-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Fract Engine Benchmark
- Thread starter maddness
- Start date
-
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 243
- Location
- Belfast Norn Iron
22.89 
upgrade time soon me thinks 
upgrade time soon me thinks 
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) ??
Would this be the RAM slowing it down (2 x 2GB DIMMS running at 533mhz) ??
Last edited:
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
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
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
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
Last edited:
silversurfer said:
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
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
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
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
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
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
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
There goes my theory then, 100% cpu doesnt really figure
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
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
Last edited:
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