Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R600c/g benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • darkbasic
    started a topic R600c/g benchmarks

    R600c/g benchmarks

    My card is a Radeon HD 3870. I used today's snapshot of: mesa, libdrm, xf86-video-intel, drm-radeon-testing.

    To disable vsync I applied this patch

    Code:
    diff --git a/src/radeon_dri2.c b/src/radeon_dri2.c
    index 103972f..7ddcda0 100644
    --- a/src/radeon_dri2.c
    +++ b/src/radeon_dri2.c
    @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ radeon_dri2_copy_region(DrawablePtr drawable,
         }
    
         vsync = info->accel_state->vsync;
    -    info->accel_state->vsync = TRUE;
    +    //info->accel_state->vsync = TRUE;
    
         (*gc->ops->CopyArea)(&src_pixmap->drawable, &dst_pixmap->drawable, gc,
                              0, 0, drawable->width, drawable->height, 0, 0);
    and I put this is /etc/drirc

    Code:
    <driconf>
      <device screen="0" driver="dri2">
        <application name="Default">
          <option name="vblank_mode" value="0"/>
        </application>
      </device>
    </driconf>

    Openarena: http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/Benchmarking
    Nexuiz: "demo1" time demo
    I couldn't do any benchmark with R600g because it was too much slow and with too much artifacts to bench (color tiling was disabled). I had to restart X.

    These are the results:

    Openarena Very High quality @2560x1600

    ----- R600c + color tiling
    ----------- 92.3 fps

    ----- R600c w/o color tiling
    ----------- 69.7 fps


    Openarena Very High quality +flare +bloom +8x aniso @2560x1600

    ----- R600c + color tiling
    ----------- 67.6 fps


    Nexuiz Low quality @2560x1600

    ----- R600c + color tiling
    ----------- 53.0 fps, min/avg/max: 36 55 88

    ----- R600c w/o color tiling
    ----------- 51.2 fps, min/avg/max: 36 53 81


    Nexuiz Medium quality @2560x1600

    ----- R600c + color tiling
    ----------- 31.4 fps, min/avg/max: 15 35 80

  • nanonyme
    replied
    Tip: University guys probably will have latency of one or two milliseconds for servers that are relatively close so playing against those might be very fun if you rely on latency-battle.

    Leave a comment:


  • b15hop
    replied
    Originally posted by yotambien View Post
    By the way, and since we're in a q3 mood, this paper shows what every respectable player knows despite the subversive information spread by the anti-pro police : D


    Back in the late 90's when I was barely getting 100ms ping in Counterstrike, this helped my gameplay considerably. I'm West Australian so I was playing on local servers. Though the guys in the eastern states with their cable internet connections and 20ms ping times were more challenging than the best players on modems with 200ms ping times. This was a problem for me because it felt like ping time was more important than strategy. So my strategy was to play after 12 midnight to get better ping times. Even as low as 50ms on 56k modem. Considering also that my PC was gutless, it allowed me to get higher scores in games back in the original CS days.

    droidhacker: The problem with quake was that the pro players always left the average players in the dust. Having a good fps with low ping equated to me flying all over the map with easy wins. Even though I was an average player, it made me seem like a good player simply because I knew how to optimize the game in my advantage. Though turn the tables around... See what I mean. The hardware was as important as the person playing.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    Who wants to make a tournament?
    Teams are 1920x1200 120fps 5ms ping vs 640x480 30 fps 150ms ping XD

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    Originally posted by Wingfeather View Post
    Wow, 4 pages and nobody has come up with:
    [...]
    You forgot the resolution: 640x480 is clearly enough because of films too

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    Originally posted by Wingfeather View Post
    Wow, 4 pages and nobody has come up with:
    Hell, certain film passages when viewed on a big screen (like at the cinema) aren't smooth at all. Depends on the material.
    Specially panoramic views of cities, mountains... you can clearly see the image jumping!!

    Watching a 60 fps Highdef film is a pleasure. They told us over years that 24 fps was enough, it was fud!!

    Professional cameras @ 60-120 fps are becoming common in the cinema industry now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wingfeather
    replied
    Wow, 4 pages and nobody has come up with:

    Film only (barely) works at 24fps because each frame from a camera is taken over a finite range of time and is intrinsically motion-blurred. Game frames are perfectly sharp and need a much higher frame-rate to look smooth.

    Hell, certain film passages when viewed on a big screen (like at the cinema) aren't smooth at all. Depends on the material.

    @Droidhacker: I'd be very surprised if you actually watched an FPS game running at 24 frames/sec on a large-ish monitor and couldn't tell that it looked bad. It's really not a philosophical point for videophiles to mull over, it's just how it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    obvious. There are monitors of 120Hz.
    Thanks to the useless 3D there are 300 Hz monitors too

    Leave a comment:


  • darkbasic
    replied
    Originally posted by yotambien View Post
    despite the subversive information spread by the anti-pro police : D
    OMG

    [fucking character limit]

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    obvious. There are monitors of 120Hz.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X