From: John L. <dri...@ni...> - 2004-08-24 00:24:22
|
On Monday 23 August 2004 12:36, Ian Romanick wrote: > John Lightsey wrote: > > Once I have all the benchmarks together I'll make some pretty little > > graphs. > > > > So....any suggestions, comments, feedback? > > First off, great work! Hopefully you'll be willing to re-run those > tests to look for regressions in future releases. ;) > > I have only two criticisms. First, demo4 is a crummy Quake3 benchmark, > and demo1 is a crummy Quake2 benchmark. I've got a couple Quake3 demos > that I recorded for DRI testing that I can post in the next day or so. > Something like "massive1" or "crusher" would be a much better Quake2 > benchmark (that really turns back the way-back clock for me!). > I'll look into those Quake2 demos for the next try. Benchmarking Quake2 and Quake3 is very fast, so including another demo or two shouldn't be a problem. > My other critical comment is that you only have texture intensive > benchmarks. It would be nice to add a couple purely polygon intensive > benchmarks. I know that viewperf is a pain to run, but it does it's job > well. Do any of the open-source modeling packages (i.e., Blender) have > a benchmark mode? I think that might be intersting to a lot of Linux > people. I'd be interested in average FPS for things like blender, chromium, bzflag, etc... Perhaps they'll take patches to add it in if the code isn't there already. I gave up on specviewperf after waiting over half an hour for the Voodoo 5 to run it. It's just too time consuming. Are there one or two tests that stand out in particular? The HTML version with lots of pretty pictures and graphs is online here: http://www.nixnuts.net/benchmarks/040815/ Thanks to everyone that has given feedback. I'll run another round of benchmarks in a month or two and try to submit bug reports on everything that doesn't work in the mean time. DRI is an amazing piece of software.... Many thanks to everyone for the great work. John |