|
Post by dimitrikhoz on Aug 20, 2011 4:15:26 GMT
Sorry, Poul, I completely missed the difference in the resolution. My Dell 2209WA, which I bought a year ago because of the ISP to work in Photoshop, has max resolution of 1680*1050. I set 1600*1200 in the test, but obviously it run the max res allowed.
I was afraid that your system will beat me with the doubled score. From what I see, it has a 40% advantage. So, I guess, switching to the Intel i5 or i7 before Christmas will be a good option.
Thx a lot, Poul, for posting you results. It gave me a lot of food for thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Grnkjr0 on Aug 20, 2011 4:20:38 GMT
You ran the benchmark in direct3d9 and not 11 - not much difference in resolution I think. But remember, all my components are overclocked.
Poul
|
|
|
Post by rcgldr on Aug 20, 2011 5:07:10 GMT
I was afraid that your system will beat me with the doubled score. So, I guess, switching to the Intel i5 or i7 before Christmas will be a good option. The heaven benchmark is mostly about the video card. The frybench benchmark is mostly about the CPU and the number of cores and/or hyperthreading. You should run the frybench to compare the CPU differences, although how this affects gameplay would depend on the game, for example, Microsoft Flight Simulator uses more CPU than a typical racing game, and not many games will take advantage of a quad or hex core CPU.
|
|
|
Post by Grnkjr0 on Aug 20, 2011 5:17:15 GMT
Jeff is right, but some games now (and more in the future) will benefit from more cores. But for comparison reasons, try to run Heaven benchmark with the same settings as Hardwarecanucks did. They use a i7 920, overclocked to 4.0 GHz with Turbo boost enabled (like me). Poul
|
|
|
Post by Grnkjr0 on Aug 20, 2011 5:30:23 GMT
I got 82.4, but forgot to take a picture.
|
|
|
Post by TheGreenMonster (PC) on Aug 20, 2011 13:09:34 GMT
Where is the link for the CPU benchmark test??? I got 82.4, but forgot to take a picture.
|
|
|
Post by dimitrikhoz on Aug 20, 2011 14:57:12 GMT
I got 82.4, but forgot to take a picture. I'd like to run it as well, but I have WinXP, and no DX11 And why is there such big difference in fps between DX9 and DX11 in the Heaven Bench? Is there considerable difference in picture quality? Where is the link for the CPU benchmark test??? I believe, Frybench, is a CPU rendering test, that gives us a good approximation of the CPU speed when used in the professional 3D Rendering/Modelling/Publishing, basically, in the CGI software. I am not sure that this test is a good test of CPU power for the new 3D games. Some games, like Metro 2033 do not care about CPU at all, some games, like Grand Theft Auto 5 are extremely CPU heavy. I am really curious about the new Frostbite 2 engine, will it be GPU or CPU dependent?
|
|
|
Post by rcgldr on Aug 20, 2011 15:37:45 GMT
Where is the link for the CPU benchmark test? That was frybench, I don't recall where I downloaded mine from, but there are several web sites that have it. I also compared Aquamark3 scores (it looks nice). You can do a search for "aquamark3" to find a copy of it (the oriignal site is lone gone). After installing Aquamark3, go to the program directory and rename direcpll.dll to direcpllorg.dll to "delete" it, to prevent a crash that often occurs at the end of test. Aquamark3 benchmark (default test uses 1024x768): Old system - Intel core 2 X6800 extreme 2.93ghz, Intel D979XBX motherboard, 2GB ram, ATI HD4970 (single GPU card) 512MB - 149 fps. New system - Intel 2600K 3.4ghz, Intel DP67BG motherboard, 4GB ram, ATI HD 6970 (single GPU) video card 2GB - 272 fps.
|
|
|
Post by TheGreenMonster (PC) on Aug 20, 2011 17:13:28 GMT
How long does that fry benchmark take to run?? I downloaded it and then ran it and it kept going for more than 10 mins, I must be doing something wrong.... Plus I have a i950, 3.06GHz and this Gigabyte motherboard offer software OC, So I bump the speed up too 3.4GHz,,, it changes the bios for me.. Anyways know if I can use that MSI afterburner demo to increase my GPU voltage?? I might buy it if it's the better one to buy,
|
|
|
Post by rcgldr on Aug 20, 2011 22:53:24 GMT
How long does that fry benchmark take to run? 25 minutes 12 seconds on my core 2 X6800 2.93ghz (two cores, no hyperthreading, so only 2 threads running in parallel). It's a cpu test that takes advantage of multiple cores and hyperhreading. It took 5:33 to render and 5:41 to run on an Intel 2600K 3.4ghz, 4 cores with hyperthreading, so 8 threads running in parallel. I'm not aware of any games that get get this much benefit from multiple cores.
|
|
|
Post by TheGreenMonster (PC) on Aug 21, 2011 1:57:55 GMT
Ok I re ran the test and where in the hell is the benchmark score??? This was one complicated benchmark program... it did show me a time but not a score.. "8 mins 45 sec" So where do i find the score?? How long does that fry benchmark take to run? 25 minutes 12 seconds on my core 2 X6800 2.93ghz (two cores, no hyperthreading, so only 2 threads running in parallel). It's a cpu test that takes advantage of multiple cores and hyperhreading. It took 5:33 to render and 5:41 to run on an Intel 2600K 3.4ghz, 4 cores with hyperthreading, so 8 threads running in parallel. I'm not aware of any games that get get this much benefit from multiple cores.
|
|
|
Post by dimitrikhoz on Aug 21, 2011 2:24:50 GMT
I do not think there is any score in that test apart from the rendering time.
|
|
|
Post by rcgldr on Aug 21, 2011 5:26:38 GMT
I did two runs at London River (why did you guys pick this track?) with Shift 2, 16x filter, no AA, hood view. The view affects frame rate, from fastest to slowest on my system: bumper, hood, cockpit, chase. Changing resolution from 1280x960 to 1600x1200 didn't change much, so the GPU isn't throttling frame rates much at these resolutions.
1280x960x85hz
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 9549, 81906, 94, 146, 116.585
1600x1200x85hz
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 9306, 81234, 93, 142, 114.558
|
|
|
Post by Grnkjr0 on Aug 21, 2011 6:48:33 GMT
I picked London River, because I could run that track each time within 1-2 sec apart.
Poul
|
|
|
Post by rcgldr on Aug 21, 2011 23:30:06 GMT
I picked London River, because I could run that track each time within 1-2 sec apart. For an average frame rate, it probably doesn' t matter as long as all players use the same track, drive about the same speeds, and use the same view (I use hood view). The minimum frame rate is probably affected most when turning (because of the panning view), and with each lap, there's a bit more varition in how fast the view pans and exactly where you're turning at, and London River does have a lot of buildings nearby that have to be rendered.
|
|