Aquamark 3 is there a place for it anymore?

[davepermen]

cool.. 😀

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Alright, here it goes. Ran it a BUNCH of times changing variables.

Ok all tests run on an XP2000+ (at stock unless otherwise stated), 512mb PC3200, GA-7VAX, 80gb WD800JB, XPpro (all patches+SP1), Audigy (likely no effect).
All Tests run @ Default settings with Shadows and Reflections (unless otherwise stated)

Sorry for for limited info, but the benchmark info wouldn't let me cut/paste the results (however this is the basics).

Ok starting with STOCK speed on the R9600Pro:

640 X 480 X 32 score: 2732 FPS Avg: 11.86 Min: 4.57 Max: 47.62

1024 X 576 X 32 score: 2994 FPS Avg: 5.08 Min: 1.86 Max: 19.61

1280 x 768 x 32 score: 3140 FPS Avg: 3.19 Min: 1.12 Max: 12.05

Now for the STRANGE thing to ME;

Running R9600Pro @ 500/349

1024 x 576 x 32 score: 2996 FPS Avg: 5.08 Min: 1.86 Max: 19.61

(Virtually the SAME as stock speeds)

Now Lets seem an FSB overclock. Running 1737 Mhz on 139 FSB

1024 x 576 x 32 score: 3096 FPS Avg: 5.25 Min: 1.93 Max: 19.61 (same max though)


OK, Now with NO options selected (no shadows no reflections)

1024 x 576 x 32 score: 4823 FPS Avg: 8.18 Min: 2.38 Max: 23.26

Now with EVERYTHING on (Shadows, Reflections, AA, Vol. Lights, Depth Field)

1024 x 576 x 32 score: <font color=red><b> 286 </b> FPS Avg: 0.48 Min: 0.14 Max: 7.69</font color=red>
This SINGLE test took <font color=red><b>1.5</font color=red></b> HOURS to run!

Anywhoo, hope that gives you a little bit of fun.
Interesting looking Benchmark. I'd love to see it run with AA on, but it KILLS my card at any reasonable resolution.
I'm a little surprised to see it SO CPU dependant. The overclocked graphics card had little/NO effect on performance.

In any case, if you THINK you have a card that can handle ANYTHING that can be thrown at it, TRY this Benchmark, and be HUMBLED very quickly.

Ciaola!


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK

 

[eden]

Dave can you go to the thread about the FX5800? On the last page we are trying to convince a user about the "advanced and future-proofness" of nVidia's features on the FX are pointless and not THAT special.
EDIT: There <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=356990#356990" target="_new">http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=356990#356990</A>
--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=purple><b>The official Tom's Hardware Guide Forums Photo Album, click here to contribute!</font color=purple></b></A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 07/17/03 04:31 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[davepermen]

well, greatape.. its a software renderer, it does raytracing, something no gpu today is capable of doing => it does NOT use the gpu at all.. the slight (very slight) improvment is simply the hw 2d blitter to the video memory wich is at slight higher speed.. but thats just the last image transfer. it does NOT use the gpu at all!!

it does only use the cpu, for all the math. and the math it does is very complex..

btw, aa doesn't hurt much.. but the softshadows do..

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Ahh OK that explains it. Didn't really know the background of the test (shoulda read more, but wanted to benchmark as soon as I got home [didn't expect the one 1.5 hr test]).

Thanks for the Info. I think tomorrow (after a little rest) I'll try again with the FSB up (maybe 141 [it's stock cooling remember]) again and then turn on the AA and see what it looks like at 1024x768(576)x32 hopefully it makes a nice diff. in the visuals. I'll let y'all know.

So with your results, what was your default setting? You have an R9700Pro right? What's the CPU etc?

Just curious.

Do you know if it supports dual processors?


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK

 

[Willamette_sucks]

Geeze Grape, i mean... DUH!

STOP STEALING MY SPOTLIGHT DAVE!!

Have you guys forgotten so quickly?

I, ME, WS, Introduced this benchmark a few months ago, in the CPU forum (maybe this one too, I forgot).

Holy crap guys comon.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd

 

[Willamette_sucks]

At 640x480 (although in the result browser it says 640x360...)...
Min: 6.62
Avg: 17.13
Max: 66.67

Bungholio.. I mean, Raymarks: 3946

Looking at the result browser... Its amazing how well the Athlons do compared to the p4s.



"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd

 

[davepermen]

reason is simple.. it does not use any simd capabilities of the p4, but the rather slow fpu..

athlons do have a fast fpu..

i've coded a little raytracer myself, and just switching from fpu to simd floatingpoint math (no simd actually, just using the simd unit to do the same the fpu does normally) doubled my fps.. using simd then kicked them up from 44fps before to 200fps afterwards..

and they have not optimized with asm at all yet, though their newest demo, still sucking nature, has a p4 version in.. again, no simd, just replacing the fpu.. as far as i know..


thats why p4's are rather slow compared to athlons currently..

i'm playing currently a lot with the simd-capabilities of the p4/celeron(p4 based) i have around, and the speedgain is amazing!

well, here, at this configuration at work, i have 1452 RayMarks, or so.. i think.. with default settings..

and yes, resolution in height is a bit smaller, it has black borders and no, they don't do any calculations there😀


i've played around with doing partial raytracing on the gpu, and while the pixelshaders are [-peep-] fast, they are still too restricted for any real raytracing use.. waiting for the r400 😀 or at least maximized speed with good interface-extensions in opengl to parallelize agp transfers and max them out at speed, so i can use the gpu as real parallel processor and do the rest on the cpu.. till then, i will not use the gpu in my stuff as well..


currently i'm working on some color conversion sheme that should be fast, but uh p4 simd is quite complex to grasp😀

anyways, i hope to be able to present something similar to realstorm one day.. cpu's today ARE fast enough for realtime raytracing of complex scenes in quite good resolutions.. 320x240 is fine for me btw, depending on game😀 adventures for example.. played outcast at that res, played quake at that res.. never had problems😀..

but higher resolutions are possible, too..


but for now, i need to get the color converter working, else i never have any pic on screen.. currently just some brown lines😀

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com