Let's have a Hardware speed test for SU

Gaieus

New machine:

3.0 GHz Dual core CPU
nVidia 9600 (1Gb) GPU
4Gb RAM
Windows XP SP3 (32 bit)

This seems to be pretty fast with NO SHADOWS
With SHADOWS ON, it's considerably slower.
Did I tell you that I like this new computer?
And even my girlfriend likes it as it has a nice box/house, too (with a 22" Samsung monitor)

chango70

@escapeartist said:

It's way back at post #8 on page 1, but here ya go:

E8400 Core Duo
EVGA 9800GTX+ x 2 in SLi
4 GB OCZ RAM
EVGA 780i FTW
WinXP SP3

Nothing overclocked.

Hmmm. I didn't realise SU can take advantage of SLi setup. I read that it doesn't even scale linearly in most games. Apparently it does scale with SU. Otherwise GTX 280 from Solo's setup would have achieved higher score.

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

Without Shadows

With Shadows

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

Without Shadows

With Shadows

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.

Without shadows

With shadows

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

Without shadows

(CPU OC to 3.2GHZ)

With Shadows

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:

Shadows off

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...)