Fract Engine Benchmark

Cob · 27 Sep 2006 at 20:28

VYSNC seems to make no difference in x64 Vista.

But disabling it has far more effect in x64 XP. Enabled it gives pretty much the same results as x64 Vista. But if I disable it I get this

-

Xez · 27 Sep 2006 at 20:47

w3bbo said:
<snip>

Yours seems VERY low... Im clocked a lot slower than you are but get quite a bit more :eek:

And one at 3.4ghz

maddness · 27 Sep 2006 at 23:42

same system after a reinstall of xp,

BurntCarcus · 28 Sep 2006 at 09:28

22.89

upgrade time soon me thinks

w3bbo · 28 Sep 2006 at 13:09

Xez said:
Yours seems VERY low... Im clocked a lot slower than you are but get quite a bit more

Yeah my bad...had vsync enabled

wnm0 · 28 Sep 2006 at 13:23

Well now I know what to do so here is mine lol, it took long enough for me to do it..forgive the banner at the side don't know how to get rid of that bit yet lol...

$fractxe7.jpg$

Soulja · 28 Sep 2006 at 15:06

How do you disable v sync?

Cob · 28 Sep 2006 at 15:08

Soulja said:
How do you disable vsync?

Control Panel>nVidia Control Panel>3D Settings>Manage 3D Settings.

Soulja · 28 Sep 2006 at 15:20

i have a x1900xt, does my gfx not use it? :confused:

Cob · 28 Sep 2006 at 15:39

Ooops. It should be in the ATi control panel.

Cyber-Mav · 28 Sep 2006 at 16:09

Soulja said:
i have a x1900xt, does my gfx not use it?

do a h4x0r on the benchmark to use hardware acceleration then post you l33t scores up on here

Soulja · 28 Sep 2006 at 16:14

Ummm.....yeah

MSPenguin · 28 Sep 2006 at 16:19

I just ran this on my work machine which is a Dell Precision 490 - 2 processor dual-core XEON (8 threads) @3.2ghz and I get a horrendous figure of around 30FPS ! :eek:

Would this be the RAM slowing it down (2 x 2GB DIMMS running at 533mhz) ?? :confused:

maddness · 29 Sep 2006 at 00:38

MSPenguin said:
I just ran this on my work machine which is a Dell Precision 490 - 2 processor dual-core XEON (8 threads) @3.2ghz and I get a horrendous figure of around 30FPS !

Would this be the RAM slowing it down (2 x 2GB DIMMS running at 533mhz) ??

i think memory will be holding you back but if you have 2 processors and 8 cores? i'd expect you to be around 100 or even more. What are your individual scores?

here is my 4 core results at a moderate clock

silversurfer · 29 Sep 2006 at 01:00

100fps is good but shouldnt it be more with 4 cores compared to what 2 cores is achieving. Whats the cpu utilisation graphs showing during the test and could your ram be holding back those 4 cores even though Iam sure you have fast ram by normal standards

The guy with 8 cores, I think its mentioned earlier on in the thread that each frame needs to be copied to graphics memory in real time so memory does seem a big factor there.

Mine own result was crap I think because Iam only at 225mhz ddr1, most here are considerably more however the cpu shows 100% usage for the test.

Strange but I just noticed this rigs fps went up 50%. Dirty memory, 700 meg commit charge with 512meg total physical memory

maddness · 29 Sep 2006 at 01:31

silversurfer said:
blah

it is more than what 2 cores are achieving. You cant expect the scores to excatly double a dual core due to system / utilisation overheads (dont forget its not 4 individual cores, its 2 dual cores using the same bus)

heres a run down of 1 ot 4 cores

One Core

Two Core

Three Core

Four Core

would be good to see the woodcrest results with quad channel memory,
i reckon it will help quite a lot :cool:

silversurfer · 29 Sep 2006 at 01:57

blah! lol
I dont expect double but Iam still interested in why not and whats the limiting factor and how that might affect various apps
Thanks for the run down, 42% increase from two to four seems nothing to complain about

Ive never heard of quad memory before. I did hear a mention of ddr3 earlier as supported by rd600 chipset

My fps is now 19fps after a reboot and about the same after a game of bf2. Not sure what was slowing it down before really

MSPenguin · 29 Sep 2006 at 02:01

Just checked CPU utilisation via Task Manager when running this and all 8 cores are pretty much maxed out. Only using 2 cores or turning off multithread etc. doesn't make any difference.

I'm beginning to wonder if it is something to do with the RAM. They are 2GB DDR2 ECC modules running at 533mhz. I might try taking the 2nd one out and see if it speeds things up.

Shame it's a Dell though, so I can't really do any overclocking or tweaking

silversurfer · 29 Sep 2006 at 02:08

There goes my theory then, 100% cpu doesnt really figure :confused:

I might try underclocking my fsb, maybe it ties up the cpu regardless so we cant see whats happening so easily or more likely task manager is just crap

edit:
throttlewatch shows the same 100%
difference between 1:1 and 2:1 memory ratio at the same fsb is only 2 seconds for me btw

maddness · 29 Sep 2006 at 02:09

MSPenguin said:
Just checked CPU utilisation via Task Manager when running this and all 8 cores are pretty much maxed out. Only using 2 cores or turning off multithread etc. doesn't make any difference.

I'm beginning to wonder if it is something to do with the RAM. They are 2GB DDR2 ECC modules running at 533mhz. I might try taking the 2nd one out and see if it speeds things up.

Shame it's a Dell though, so I can't really do any overclocking or tweaking

try these benchies:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17628286

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17629198

+ gnite