PDA

View Full Version : curious to your performance stats using gf2



Old GLman
03-13-2002, 08:50 PM
Using a geforce 2 ultra 64mb
running fullscreen 640x480x32
on win2k rendering absolutley
nothing except the fps.

I get approximatley 2000 fps.
Im curious as to what you guys get.
Please ease my conscience! I just
want to make sure I'm doin everything
right, lol. Thx for replying if ya
do.

Old GLman

T2k
03-13-2002, 10:57 PM
dont know, but i have around 900fps on gf2 gts on 1024*763*32 drawing nothing ... except primitive framecounter version http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Old GLman
03-14-2002, 07:41 AM
T2k, thanks for the info. I ran those settings and got about the same fps. Your were a little higher, may I ask your processor speed?

zeckensack
03-14-2002, 08:05 AM
2000 fps? Is that with or without clearing buffers?

Old GLman
03-14-2002, 11:06 AM
Thats with clearing the buffers. Maybe im calculating my fps wrong? Keep in mind in not rendering anything other than my fps, which is just some simple text. This seems fine to me considering the low resolution and a powerful video card. My processor is also athlon 1.1.

EDIT: This message does have a point. Its helpin me out. I just wanted to get a feel for how performance should be with the above mentioned hardware.

Old GLman

[This message has been edited by Old GLman (edited 03-14-2002).]

zeckensack
03-14-2002, 12:40 PM
Doh, yeah, your numbers do look right. I currently reach around 1600~1700 frames 640x480x32 with buffer clearing and some modest text display on a RadeonDDR (166MHz) and an Athlon700.

These numbers may be somewhat off because that's through an emulation layer (yay!) so I'm not directly working the card. But I figure that with very little geometry, we're both limited by the bandwith requirements of the buffer clears.

Furrage
03-15-2002, 04:22 AM
This is only slightly related to the above. I've heard minimum FPS to simulate motion is 33. For flicker free animation go for 75 FPS. So I figure once your doing above 75 you should be fine. So, apart from the beauty of seeing sheer power at work, why would you want FPS in the hundreds. I figured that extra processing time could go to AI or processing or something else.

Then again, am I really that much a relic from the past?

Old GLman
03-15-2002, 07:08 AM
You have a good point, and I completely agree. It seems to me that it would be more logical to have the engine run as fast a possible, and choreograph the objects in the scene, rather than just limit the fps. However it is still nice to see sheer power at work http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Old GLman