Let's have a Hardware speed test for SU

[Rich O Brien]

Here's my result on an old laptop that's slowly dying

Dell Latitude D400
Intel Pentium M 1700Mhz
1GB RAM
Intel 82855 GME Graphics Controller

[Gaieus]

Ouch.

[Rich O Brien]

Here's the result on my Desktop

Dell Dimension 9150
Intel Pentium D 3.40Ghz
2GB RAM
Nvidia GeForce 7900GS

Bit of an improvement over my Laptop but not as impressive as Gaeius' new machine

Have fun with it

[Gaieus]

Now consider that it's new, the Windows registry is hardly messed up (which is unusual on MY machines )and not too many programs are installed yet. I will remember this thread in a couple of months and revisit to see if there's a considerable slowdown.

[arail1]

Gaieus -
Those are impressive numbers. Could you tell us which CPU you have?

Thanks

[arail1]

I'm curious about this -
My (rather underpowered) computer -

AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual Core 5000 2.6 GHz
NIVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
1GB PC2-5300
2GB DDR2 PC2-8500
32 bit Vista Home

My results -

No textures or shadows:
72 frames in 7.228 seconds
Average frame = 0.100 seconds
10.00 frames/second

With textures (1 wood texture on the whole group):
72 frames in 30.46 seconds
Average frame = 0.423 seconds
2.4 frames/second

With shadows on:
72 frames in 34.9 seconds
Average frame = 0.485 seconds
2.1 frames/second

I'm going to upgrade the video card on this computer in a couple of weeks. I'm limited in my options because it's a HP Slimline so I can only use a low profile card. But no matter what it is, the memory available for the GPU will be increased. If I understand the situation correctly (which is doubtful) I should see better scores on the texture and shadow tests because it's the GPU that's handling texture and shading, right?

I invite anyone who is actually knowledgeable about such matters to correct me if I've totally misunderstood this issue.

[Gaieus]

@arail1 said:

Gaieus -
Those are impressive numbers. Could you tell us which CPU you have?

Thanks

Here is a screenshot of the processor(s) and the video card. Since the test above, I found that SU performed glitchy with certain models and updated my video driver (but haven't made another test yet).

---

[thomthom]

Very interesting test.

---

---

[thomthom]

Where does this Test.time_display command come from? Some undocumented debug feature?

[thomthom]

From a quick glance at the results - it looks like shadows are averaging to be 5 times slower than without.

[thomthom]

(CPU OC to 3.2GHZ)

[DIEGO-RODRIGUEZ]

Windows XP sp3
Pentium D965 3.4ghz
3.00gb RAM ddr2 400mhz

Without shadows

[Gaieus]

Still the same machine as here but with SU 7.1 now:

• 3.0 GHz Dual core CPU
• nVidia 9600 (1Gb) GPU
• 4Gb RAM
• Windows XP SP3 (32 bit)
  To me, the improvement in speed (with this test model) is very stunning:

Interesting that no matter how many times I tried, the performance was better with shadows on.
(Of course while making the test with shadows on now, SU temporarily turns them off for increasing orbiting and such but still...)

[blajnov]

I had such result, without shadows and with shadows...

---

[Wacov]

@wacov said:

Using a Q6600 at 2.4GhZ, 4GB DDR2 RAM, and a GTX 295:

Now, on SU7.1, using the same setup (At a higher resolution):

That's a massive difference!
The message? Get 7.1. NOW.

[baz]

[/quote]
Now, on SU7.1, using the same setup (At a higher resolution):
That's a massive difference!
The message? Get 7.1. NOW.[/quote]

I got the message, wow!
Baz

---

---

[glenn]

Interesting test results:
XP sp3, duo 2.8, 4gb ram, 8500gt 512mb

Ran it with SU7.1, then saved it as SU6 and ran it with v6.4
Glenn

---

[glenn]

hmmmm...I can't upload multiple images?
ok, got it, sorry.

---

---

---

[brodie]

I got 21.1 fps with shadows off.

Computer specs are in my signature below

-Brodie

[Gaieus]

Glenn,

Now that's some impressive speed increase (of course, there areno textures in the model and such but still)

Brodie;
OK-ok... there are your computer specs but we don't know (just suspect maybe) what SU version you have!