OpenGL geometry benchmark released..

[Ysaneya]

http://www.fl-tw.com/opengl/GeomBench/index.htm

This is an OpenGL pure geometry ( T&L ) benchmark. Binaries and source code are available.. it should answer quite a few questions, like: does it make a difference if a display list is compiled in immediate mode versus vertex arrays ? What kind of difference to expect from video / AGP VAR / VAO ? Are compiled vertex arrays any usefull today ? Are short indices faster than long indices when using vertex arrays..? Now, you can look at the results yourself..

Y.

[Robbo]

Are you sure its correct? I get similar values for the immediate\cva pairs. I would have thought cva would be quicker in all cases?

[Arath]

Hum, I've got large better result with my engine and the nvidia vertex array range demo. With this benchmark, I'm about 6 MPoly/s and 18 MPoly/s with nvidia's demo.

Arath

[Ysaneya]

Yes, i'm pretty sure it's correct. I get a (small) speed improvement with low tesselation on my Radeon 8500, which means it works. See the recent VAO thread and you'll even notice that the Radeon 9700 is a lot slower with CVAs.. ah well. I suppose you've got a NVidia card?

Y.

[harsman]

I got 21 million Tris per sec max. That's a lot more then I get typically but seems like a reasonable (pretty high even) max since I have a GeForce 2MX. That was with stripped geometry in video mem. You'll probably need to run the tests for longer periods of time to get consistant results. I was surprised at how fast display lists were btw. Something else that seems strange is that integer indices are faster than shorts on most of the tests.

[Roderic (Ingenu)]

768k is very slow, is it one array ?

I hope it's not the case, but can't really see why it would be slow if you don't make arrays bigger than the max implementation size.

65535 on my RadeOn 5800.

[Ysaneya]

Ok, i had a first look at the log. Arath, i suppose you're the one with an Athlon 1800 + GF3 ? If that's right, i noticed that in the test you did and got 6 MTS with VAR, you benchmarked the 44k tris scene. I don't think it's enough.. you should try again with the 768k tesselation. Other people's configs are showing what's expecting, so i don't think it's a bug in the code..

Harsman: longer tests, that's an idea.. except if you want to try everything.. it's already 10 mins with all the options now

Ingenu: no, in the 768k case it's a 64k vertex array which is shared by all the spheres. It's slow because.. well.. 768k is a lot of triangles You won't see anything smooth unless you run at > 20 MTris/sec.

Y.

[Arath]

Ysaneya, you're right, my apologize to you, I did the benchmark and I've got good perf.
By the way, some times when I run the program, I've got no test, and no result, just back to windows, it happens when I do only VAR test (in VRAM), but it works sometime, may be the memory allocation doesn't work?

Arath

[Ysaneya]

Not sure. Since it tests all the combinations of options you've checked, you need to have at least one option checked per group, and at least one transfer method. If that's what you did, it's a bug, i'll look into it (if you can tell me exactly what are all the options you've got checked when it happens..). Thanks

Btw, i have added the first logs to the site (beware: it's already big..)

Y.

[Lars]

The programm crashes right after the last test. Even if i select only some options so that only one test is performed (different types) it crashes after that test.
No question for a connection or something else.

pIII 933 256 mB WinXP GeForce2Go 16 MB Det 40.41

Lars