Performance !

[Eric]

Hi there...

I am still developing a modeller/viewer solution for professional purposes.

At the moment, I am using 3DS Max3 to build the 3D models (coz' my modeller isn't that advanced !), I import them in the modeller which exports them to the viewer...

The model I am working on these days counts some 200000 (yeah 2 hundred thousands) triangles, 2 lights and some textures.
It is an outside scene.

On my dual (well, dual means nothing as OGL uses only one of the processors for the transformations !) Pentium III 600Mhz, Diamond Viper 770 Ultra 32Mb, my viewer displays that at around 1.5 FPS.

Of course, I don't expect a real full-time VR world with that count of faces but I was wondering if someone knew if I could expect a lot better, slightly better or nothing better...

For example, does anyone know how many triangles are displayed per frame in games such as Quake III ?

Thanks everyone !

Eric

[tcs]

Quake3 displays about 10.000 T/s. If you want to increase your performance, get a GeForce DDR. This would increase the performance about 10 times, even on a crappy old celeron400. On this system I get a transforming speed of 1.95 MT/s.

Tim

[CitiZen X]

Typically in my tests of a Winfast GeForce256 DDR on my K6-2 350Mhz, I get a some what smooth frame rate (not sure what it is), around 9k polygons (of which half are probably culled), this includes a (bilineared) 512x512 texture map, 2 lights, and the second color specular extension (costs nothing in performance on a GeForce http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif). If I use polygon subdivision and bump it up to 12k it starts getting what I think most people consider choppy. Oh and BTW this is running on a display of 1280x960x32...

[Eric]

Thanks guys !

I did not know that the GeForce 256 DDR was so much faster !!!
I am going to ask my boss for buying it today...

By the way, as I am using 3DS Max a lot, wouldn't it be better to take an ELSA Gloria II with the Quadro ? I know, it's probably 2.5 times the price of the GeForce but, do you think it is worth ?

Thanks a lot !

Eric

[Hude]

With low resolutions (640x480, 800x600) the speed up from DDR memory is not worth the higher price. But in higher resolutions with Geforce 256 DDR you get remarkable speed up compared to Geforce 256. And that's worth the price.

I have a relatively old processor (P2/300 that is) and still Geforce just rocks with it.

Quadro is maybe a bit too expensive, I'd go for Geforce DDR based Asus6800.

[CitiZen X]

I'm not sure I have not heard much about the quadro, I have heard estimates, but haven't seen it on review sites or any thing. We have a system that has an intense3d realism and the performance between the GeForce and it are similar, except the GeForce can be considered faster because it supports the seperate specular extension.

I myself am working on an modeler, well its starting off as an tool for another 3d program I am developing but since I am a lightwave modeler I want to eventually replace it with my own modeler, its going to be inhouse for now, but I would like to release it eventually. I'm developing it under GTK+.

[Eric]

Just to let you know : I think I have found what I need : I'll go for the ELSA Erazor X2 (which is GeForce 256 DDR based).

I'll tell you about the performance when I get it ! Thanks for your help !

Eric