, Total Time: 51.00s

* Average Framerate: 32.02

* Max. Framerate: 59.22 (Frame:276, 6.17s)

* Min. Framerate: 14.02 (Frame:1400, 42.15s)

 

2nd run same settings?...wth?

 

* Total Frames: 1185, Total Time: 51.04s

* Average Framerate: 23.22

* Max. Framerate: 55.86 (Frame:268, 6.18s)

* Min. Framerate: 8.72 (Frame:713, 22.93s)

 

 

Never seen a game scale so poorly with AA (other than Crysis).

 

Let's change all to "very high" with no AA:

 

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1920x1200 (60Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(None), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Custom), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

 

* Total Frames: 3232, Total Time: 51.01s

* Average Framerate: 63.36

* Max. Framerate: 95.82 (Frame:478, 6.62s)

* Min. Framerate: 43.07 (Frame:0, 0.02s)

 

So the change in vegetation, shadow and ambient from "high" to "very high" has essentially no effect on FPS.

 

 

Like I said. I will change all to "very high" and 8xAA and post up.

 

Then I will do all at high with 8xAA.

 

Cujo...post what you will.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Tek-Almighty

[Tek-Almighty]

Ok...for now, I cannot get FarCry 2 to run 8x AA.

 

So here is results with Everything at Very High, DX9 mode (so no ultra), 1920 x 1200, and 4xAA. I have my e8400 @ 3.4 and 4GB ddr2.

 

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1920x1200 (60Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Custom), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

 

* Total Frames: 1098, Total Time: 51.00s

* Average Framerate: 21.53

* Max. Framerate: 50.74 (Frame:122, 2.97s)

* Min. Framerate: 6.99 (Frame:679, 22.52s)

 

What is odd with AA enabled every time, I see a drop of about 25% fps in the 2nd and 3rd runs. I have no idea.

 

This game scales horribly on my cards with AA.

[Cujo]

Ok...for now, I cannot get FarCry 2 to run 8x AA.

 

So here is results with Everything at Very High, DX9 mode (so no ultra), 1920 x 1200, and 4xAA. I have my e8400 @ 3.4 and 4GB ddr2.

 

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1920x1200 (60Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Custom), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

 

* Total Frames: 1098, Total Time: 51.00s

* Average Framerate: 21.53

* Max. Framerate: 50.74 (Frame:122, 2.97s)

* Min. Framerate: 6.99 (Frame:679, 22.52s)

 

What is odd with AA enabled every time, I see a drop of about 25% fps in the 2nd and 3rd runs. I have no idea.

 

This game scales horribly on my cards with AA.

 

seems like a blatant lack of ram to me. of course it'll scale horrible with only 512mb ram available.

 

weird how you get a drop on later runs.

 

anyway, my whole point was that those sli cards are wasted at the settings you'd actually game at. i'll install this tomorrow and mimic your settings. i'm confident i'll smash that min fps with my 1gb card.

[Tek-Almighty]

seems like a blatant lack of ram to me. of course it'll scale horrible with only 512mb ram available.

 

weird how you get a drop on later runs.

 

anyway, my whole point was that those sli cards are wasted at the settings you'd actually game at. i'll install this tomorrow and mimic your settings. i'm confident i'll smash that min fps with my 1gb card.

 

 

"Wasted" ??? "you'd actually game at" ???

 

SLI has improved my high rez gaming experience muchly IMO. There is no way I could run 1920 x 1200 with "high" or "very high" settings without it.

 

I actually game at those settings minus the AA. At 1920 x 1200, The overall visual effect of AA is not that noticeable for me in some games. I use 8xAA in the latest half life episode, and it makes a great difference with those textures. However, the only thing I notice in games like Crysis and Far Cry is a whole lot of nada with AA enabled...other than lag.

 

I will post up with my single card results to show you what I got for my extra $160.

[Cujo]

cool. when i say wasted i mean two 8800gt gpus are capable of running decent frames with aa enabled but the lack of ram/memory bandwidth just kills them. so essentially some of the raw gpu power is useless.

[Cujo]

* Total Frames: 1301, Total Time: 51.01s

* Average Framerate: 25.51

* Max. Framerate: 43.56 (Frame:96, 2.49s)

* Min. Framerate: 16.98 (Frame:1025, 41.82s)

 

that's with the same settings exactly that you used in your 4x aa run. of course the game is not playable at these settings but you can clearly see the difference in minimum fps and avg framerate.

 

this is with my cpu running 200mhz slower and also it's an older gen e6600 compared to your newer e8400. vista 64bit as well though i'm not sure what you're running.

[Cujo]

* Total Frames: 1076, Total Time: 51.01s

* Average Framerate: 21.09

* Max. Framerate: 51.94 (Frame:0, 0.02s)

* Min. Framerate: 12.28 (Frame:731, 34.14s)

 

just for fun, here's the results at ultra high overall quality and 8x aa. dx10 obviously.

 

very annoying "hitching" though in the video at these settings. not sure what the issue is but it'd be really annoying to try and play through.

 

also interesting is that my cpu usage wasn't even 50%. so my vid card musta been getting killed.

[Cujo]

* Total Frames: 1588, Total Time: 51.03s

* Average Framerate: 31.12

* Max. Framerate: 55.15 (Frame:0, 0.02s)

* Min. Framerate: 22.37 (Frame:1254, 41.07s)

 

same settings but 4x aa. hitching is still present. while running this test i realized i've not installed the ati hotfix for farcry2 so these numbers are likely lower than they should be.

 

cpu usages was higher with 4x aa though vid card was still 100% utilized according to the driver control panel. i love having two monitors.

[Cujo]

* Total Frames: 1324, Total Time: 51.03s

* Average Framerate: 25.95

* Max. Framerate: 43.90 (Frame:0, 0.02s)

* Min. Framerate: 16.52 (Frame:1049, 41.82s)

 

hotfix didn't appear to change anything at all at your settings.

 

edit - it could be it didn't fix anything because i didn't do a proper uninstall of the regular drivers as i thought the hotfix was just that. turns out the hotfix installed just like a new regular driver. either way i'd still rather have my ~$320 single card than your 2 x ~$160 sli set up.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Cujo

[bushwack]

i'd still rather have my ~$320 single card than your 2 x ~$160 sli set up.

I'd rather have a $50 CRT over a $300 LCD, hey look I just got me one!

 

Edited November 5, 2008 by bushwack