Author Topic: Game (Read 5333 times)

Scurvy Stan · « **Reply #1 on:** May 20, 2008, 02:09:59 AM »

1 Million FPS!

demi · « **Reply #2 on:** May 20, 2008, 02:15:50 AM »

I don't do demos

Raban · « **Reply #3 on:** May 20, 2008, 02:35:06 AM »

Can fullscreen be off?

Raban · « **Reply #4 on:** May 20, 2008, 02:45:34 AM »

for some reason the console doesn't show the FPS readout at the bottom when the demo's finished, I get a readout during the demo, locked at 90FPS, but nothing in the console afterwards.

Raban · « **Reply #5 on:** May 20, 2008, 02:52:05 AM »

Raban · « **Reply #6 on:** May 20, 2008, 02:56:14 AM »

Quote from: Borys on May 20, 2008, 02:54:07 AM

Impressive.

I wonder if 1000 fps is doable on some super-Crysis rig.

Seeing as how I almost hit that bar myself, I'm sure it's more than possible. I only have 4GBs of RAM, Radeon X1950PRO and a Q6600. Bump that video card up to an G8800 and I'm sure you'd end up with more than 1000 frames.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #7 on:** May 20, 2008, 03:06:22 AM »

175 fps

hmm i think i need to reformat and optimize this thing

or something $:-\$

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #8 on:** May 20, 2008, 03:36:01 AM »

That's what I just fucking posted, asshole.

Or are you just choosing to ignore my shit score?

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #9 on:** May 20, 2008, 03:45:17 AM »

Actually, I can play stuff like CoH and TF2 fine. I don't know why the score is so low.

demi · « **Reply #10 on:** May 20, 2008, 03:46:30 AM »

Damn Cajole can only do 140fps on his laptop? Buyer's remorse, seems so.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #11 on:** May 20, 2008, 03:46:50 AM »

I didn't buy it.

demi · « **Reply #12 on:** May 20, 2008, 03:47:25 AM »

I know what I said.

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #13 on:** May 20, 2008, 03:57:01 AM »

Lower than I expected.

Maybe it's a driver limitation since Nvidia probably didn't optimize the 8800 GTX much for Quake 3 engines?

FatalT · « **Reply #14 on:** May 20, 2008, 04:16:58 AM »

1346 frames, 9.8 seconds: 137.6 fps

Using a DELL INSPIRON E1505 laptop. Information below is taken from the System Requirements Lab site.

CPU
You Have: 2 processors running - Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2500 @ 2.00GHz

CPU Speed
You Have: 1.99 GHz Performance Rated at 3.74 GHz

System RAM
You Have: 2.0 GB

Operating System
You Have: Microsoft Windows XP Professional (Build Service Pack 22600)

Video Card
You Have: NVIDIA GeForce Go 7300 (GeForce Go 7300)
   Video RAM: You have - 256.0 MB
   Video Card 3D Acceleration: You have - Yes
   Video HW Transform & Lighting: You have - Yes
   Vertex Shader Ver.: You have - 3.0
   Pixel Shader Ver.: You have - 3.0

Video Card Driver Version (DirectX)
Your driver version number is: 6.14.10.8469

Raban · « **Reply #15 on:** May 20, 2008, 09:23:31 AM »

Quote from: Borys on May 20, 2008, 07:57:07 AM

Quote from: Smooth Groove on May 20, 2008, 03:57:01 AM
Lower than I expected.

Maybe it's a driver limitation since Nvidia probably didn't optimize the 8800 GTX much for Quake 3 engines?

Wow, so close to 1000!

No it's not a driver limitation, I can guraantee you that this is your CPU limitation. Do a simple test: drop the res to 640x480 and run the benchmark again. Then up it to 1600x1200 or even 2000x1500 and run the test for the 3rd time.

If you are CPU limited then you should have the same results in all those test. If you are GPU limited you should have 1000 fps in 640x480.

Anyway, getting 850 fps in Q3 is mind boggling. When I first ran the Q3A demo back in 1999 I had... 27 fps on those settings.

27 fps! I remember people were fighting to get it over 30, and if you had 40 fps then you were THE BOSS.

Now we can achieve 25 times more... that is insane. Current PCs are roughly 25 times faster in rendering 3D graphics than those from 10 years ago.

Wait 10 more years, same shit's happening again. People are gonna be playing Crysis on their cell phones.

Mupepe · « **Reply #16 on:** May 20, 2008, 04:16:22 PM »

89.7 fps

edit: shitty work laptop btw. I'll check my other laptop in a bit and my desktop when i get home

MedievalManIII · « **Reply #17 on:** May 20, 2008, 05:30:21 PM »

420 FPS on my laptop. I will test my desktop later.

demi · « **Reply #18 on:** May 20, 2008, 05:56:03 PM »

Quote from: MedievalManIII on May 20, 2008, 05:30:21 PM

420 FPS on my laptop. I will test my desktop later.

Damn, Cajole's laptop is shit

Buyer's remorse total. I'd hate to tell the parents they bought a shitty gift.

MedievalManIII · « **Reply #19 on:** May 20, 2008, 07:59:45 PM »

I upgraded my ram to 3GB and now I get 120 FPS? The specs of the old 1GB and the new 2GB are the same (except for the size, obviously) which is making me confused.

Anyways, on my desktop, I get 245 FPS.

edit: Now that I have restarted, I am getting up to 390 FPS and as low as 330 FPS. I guess Vista has to grind a new groove into the new stick of RAM.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #20 on:** May 20, 2008, 08:13:21 PM »

Quote from: demi on May 20, 2008, 05:56:03 PM

Quote from: MedievalManIII on May 20, 2008, 05:30:21 PM
420 FPS on my laptop. I will test my desktop later.

Damn, Cajole's laptop is shit

Buyer's remorse total. I'd hate to tell the parents they bought a shitty gift.

MedievalManIII · « **Reply #21 on:** May 20, 2008, 08:17:35 PM »

Upon my second restart, I noticed that after logging in, all my startup programs loaded in an instant. Now I feel justified in my purchase of more RAM.

I guess I have to defragment my gaming hard drive in order to squeeze out more FPS because I did some significant mucking about in there.

T234 · « **Reply #22 on:** May 20, 2008, 08:26:16 PM »

124.6 fps

MedievalManIII · « **Reply #23 on:** May 20, 2008, 08:40:08 PM »

427.8 FPS now. The FPS keeps on fluctuating.

Draft · « **Reply #24 on:** May 20, 2008, 08:41:56 PM »

434

X850XT

FatalT · « **Reply #25 on:** May 20, 2008, 08:52:36 PM »

Quote from: Spencer on May 20, 2008, 08:45:58 PM

took it off "power saver" mode, still only got 72 fps... I didn't realize my laptop sucked?

I only got like 174 or something but I have no problems running games. Oh well.

Beezy · « **Reply #26 on:** May 20, 2008, 09:39:29 PM »

When I type in \cg_drawfps 1, it says unknown command. I am not good with computers. $:-\$

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #27 on:** May 20, 2008, 09:46:16 PM »

Quote from: Borys on May 20, 2008, 07:57:07 AM

Quote from: Smooth Groove on May 20, 2008, 03:57:01 AM
Lower than I expected.

Maybe it's a driver limitation since Nvidia probably didn't optimize the 8800 GTX much for Quake 3 engines?

Wow, so close to 1000!

No it's not a driver limitation, I can guraantee you that this is your CPU limitation. Do a simple test: drop the res to 640x480 and run the benchmark again. Then up it to 1600x1200 or even 2000x1500 and run the test for the 3rd time.

If you are CPU limited then you should have the same results in all those test. If you are GPU limited you should have 1000 fps in 640x480.

Anyway, getting 850 fps in Q3 is mind boggling. When I first ran the Q3A demo back in 1999 I had... 27 fps on those settings.

27 fps! I remember people were fighting to get it over 30, and if you had 40 fps then you were THE BOSS.

Now we can achieve 25 times more... that is insane. Current PCs are roughly 25 times faster in rendering 3D graphics than those from 10 years ago.

It might be more than 25 times if you take into account modern graphical features like shader effects.

For example, some people have labtops here that run the benchmark around 200fps.

An 5 yr old PC that can run Q3A at 60fps most likely won't be able to run Half-life 2 at even 10% as well as those labtops.

Beezy · « **Reply #28 on:** May 20, 2008, 09:55:29 PM »

Okay, I tried it again and got it to work. It kept changing though. The highest that I saw it get to was 160+.

Edit: Forgot to do the readout, it came to 111.1 fps. Wtf?

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #29 on:** May 20, 2008, 10:28:40 PM »

518 fps on my desktop, which has an Intel 6420, 2 gigs of RAM, and an 8800 GT.

Mupepe · « **Reply #30 on:** May 20, 2008, 11:47:02 PM »

Quote from: Beezy on May 20, 2008, 09:39:29 PM

When I type in \cg_drawfps 1, it says unknown command. I am not good with computers. $:-\$

I think that's only while you're playing the game, not the demo run. It's a command to display how many fps your system is running at the moment, I think.

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #31 on:** May 21, 2008, 02:22:07 AM »

Q3A actually makes use of quad-cores?

That would explain Raban's exceptionally high scores with his stock clocked Q6600.

Raban · « **Reply #32 on:** May 21, 2008, 02:49:06 AM »

I didn't play with any of it, but that's awesome that a game made when the best processors were barely 1Ghz, can still run optimized on Quad Cores years later. That's absolutely amazing. Borys is right, Carmack is a fucking god.

crimsondynamics · « **Reply #33 on:** May 21, 2008, 12:28:56 PM »

One thing: 1024x768 is too low a resolution for today's top-end cards. You're simply not exercising the card enough.

I tried the timedemo and once I booted the resolution to 1600x1200 I got a 10% framerate boost, and this was with forced 4xAA and 16xAF.

dark1x · « **Reply #34 on:** May 21, 2008, 01:14:45 PM »

Hmm, I ran this recently as a test and received somewhere around 963 fps with v-sync disabled (at 1280x960).

News:

Author Topic: Game (Read 5333 times)

Borys