Yeah there are a few tests which I have found that are relatively quick and have worked on the few systems I am working with. I'm not sure how well they test GPU though... Renderbench, gtkperf, and jxrendermark. have you ever looked into any of these?
edit: these tests have relatively small download sizes as well.
They all seem to be 2D tests but I'm not sure how well they rep performance
Exactly, these are 2D. AFAICT, qgears is exercising opengl, so it gives an idea of the 3D capabilities. Glmark2 is another simple openGL test, but it is extremely simple and it takes a long time (why does that head need to turn so many times?? One turn would be more than enough).
Originally Posted by channon
Overall, I continue to think that if this idea ever works, it's best to have a quickbench-cli and a quickbench-gui. For the former, something like quickbench could give a balanced view: there is a single threaded test (scimark2), a multhreaded (7-zip) and a non-trivial disk stress that seems to capture real world speed.
For the GUI, perhaps some of the tests in gtkperf or similar could do the 2D part, and then I guess a 3D test would be challenging. I am not sure qgears2 is a good test, even in a synthetic sense.
Hi all, I'm new to this thread so perhaps you've already thought of this & rejected it for some reason but why not make this as close as possible to the Windows Experience Index reported by Microsoft's Windows System Assessment Tool ?
It gives a user friendly score for each major area & a final over-all score. It's also pretty well documented (see links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows...ssessment_Tool or just search for WSAT) though the exact details of the tests are probably protected. However, as long as the PTS version tested the same aspects (E.g. using the new Unvanquished test for 3D) it could then use a weight to produce a comparable figure to what WSAT would give.
Although the normal user's view of WEI is a pretty GUI summary, it actually has a command line that allows you to run individual tests which would make tuning the PTS version to match it a lot easier.
Microsoft's WEI was introduced in Vista & seems to have abandoned in Windows 8. It was never back-ported to XP and I've never seen an advert for a PC mention it's WEI score. But I'm sure they did a lot of research into what weights to put on each aspect and it does do exactly what this thread aims for, so why not aim for comparability? You could call this the PTS-EI.
As a side note, if Microsoft have abandoned it, they might be willing to disclose more detail.
Hi all, I'm new to this thread so you may have already thought of this and rejected it for some reason but why not make this comparable to the Windows Experience Index score returned from the Windows System Assessment Tool? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows...ssessment_Tool
It's aims were exactly what we're looking for - a test of each sub-system with an over-all score that's quick to understand and compare.
I'm sure Microsoft would have put in a lot of research into the weights required to yield a simple number that reasonably reflects the actual "feel" or "user experience" of diversely different machines. It's also pretty well documented (Google WSAT) and includes a command line tool that lets you run individual tests which would help in calibrating a PTS version to match it's scores in each sub-system.
E.g. For the 3D sub-system, use the new Unvanquished tests, then apply a calibrated weighting so it produces the same score that WEI does.
Microsoft introduced WEI with Vista but seem to have dropped it from Windows 8 and it was never ported to XP. But if they have abandoned it, then they may be willing to open up more details.
How does the Phoronix Test Suite - User Experience Index sound ?
P.S. Sorry if I double posted, but first try didn't seem to work & I had to re-type it all - Grr!!!
Thank for the suggestion, I actually don't think you can trust Microsoft to set a standard and cooperate with others, when their whole business model relies on breaking compatibility to force you to upgrade, and refusing to cooperate with others. Actually, WEI was dropped already. It was never a good idea, because it had a hardcoded range. So, a supercomputer would get the same score as a decent desktop computer. Which is insane.
I think we are trying to get something more like geekbench, but based on a (geometric, to remove scaling issues) real world tests, and also including non-trivial disk and graphics components. For instance, I just upgraded my computer, and the geekbench score got 4 times higher. My quickbench tests for CPU are similar (about 4 times faster for single threaded, and 4.5 times faster for multithreaded). But I can also look at the disk speed up (besides faster CPU, faster RAM, and moving from Sata II to Sata III controller on a Sata III SSD, the disk scored 2.5 times higher)
PCGA pass / fail
A long time ago, the PC Gaming Alliance was formed to unify the PC industry in defense of consoles, such as by providing the consumer with some form of assurance that any given PC was up to the job of playing any given game. I.e. a benchmark much like WEI.
Unfortunately, they hide behind NDAs and to date have never published any recommended hardware specs. nor any compliance test.
I wonder if any Phoronix readers might also be PCGA members. In which case would it be possible to create a PTS profile that shows PCGA pass/fail compliance without you breaching the terms of the NDA?
I suspect the whole PGGA may become moot once Steam boxes start showing up as Valve seem pretty keen on keeping things fairly open so their "Good / Better / Best" grading scheme should be easy to define in a PTS profile.