|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
Hi all,
just sent a new summary to John for posting on the web site. Fabrizio, your results are indeed kind of skewed since you ran the tests at 800x600 screen resolution. The same is true, by the way, for WuFan's test results for the Compaq Evo laptop. Quite obviously, screen resolution is still a major factor in performance these days. The viewbench test does not check the screen resolution. When we run it here in the lab, we almost always use the following screen resolution settings: - 1280x1024 pixels (sometimes 1600x1200) - TrueColor mode Claus |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
I have posted the updated results from Claus to the web site.
http://www.cocreateusers.org/misc/viewbench_results.html Note that if you have viewed it before you might have to refresh your browser to see the changes (I did). Interesting comment about the screen resolution Claus. I used 1280x1024 for my tests, except the Omnibook which only goes to 1024x768. Maybe you should add a column for the screen resolution to the table just so we all know what it was.
__________________
John Scheffel |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Claus |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I will run some tests on my PC with different Modeling window sizes to see how much it affects the result.
__________________
John Scheffel |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
I think the viewport size that is recorded by viewbench is wrong. Here's why.
I am using 1600x1200 resolution on my EVO N800W. I can start OSDM and shrink its window size down to about 1024x768 window with a 866x618 viewport inside that. After starting viewbench, it runs winmsd which fails on my system (I'm running XP). When I OK the error message from winmsd, the first real test (many_exams.pkg) resets my OSDM window to 1280x1024 with a viewport of 1211x852. The results in the perf_viewbench_hostname.txt file show the 866.0x618.0 viewport rather than the real value which is 1211x852. Berney Coleman CoCreate Consulting Manager
__________________
Berney Coleman CoCreate Consulting Manager |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
about viewport size/screen resolution
I think John is right. In fact i ran the test at 1280x1024 with 16bit color depth and not at 800x600 as Claus guessed... but my Part Browser was really large (I was working with DataMgmt) and this caused the viewport to be too small for the test.
But I agree with John in the sense that we should specify a common resolution and color depth for all tests (as Claus suggested) but also a common viewport size. For example we could say that the test must be run at 1280x1024, 32bit color, OSD window maximized and with PartBrowser, commands menu and any toolbar switched off and the viewport maximized. This should guarantee results with more sense... Fabrizio |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Model: HP X4000
CPU: Intel Xeon 2 GHz RAM: 1 GB Graphics: ATI Fire GL2 64MB OS: Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional 5.0 SP 2 Build 2195 Version: OSDM 11.60 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Model: Premio (custom built)
CPU: Intel Pentium III 870 MHz RAM: 512 MB Graphics: NVIDIA Quadro4 550 XGL 64MB OS: Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional 5.0 SP 2 Build 2195 Version: SD 9.01 Last edited by jmobley; 01-20-2003 at 05:08 AM. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Model: Premio (custom built)
CPU: Intel Pentium III 650 MHz RAM: 512 MB Graphics: NVIDIA Quadro4 550 XGL 64MB OS: Microsoft Windows NT Ver 4.0 Build 1381 SP 5 Version: SD 9.01 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Model: Premio (custom built)
CPU: Intel Pentium III 600 MHz RAM: 512 MB Graphics: NVIDIA Quadro4 550 XGL 64MB OS: Microsoft Windows NT Ver 4.0 Build 1381 SP 6 Version: SD 9.01 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Model: Premio (custom built)
CPU: Intel Pentium III 650 MHz RAM: 512 MB Graphics: NVIDIA Quadro2 MXR 32MB OS: Microsoft Windows NT Ver 4.0 Build 1381 SP 6 Version: SD 9.01 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
(our oldest and slowest)
Model: Premio (custom built) CPU: Intel Pentium III 600 MHz RAM: 512 MB Graphics: ELSA Gloria Synergy 8MB OS: Microsoft Windows NT Ver 4.0 Build 1381 SP 6 Version: SD 9.01 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Model: HP Vectra VL 400MT
CPU: Intel Pentium III 860 MHz RAM: 512 MB Graphics: ELSA ERAZOR X ² 32MB OS: Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional 5.0 SP 2 Build 2195 Version: SD 9.01 |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Hi all,
I just posted a new version of the viewbench code to ftp://ftp.cocreate.com/sdtestpackage/viewbench/viewbench_code.zip. The new version first sets a standard size for the viewport and *then* writes the viewport size into the logfile. This was a bug in the old code; thanks to Berney for pointing this out. When we run the test locally, we always have the configuration file to verify the system configuration, so this was never much of an issue internally. Hope this fix will make it a little easier to correctly interpret the results. I still hope for a rainy/boring Sunday afternoon to work on improved reporting for system configuration data and test results, but then, I haven't felt bored since a very long time now 8-( I also updated the result list with all of jmobley's results and sent it to John for publishing it on the web site. Fabrizio, I also removed the note in the table which erroneously claimed that your test was run at 800x600. Claus Last edited by clausb; 01-20-2003 at 08:25 AM. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Claus, I tried rerunning the benchmark on the problematic system here, the one that kept hanging? There is one process eating between 30 to 50% cpu cycles (it fluctuates quite a bit) called SPOOLSV.exe. I don't recognize it and it won't let me kill it. When I don't have anything running, the normal cpu usage on this process is 0% (like right now).
Hope to run the benchmark on a Unix box or two sometime this week. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|
|