kevglass
|
 |
«
Posted
2004-02-21 20:02:54 » |
|
If you guys have the chance could you let me know what FPS is reported out of this: http://www.cokeandcode.com/miniad/miniad.jnlpJust a "simple" bit of blitting that I'm going to try on the work machine. FPS is around 660 on my laptop (ATi Mobility Radeon 9000, WinXP, 2.4Ghz). Any results and time spent is really appreciated, Kev |
|
|
|
|
Matzon
|
|
«
Reply #1 - Posted
2004-02-21 20:08:59 » |
|
FPS is around 660 on my laptop (ATi Mobility Radeon 9000, WinXP, 2.4Ghz).  I am getting ~ 160 on my Radeon 9700, XP, 2.4@2.7 ! |
|
|
|
|
kevglass
|
|
«
Reply #2 - Posted
2004-02-21 20:14:18 » |
|
I am getting ~ 160 on my Radeon 9700, XP, 2.4@2.7 !
Coo! Worth doing the test, odd. Its just got a volatile image for the background and a few managed images layed over the top.. wonder what the issue might be? Kev |
|
|
|
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
|
|
morbo
Senior Newbie 
|
|
«
Reply #3 - Posted
2004-02-21 20:29:48 » |
|
I got 675fps sustained, almost all in kernel time (>90%).
This on an AlthonXP 2200, GeForce3 (+latest denonator), Win2k, Sun JRE 1.4.2,.
|
|
|
|
|
nonnus29
Senior Member
Giving Java a second chance after ludumdare fiasco
|
|
«
Reply #4 - Posted
2004-02-21 21:55:48 » |
|
Guess I've pretty much got the low end hardware around here... 35 fps p3 866 onboard gfx win xp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abuse
|
|
«
Reply #5 - Posted
2004-02-21 22:15:21 » |
|
These errors appeared during loading, (though it loaded and ran fine) 1
2
3
| Ignored exception: JNLPException[category: Download Error : Exception: java.io.IOException: HTTP response 404 : LaunchDesc: null ]
Ignored exception: JNLPException[category: Download Error : Exception: java.io.IOException: HTTP response 404 : LaunchDesc: null ]
Ignored exception: JNLPException[category: Download Error : Exception: java.io.IOException: HTTP response 404 : LaunchDesc: null ] |
Athlon 1.33 GF2gts 32mb (WinXP) I got 1050fps. I seem to be topping the scores atm - with my humble 1.33Athlon  wtf is wrong with all your PCs  |
|
|
|
|
Abuse
|
|
«
Reply #6 - Posted
2004-02-21 22:18:00 » |
|
Guess I've pretty much got the low end hardware around here... 35 fps p3 866 onboard gfx win xp. ouch! I would say, either your onboard video absolutely sucks, or (more likely) something in your setup is shagged. (is DDraw enabled/available?) This on an AlthonXP 2200, GeForce3 (+latest denonator), Win2k, Sun JRE 1.4.2,. would that by any chance be a GF3 MX ? (MX, the well known acronym for sh** - I mean, poor ) |
|
|
|
|
MickeyB
|
|
«
Reply #7 - Posted
2004-02-21 22:49:25 » |
|
got a very steady 330 fps
athlon amd 1.1ghz 512 ram 32mb geforce2
latest java as of last week.
M
|
|
|
|
|
oNyx
|
|
«
Reply #8 - Posted
2004-02-21 23:41:53 » |
|
360-370fps (avg 368 )
k7 500/gf2mx/128mb/win98se/1.4.2_03
That's pretty much the fillrate limit of that graphics card.
Hm Matzon's numbers seem to be quite off track... try setting agp aperture size to 32 (bios). [note that's an ati thingy - for nvidia cards half of your ram and a maximum of 128... so 128 usually).
|
|
|
|
morbo
Senior Newbie
|
|
«
Reply #9 - Posted
2004-02-21 23:50:28 » |
|
would that by any chance be a GF3 MX ? (MX, the well known acronym for sh** - I mean, poor ) Are you challenging the size of my thingy---uh, video card? have at ye! No, it's a non-MX. After a reboot (been running for over 10 days now, amazing) I got 685fps. Then after dropping my screen res (from 1600x1200 to 1027x768) I was getting ~700fps. I haven't tuned this thing since I got a new mobo, so susepct I'm missing a setting somewhere, as it seems fill-limited somehow. Hmm, something to play with now. Morbo |
|
|
|
|
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
|
|
|
trembovetski
|
|
«
Reply #10 - Posted
2004-02-22 01:58:44 » |
|
~90fps on 1.3Ghz P3 Celeron, SIS630 notebook. This video chipset doesn't have dedicated video memory (uses RAM), so this kind of performance is expected..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Java Cool Dude
|
|
«
Reply #11 - Posted
2004-02-22 02:48:09 » |
|
1540 FPS
Athlon XP 2.1 Ghz
Radeon 9700 PRO
|
|
|
|
|
|
kevglass
|
|
«
Reply #12 - Posted
2004-02-22 05:02:50 » |
|
Guys, as always, in-debted for the testings. Seems to me the figures for this are a lot healthier, might go along with this idea.
Interesting in comparison to the other test tho (@see Greying). The major difference seems to be blitting an accelerated image to fill the background and filling it using a g.drawRect(). g.drawRect() appears to be way slower :-/
Thanks again,
Kev
|
|
|
|
|
kevglass
|
|
«
Reply #13 - Posted
2004-02-22 05:39:50 » |
|
Guess I've pretty much got the low end hardware around here... 35 fps p3 866 onboard gfx win xp.
ouch!
I would say, either your onboard video absolutely sucks, or (more likely) something in your setup is shagged. (is DDraw enabled/available?)
Yep, thats what I get at work too, some old low end Intel 82* onboard controller. But actually 35 fps will probably do. Might have to increase the view area by 100 pixels on the y-axis. Kev |
|
|
|
|
sma
|
|
«
Reply #14 - Posted
2004-02-22 07:34:11 » |
|
I get 70-80fps and an annoyingly flickering mouse cursor on my 1GHz Athlon notebook with ATI Rage Mobility M1 (8MB) on 1.4.2_03.
(It's only a static image with some trees, isn't it?)
|
.: Truth Until Paradox!
|
|
|
|
kevglass
|
|
«
Reply #15 - Posted
2004-02-22 07:41:40 » |
|
Yep, one big volatile image pasted over the background for the ground and a few trees (managed images) pasted over the top.
Kev
|
|
|
|
|
Matzon
|
|
«
Reply #16 - Posted
2004-02-22 07:58:21 » |
|
Hm Matzon's numbers seem to be quite off track... try setting agp aperture size to 32 (bios). [note that's an ati thingy - for nvidia cards half of your ram and a maximum of 128... so 128 usually). didn't help at all - disabled fastwrite too - still same numbers |
|
|
|
|
Matzon
|
|
«
Reply #17 - Posted
2004-02-22 08:00:34 » |
|
hmm, tried forcing 1.4.2 in java control panel - then I got 10-11 fps *shrug* my games run fine  |
|
|
|
pepe
Junior Member
Nothing unreal exists
|
|
«
Reply #18 - Posted
2004-02-22 08:24:06 » |
|
Interesting in comparison to the other test tho (@see Greying). The major difference seems to be blitting an accelerated image to fill the background and filling it using a g.drawRect(). g.drawRect() appears to be way slower :-/
i get 614 fps on a dell inspiron 8200 (XP, radeon 9000, pIV 2.2ghz) To clear the bg, do you blit a big image, or a bunch of small ones? Can you post the sources, btw? |
|
|
|
|
Abuse
|
|
«
Reply #19 - Posted
2004-02-22 08:26:04 » |
|
it isn't that DDraw acceleration is disabled in Java by default with some ATI cards is it?
(or was that only applicable back in 1.4.0 or 1.4.1 or something?)
|
|
|
|
|
kevglass
|
|
«
Reply #20 - Posted
2004-02-22 09:03:50 » |
|
i get 614 fps on a dell inspiron 8200 (XP, radeon 9000, pIV 2.2ghz)
To clear the bg, do you blit a big image, or a bunch of small ones?
Can you post the sources, btw?
Background is cleared with one big background image. I was slightly suprised that creating a volatile image expcitly and using that was much-much faster than leaving it to a "compaitble image". Source should be here: http//www.cokeandcode.com/miniad/miniad-src.jar NOTE: These sources arn't good! Just a first play with the idea. Kev |
|
|
|
|
Orangy Tang
|
|
«
Reply #21 - Posted
2004-02-22 11:11:14 » |
|
1050fps here, Athlon 2600, GeForce 4 Ti. Background is cleared with one big background image. I was slightly suprised that creating a volatile image expcitly and using that was much-much faster than leaving it to a "compaitble image". I found when using compatable images that there was a big performance drop as soon as you went over 256x256. I can only assume that above that images don't get cached, whereas by making it a volatite image you're forcing it to cache it regardless. |
|
|
|
|
kevglass
|
|
«
Reply #22 - Posted
2004-02-22 18:14:41 » |
|
Bing! Updated. Not faster just a bit closer to what I might do.. comments on the size of the character? big enough to see what it is?
Kev
|
|
|
|
|
swpalmer
|
|
«
Reply #23 - Posted
2004-02-22 19:20:25 » |
|
High of 34 fps, low of 21fps.. typically around 30fps.
Mac OS X 10.3.2 JRE 1.4.2_03 on a 1GHz Powerbook
|
|
|
|
|
kevglass
|
|
«
Reply #24 - Posted
2004-02-22 19:24:08 » |
|
Really is a shame MacOS X doesn't do acceleration, specially as I'm about to buy a PowerBook.
Any idea if its on the way?
Kev
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
swpalmer
|
|
«
Reply #26 - Posted
2004-02-22 20:18:19 » |
|
Really is a shame MacOS X doesn't do acceleration, specially as I'm about to buy a PowerBook.
Any idea if its on the way?
Yes it is the one big downside. Other than that I love my powerbook. Apple is very tight lipped about anything they are working on, but I do know that they are aware of the issues. There was a posting here that hinted that they are excited to use the OpenGL pipeline of 1.5... who knows when 1.5 will appear on the Mac though. LWJGL and JOGL are running well on the Mac though. Even though my powerbook's video chipset isn't super fast (ATI Radeon 9000) it works fine for Alien Flux. |
|
|
|
|
princec
|
|
«
Reply #27 - Posted
2004-02-23 08:09:47 » |
|
Radeon 9000 not super fast!?! What planet are you on  ? Cas |
|
|
|
|
swpalmer
|
|
«
Reply #28 - Posted
2004-02-23 13:00:58 » |
|
Well it seems to suck for a lot of Java Cool Dude's Xith3D demos  I think it all depends on what you try to get it to do. The graphics driver says Radeon 8500 actually.. but I thought the actual chip was a 9000. and it is a notebook version remember - so the clock speed could be lower than what you would find on a desktop version, to conserve battery power. |
|
|
|
|
princec
|
|
«
Reply #29 - Posted
2004-02-23 13:07:36 » |
|
Even so... it should still be as powerful as a Geforce 2 and that's still an excellent card, IMHO. Cas |
|
|
|
|
