rec.autos.simulators

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:00:00

field. Let AI drive off without you.

(i) frame rate waiting for flag
(ii) minimum during start

Numbers are all minimum whole fps observed.

(i) 18 27
(ii) 14 very briefly 23

The same 27 start, 23 dip applies when I actually race (still at the back
of the field). FR reaches 36 well before the bridge, dips to 23-24 into
T1, then up to 36 again very quickly. All this assumes no crashes of
course, during which FR can still go anywhere. From then on it's solid 36
pretty much all the way round.

Silverstone's not the most CPU intensive track (for instance the start at
Spa doesn't give me 36fps until we're clear of Eau Rouge. It's just the
track I've always used for benchmarking. With the detail slider all the
way to the left the new CPU gives a solid 36 throughout the start. Slight
dips flicker during acceleration and T1, but it's very brief.

With an ABit Be6 II, CPUs from the same batch are doing 800+. I think that
kind of speed may well see something very close to a solid full detail 36.
Only time will tell, my credit card will need a rest for a month or two,
by which time Celeron2's will be tuppence and running at 4GHz or something
:->

Misc benchmarks:
_____________________________________

3DMark2000 1024x768x16

1610 2204
_____________________________________

Speedy 1280x1024x16 (Hercules windows
-thrashing benchmark)

940 1699

(128k->256k cache prob explains this leap)
_____________________________________

CPU Mark

38.5 58.3
_____________________________________

Q3: 1024x768x16, max detail, high geometry

demo001 29.6 36.1
demo002 19.6 38.3
crusher 13.3 30.9

(confirms that the V3's the limit in simple
scenes, CPU's the limit the busier it gets)
_____________________________________

Flanker 2.02: 1024x768, maxxed out detail inc mirrors, 50m over Sevastopol

Minimum: 11 fps, average 12-15
_____________________________________

This post was sponsored by those nice people at VISA.

Andrew McP

***************************************
NOTE: no notionally inferior sims/games
were harmed in the making of this post.
***************************************

by **Marc Collin** » Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:00:00

A confusing presentation, but thanks for letting us know how much the extra
CPU power affects GPL frame rate with all other factors equal. We can all
look forward to those 1 GHz chips!! I wonder how much difference a Voodoo 4
or 5 will make? I think much less than the type of CPU upgrade you
describe.

Marc.

> field. Let AI drive off without you.

> (i) frame rate waiting for flag
> (ii) minimum during start

> Numbers are all minimum whole fps observed.

> (i) 18 27
> (ii) 14 very briefly 23

> The same 27 start, 23 dip applies when I actually race (still at the back
> of the field). FR reaches 36 well before the bridge, dips to 23-24 into
> T1, then up to 36 again very quickly. All this assumes no crashes of
> course, during which FR can still go anywhere. From then on it's solid 36
> pretty much all the way round.

> Silverstone's not the most CPU intensive track (for instance the start at
> Spa doesn't give me 36fps until we're clear of Eau Rouge. It's just the
> track I've always used for benchmarking. With the detail slider all the
> way to the left the new CPU gives a solid 36 throughout the start. Slight
> dips flicker during acceleration and T1, but it's very brief.

> With an ABit Be6 II, CPUs from the same batch are doing 800+. I think that
> kind of speed may well see something very close to a solid full detail 36.
> Only time will tell, my credit card will need a rest for a month or two,
> by which time Celeron2's will be tuppence and running at 4GHz or something
> :->

> Misc benchmarks:
> _____________________________________

> 3DMark2000 1024x768x16

> 1610 2204
> _____________________________________

> Speedy 1280x1024x16 (Hercules windows
> -thrashing benchmark)

> 940 1699

> (128k->256k cache prob explains this leap)
> _____________________________________

> CPU Mark

> 38.5 58.3
> _____________________________________

> Q3: 1024x768x16, max detail, high geometry

> demo001 29.6 36.1
> demo002 19.6 38.3
> crusher 13.3 30.9

> (confirms that the V3's the limit in simple
> scenes, CPU's the limit the busier it gets)
> _____________________________________

> Flanker 2.02: 1024x768, maxxed out detail inc mirrors, 50m over Sevastopol

> Minimum: 11 fps, average 12-15
> _____________________________________

> This post was sponsored by those nice people at VISA.

> Andrew McP

> ***************************************
> NOTE: no notionally inferior sims/games
> were harmed in the making of this post.
> ***************************************

by **Liutger Franze** » Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:00:00

> field. Let AI drive off without you.

> (i) frame rate waiting for flag
> (ii) minimum during start

> Numbers are all minimum whole fps observed.

> (i) 18 27
> (ii) 14 very briefly 23
> _____________________________________

> Q3: 1024x768x16, max detail, high geometry

> demo001 29.6 36.1
> demo002 19.6 38.3
> crusher 13.3 30.9

uhm. there must be something wrong with your system. I thought that a V3
is faster in GPL than GeForce/DDR - I get 36fps all the time with almost
all details on, slider halfway in 1024x768 with my athlon 600, 256mb,
geforce ddr. and with Q2 crusher, same settings: 78fps.

Lio

by **john moor** » Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:00:00

you might want to check this out, a chart of tests
http://www.dirkwagner.de/benchmark/en_benchmark/body_en_benchmark.html

JM

> field. Let AI drive off without you.

> (i) frame rate waiting for flag
> (ii) minimum during start

> Numbers are all minimum whole fps observed.

> (i) 18 27
> (ii) 14 very briefly 23

> The same 27 start, 23 dip applies when I actually race (still at the back
> of the field). FR reaches 36 well before the bridge, dips to 23-24 into
> T1, then up to 36 again very quickly. All this assumes no crashes of
> course, during which FR can still go anywhere. From then on it's solid 36
> pretty much all the way round.

> Silverstone's not the most CPU intensive track (for instance the start at
> Spa doesn't give me 36fps until we're clear of Eau Rouge. It's just the
> track I've always used for benchmarking. With the detail slider all the
> way to the left the new CPU gives a solid 36 throughout the start. Slight
> dips flicker during acceleration and T1, but it's very brief.

> With an ABit Be6 II, CPUs from the same batch are doing 800+. I think that
> kind of speed may well see something very close to a solid full detail 36.
> Only time will tell, my credit card will need a rest for a month or two,
> by which time Celeron2's will be tuppence and running at 4GHz or something
> :->

> Misc benchmarks:
> _____________________________________

> 3DMark2000 1024x768x16

> 1610 2204
> _____________________________________

> Speedy 1280x1024x16 (Hercules windows
> -thrashing benchmark)

> 940 1699

> (128k->256k cache prob explains this leap)
> _____________________________________

> CPU Mark

> 38.5 58.3
> _____________________________________

> Q3: 1024x768x16, max detail, high geometry

> demo001 29.6 36.1
> demo002 19.6 38.3
> crusher 13.3 30.9

> (confirms that the V3's the limit in simple
> scenes, CPU's the limit the busier it gets)
> _____________________________________

> Flanker 2.02: 1024x768, maxxed out detail inc mirrors, 50m over Sevastopol

> Minimum: 11 fps, average 12-15
> _____________________________________

> This post was sponsored by those nice people at VISA.

> Andrew McP

> ***************************************
> NOTE: no notionally inferior sims/games
> were harmed in the making of this post.
> ***************************************

by **GTX_SlotCa** » Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Hi Marc,
There may be hope. The new Voodoo boards are supposed to be much less
processor dependant, and very fast. Same with the nVidia boards, I think.
Course, on the downside, they're very expensive. More than just a new cpu in
a lot of cases. Time will tell, but I hope it's true. The next time I
upgrade my cpu, I'll have to change to PC133 memory too. Let's hope the hype
is true.

Slot

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Sorry, I'd been up for 20 hours by the time I posted... it shows :-)

Andrew McP

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:00:00

No idea, don't have a GeForce. You using full detail mirrors? My numbers
are all full detail. I don't race like that, but it's useful for
benchmarking.

It's Q3, Barrysworld(.com)'s crusher.

Andrew McP

by **Eldre** » Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:00:00

>field. Let AI drive off without you.

>(i) frame rate waiting for flag
>(ii) minimum during start

>Numbers are all minimum whole fps observed.

>(i) 18 27
>(ii) 14 very briefly 23

Ok, using this same criteria...(!):
With Dyn. Light/hilights without
(i) 8 9
(ii) 7 7

In 640x480
(i) 9 10
(ii) 7 8

My system:
K62-350, 128MB, V3 3000(not o/c). Granted, my system isn't even CLOSE in power
as Andrew's, but these numbers STILL seem very slow to me. I'm sure that there
are others with similar systems who get much better rates. How far off am I,
and what suggestions are there...?

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **evente..** » Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Pretty sweet, eh? I've got a nearly identical system as yours, even
the same CPU upgrade (did stop at a PIII 500 in the middle, though).

antialiasing enabled!

I get 2865 in 3DMark2000 - what drivers are you using? Maybe you're
missing out on a system tweak?

Kendt

> field. Let AI drive off without you.

> (i) frame rate waiting for flag
> (ii) minimum during start

> Numbers are all minimum whole fps observed.

> (i) 18 27
> (ii) 14 very briefly 23

> The same 27 start, 23 dip applies when I actually race (still at the
back
> of the field). FR reaches 36 well before the bridge, dips to 23-24
into
> T1, then up to 36 again very quickly. All this assumes no crashes of
> course, during which FR can still go anywhere. From then on it's
solid 36
> pretty much all the way round.

> Silverstone's not the most CPU intensive track (for instance the
start at
> Spa doesn't give me 36fps until we're clear of Eau Rouge. It's just
the
> track I've always used for benchmarking. With the detail slider all
the
> way to the left the new CPU gives a solid 36 throughout the start.
Slight
> dips flicker during acceleration and T1, but it's very brief.

> With an ABit Be6 II, CPUs from the same batch are doing 800+. I think
that
> kind of speed may well see something very close to a solid full
detail 36.
> Only time will tell, my credit card will need a rest for a month or
two,
> by which time Celeron2's will be tuppence and running at 4GHz or
something
> :->

> Misc benchmarks:
> _____________________________________

> 3DMark2000 1024x768x16

> 1610 2204
> _____________________________________

> Speedy 1280x1024x16 (Hercules windows
> -thrashing benchmark)

> 940 1699

> (128k->256k cache prob explains this leap)
> _____________________________________

> CPU Mark

> 38.5 58.3
> _____________________________________

> Q3: 1024x768x16, max detail, high geometry

> demo001 29.6 36.1
> demo002 19.6 38.3
> crusher 13.3 30.9

> (confirms that the V3's the limit in simple
> scenes, CPU's the limit the busier it gets)
> _____________________________________

> Flanker 2.02: 1024x768, maxxed out detail inc mirrors, 50m over
Sevastopol

> Minimum: 11 fps, average 12-15
> _____________________________________

> This post was sponsored by those nice people at VISA.

> Andrew McP

> ***************************************
> NOTE: no notionally inferior sims/games
> were harmed in the making of this post.
> ***************************************

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:00:00

I'm afraid they look about right to me :-( Sorry I can't give you a tweak
to get a few more FPS. Best bet is go back and thump whoever suggested
you get the K6 :-)

You can see from your numbers that lowering the resolution made v.little
difference, which means the CPU's the limiting factor.

Can you race at 36fps with much less detail? If you can't then that's one
of the reasons you're still a bit slow on the track. I'll never forget
moving from a P225mmx to a Cel450a... it was like driving a different sim.
Solid frame rates are Your Best Friend. Moving up from 450 to 682 is much
more of a luxury, because it only really allows me to have more detail
(all offline).

Andrew McP... feeling a bit guilty about his big numbers :-)

by **Eldre** » Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:00:00

>> these numbers STILL seem very slow to me.

>I'm afraid they look about right to me :-( Sorry I can't give you a tweak
>to get a few more FPS. Best bet is go back and thump whoever suggested
>you get the K6 :-)

>You can see from your numbers that lowering the resolution made v.little
>difference, which means the CPU's the limiting factor.

>Can you race at 36fps with much less detail? If you can't then that's one
>of the reasons you're still a bit slow on the track. I'll never forget
>moving from a P225mmx to a Cel450a... it was like driving a different sim.
>Solid frame rates are Your Best Friend. Moving up from 450 to 682 is much
>more of a luxury, because it only really allows me to have more detail
>(all offline).

Yeah, I have to drop a lot of detail to get good frame rates. It's tough to
figure out what to drop and still keep enough graphics for braking points, etc.

Getting the K62-350 was a financial decision.
I had someone tell me that a K6-3 400 would be faster than a Celeron 500. That
doesn't sound right. Which would you suggest?

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:00:00

I thought so, and can sympathise. I worked out a long time ago I can
afford to run a PC or a car. The PC's still winning, there's less chance
of dying at the keyboard for a start... though some T1 crashes can do
*** things to my *** pressure<g>.

The only AMD worth having IMO is an Athlon, and if you're springing for a
new motherboard etc then I -- personally -- prefer to tread the mainstream
path. I've always overclocked Intel chips... 486sx25->sx40, P90->P120,
P166->P225mmx, Cel300a->450a, Now 550e->682 (it's "guaranteed" to 733 and
chips from the same batch are doing 800+). Athlons seem to overclock well,
but previous chips have always run as close to their limit as AMD can
risk. Add to that the fact that AMD's only just discovered how to design
their FPU to match (and under some tests, beat) Intel's and I'd steer
clear of older AMDs. Of course if you can slot a faster CPU into the same
motherboard, that might be worth doing, as the only thing that *really*
matters is MHz. But given that a Cel500 has more MHz, and the better FPU,
I'd say you got some lousy advice :-)

Andrew McP

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Love N3... though only because buying it gives me more GPL tracks to drive
;-)

Probably down to my Nov99 (I think) drivers. I tend not to change them
unless I need to. Hopefully the relative gap between the two processors is
valid though.

Andrew McP

by **Eldre** » Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:00:00

What *else* is new...?<g>

Well, I have the parts for two systems - K63-400 and Cel500. If I ever get
time to CONFIGURE them, I can compare. Then, I'll sell whichever one is
slower...<g>

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Sun, 30 Apr 2000 04:00:00

> I get 2865 in 3DMark2000 - what drivers are you using?
> Maybe you're missing out on a system tweak?

when I posted the original info. I've just managed to successfully upgrade
from Win95 osr2 to Win98 and, having just run 3DMark2000 again, I now get
3230. I'd be suspicious that I made a mistake before and it was 3000 not
2000, but it was definitely 2 and I ran lots of tests at various speeds
that all fitted in with my expectations. Watching the tests now some run
*much* faster, particularly the heavily textured coloured "pulsing
ring" thing and the cpu speed test on the heli/medieval town scenes... in
the latter the little blokes were running around like Keystone Cops...
never seen it run like that before!

So I'm puzzled. The PC does feel a bit slicker with W98... but most
benchmarks/sims are pretty much identical.

Andrew McP... looking a bit puzzled

PS It's not down to the Piii or D3D software optimisation choice in 3DMark
either... running in Piii optimised mode gives 3230, in software mode it's
more like 3020.

rec.autos.simulators

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise

GPL: 218MHz closer to paradise