Let's have a Hardware speed test for SU

bmike

Not sure why, but If I move the big display to the secondary port on the secondary card, it runs really well. Over 45 fps, at 2560x1600. That's the x4 slot, shared with another monitor. Go figure.

I don't think this test is the most accurate...

daiku

I agree, Mike. But I don't know of any other way to test SU performance. And I have to say that the configuration that gives me the best benchmark numbers is definitely faster in everyday use. Especially orbiting and zooming with the space navigator.

bmike

Can you fix the widow size with a ruby script? Might be an advantage to force this to open in 1200x800 or 800x600 and do its thing. Then there might be some baselines that start to make sense.

Otherwise, I have no idea why mine jumps up to 50+ with shadows on full screen, but plods along at 20something when I do a reboot and only open SketchUp and that file.

Odd.

EscapeArtist

This is interesting:

Load the model by double clicking the .skp file - 72 frames/2.698 sec

Turn shadows on - 72 frames/12.237 sec

Turn shadows back off - 72 frames/1.168 sec (?!)

Try again with shadows on - 72 frames/1.168 sec.

Now that's just strange.

EarthMover

Results on my newer laptop. Video card is Nvidia GTX 560m 3GB GPU. Higher score with shadows on for some reason. SU 8 most recent update.

brodie

This test used to work quite well as a comparison but was completely broken after an update some time ago. It's no longer good for any sort of comparison.

-Brodie

setniew

So I'am getting results as follow:

no shadows
time test

shadows on
ttest shadows

I'am wondering... I'am getting low performance when "having fun" with big models like this one:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

(sketchup.google.com)

Is there a way to orbit this model smoothly?

oh and this is my hardware:

sketchymick

GPU is reference GTX680

Made negligible difference whether shadows were on or off, or whether window was full screen (1920x1080) or partial. Range was 60.1 (first run, full screen no shadows) to 64.5 (middle run, shadows off, full screen).

Cheers

Mick

function

Any way someone can post an updated file or ruby for benchmarking SKP8? I'm building a new rig and want to benchmark my applications. I have a quadro 5000 and will be picking up a keplar 6xx series to compare photoshop, 3ds max, and skp. I know SKP isn't gpu based and works 1 core on the geometry, but I'm interested in comparing the hardware anyhow.

thomthom

@function said:

Any way someone can post an updated file or ruby for benchmarking SKP8? I'm building a new rig and want to benchmark my applications. I have a quadro 5000 and will be picking up a keplar 6xx series to compare photoshop, 3ds max, and skp. I know SKP isn't gpu based and works 1 core on the geometry, but I'm interested in comparing the hardware anyhow.

All you do is just type Test.time_display into the Ruby Console - it is not specific to SketchUp version.

micione

Intel Core i7-2600 GPU
Nvidia quadro 4000

garyhr

not bad for a single video card

intel i7 3770k
radeon hd 6870

miggy

no shadows

with shadows

Intel i7 @2.2GHz, 6GB RAM, GeForce 550M w/ 1GB onboard + 2GB shared
I really can't understand why I get this fantastic fps when others out-spec my Dell XPS laptop quite considerably.
No shadows: 63.1 fps !!!
w/ shadows: 62.9 fps...?

I didn't have any other applications open (other than FF), just an empty, standard environment.
I noticed a massive slow-down when I then opened up some other apps - Word + Excel + Photoshop - down to 25 fps...
looks like maybe SU couldn't re-allocate some shared memory that was taken away?

I then made a component of the existing cube & then made a 4x4x4 version, so 64 times the existing. (btw, disk space only doubled)
There I got about 9fps.
I then moved the whole 64x block up the blue axis so as to hide the top half of the model out of the FOV.
I then got 18fps...
Looks like SU only calculates the rendering of the visible FOV, which is great...
But, every manipulation in the sketchup window was molasses-slow - menu display, pasting into the ruby console, etc.

Then I rebooted, and try as I might, after some 50 times, I consistently only got around 31 fps on the standard cube...???
I have no complaints about my speed, but I can't understand where that turbo effect came from when I first tried it...

food for thought...?

nabee

I have c2q 8200 @ 3.0 ghz and I always wanted to upgrade cpu/mobo when SU was chuggin.

But seeing the results here, because of SU's architecture, maybe I won't get much gain with upgraded Cpu.

I get 60fps for this test.

I mean, I am getting same results with a person with i5 2500k @ 4.8ghz!. (i plan to get 3750k)

true?

ELo

I have a Gateway P8400 - FX Laptop - Intel Core Duo @ 2.26GHz/2.27GHz with 4GB and 64-Bit OS and the results I got where:
72 Frames displayed in 1.215 seconds
Average frame = 0.017 seconds
59.3 frames/second
I am assuming this is a good result? My Laptop is 3 years old and have been wondering if I need to upgrade?

I have been using IDX Renditioner for Photo Renders and that seems to be sluggish when I build models that exceed 200MB. Is there any way to imporve performance for IDX Renditioner or do I need to upgrade my laptop for this?

liam887

Excited to finally give this test a go after so long, new computer in t-Minus 4 days. Will edit this post with results.

Here are the Results for my machines:
MAC BOOK AIR:
Processor: 2 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory: 8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 4000 512 MB
SHADOWS OFF:
Screen Shot 2013-02-03 at 15.53.03.png
SHADOWS ON:
Screen Shot 2013-02-03 at 15.47.04.png

MAC BOOK PRO
Processor: 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory: 8 GB 2600 MHz DDR3
Graphics card 1: AMD Radeon HD 6750M
Graphics card 2: INTEL HD Graphics 3000
SHADOWS OFF:

SHADOWS ON:

CUSTOM RENDER PC
Processor: i7-3820 - 3.6GHz over-clocked to 4.4GHz
Memory: 16GB KINGSTON HYPERX BEAST QUAD-DDR3 2400MHz X.M.P
Graphics: 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 680
SHADOWS OFF: 8th FEB EST

SHADOWS ON: 8th FEB EST

numerobis

i think without sorting all these resuls in different charts per display size this thread is pretty useless. The way it works now the only results that help are if someone tests two different CPUs or GPUs in the same machine. Or if a configuration matches your own with different clock rates...

bigsur

alexandre sk

ohhh I been looking for something like this for ages.

I noted that in sketch2013 if you turned on the shadows it make 63fps, and if you only open the file and run the command line (without make anything else), it make a more correct value. In 2014 it has no change.

ACER Notebook i7 3632QM 2.2GHZ - 6BG RAM - win 7
Intel HD 4000
22.3 FPS @ sketch 2014

ASUS Desktop i7 860 2.8Ghz - 4GB RAM - win 7 ( this processor is slower then the 3632QM above )
Geforce 8600 GT - Old but better than the HD 4000
33 FPS @ sketch 2014

So YES a better video card give better results. (At least this between these 2) I can sleep now

Now a probably will upgrade to i7 4770k and a GTX 750

jeff hammond

.

so, according to this test, my sketchup experience was better with a 2006 mac pro and sketchup 7.1..
it doesn't feel like that at all..
so, i'm not sure how i feel about this 'test'..

(actually, i'm pretty sure the test doesn't translate well to real world usage)

sketchup pro 2015

shadows ON

shadows OFF

Screen Shot 2014-11-17 at 11.54.22 PM.png

Let's have a Hardware speed test for SU

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

MAC BOOK PRO Processor: 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7 Memory: 8 GB 2600 MHz DDR3 Graphics card 1: AMD Radeon HD 6750M Graphics card 2: INTEL HD Graphics 3000 SHADOWS OFF: SHADOWS ON:

MAC BOOK PRO
Processor: 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory: 8 GB 2600 MHz DDR3
Graphics card 1: AMD Radeon HD 6750M
Graphics card 2: INTEL HD Graphics 3000
SHADOWS OFF:

SHADOWS ON: