Username:

Password:

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Il-2 Benchmarking::The Black Death (Win XP vs 7, 8800GTS vs GTX 285 etc)  (Read 20755 times)
TX-EcoDragon
BLACK 1
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3034


G's Please


View Profile WWW
« on: January 12, 2009, 12:02:15 am »

*****Windows XP 32 bit vs Windows 7 64 Bit*****

Benchmarked using FRAPS to record frame rates during The Black Death Track, benchmarking starts timestamp 0:03 ends at 2:32.

Windows XP
4.08, E8400 running at 3.6 GHz, vid card at stock
8xAF 2xAA max quality Start at 0:03 end at 2:32
1680x1050: Avg: 93.131 - Min: 29 - Max: 186

Windows 7
4.08, E8400 running on core 1 at 3.6 GHz, vid card at stock
8xAF 2xAA max quality Start at 0:03 end at 2:32
1680x1050: Avg: 90.407 - Min: 27 - Max: 180

Windows 7
4.08, E8400 running on core 0+1 at 3.6 GHz, vid card at stock
8xAF 2xAA max quality Start at 0:03 end at 2:32
1680x1050: Avg: 90.703 - Min: 28 - Max: 180

Detailed system specs:

ABit AB9Pro QuadGT 965 series Motherboard
Intel Core2Duo E8400
nVidia 8800GTS 512 (G92)
2x2GB sticks OCZ Reaper DDR2 1066
(2)7200.10 320GB, (1)7200.10 640Gb HDD (1) 80GB WD for Win 7 Install (slow drive)


In game settings: Perfect, all max except object lighting medium (I don't like the canopy reflections)

The following conf.in settings were used:

[Render_OpenGL]
TexQual=3
TexMipFilter=3
TexCompress=0
TexFlags.UseDither=0
TexFlags.UseAlpha=0
TexFlags.UseIndex=0
TexFlags.PolygonStipple=1
TexFlags.UseClampedSprites=0
TexFlags.DrawLandByTriangles=0
TexFlags.UseVertexArrays=1
TexFlags.DisableAPIExtensions=0
TexFlags.ARBMultitextureExt=1
TexFlags.TexEnvCombineExt=1
TexFlags.SecondaryColorExt=1
TexFlags.VertexArrayExt=1
TexFlags.ClipHintExt=0
TexFlags.UsePaletteExt=0
TexFlags.TexAnisotropicExt=1
TexFlags.TexCompressARBExt=1

TexFlags.TexEnvCombine4NV=1
TexFlags.TexEnvCombineDot3=1
TexFlags.DepthClampNV=1
TexFlags.SeparateSpecular=1
TexFlags.TextureShaderNV=1

HardwareShaders=1

Shadows=2
Specular=1
SpecularLight=1
DiffuseLight=1
DynamicalLights=1
MeshDetail=2
VisibilityDistance=3

Sky=2
Forest=2
LandShading=3
LandDetails=2

LandGeom=2
TexLarge=1
TexLandQual=3
TexLandLarge=1

VideoSetupId=3
Water=1
Effects=2
ForceShaders1x=0

PolygonOffsetFactor=-0.15
PolygonOffsetUnits=-3.0

nVidia Driver level settings:
Anisotropic filtering:8X
Antialiasing: 2X
AA gamma correction: on
AA - Setting: Override any appliaction Setting
AA Transparency: supersampling
Conformant Texture Clamp: use hardware
Error Reporting: off
Extension Limit: off
Force Mipmaps: Trilinear
Max pre-rendered frames: 3
single display Performance mode
optimizations off
LOD bias: clamp
Texture filtering: high quality
threaded optimation: off
tripe buffering and vsynch off




*****8800GTS (512) vs GTX 285 (1024)*****

These first few benchmarks are using the same settings as those used above, but with an eVGA GTX 285 running 185.68 drivers in place of the 8800GTS 512:

Windows XP
4.08, E8400 running at 3.6 GHz, GTX 285SC at 675 MHz core, 1548 shader clocks, 2538 memory
1680x1050: 8xAF 2xAA max quality Start at 0:03 end at 2:32
Avg: 121.681 - Min: 29 - Max: 285 ::: Here I see a gain of 28.55 fps compared to the same run with the 8800GTS 512.

Windows XP
4.08, E8400 running at 3.6 GHz, GTX 285SC at 702 MHz core, 1584 shader clocks, 2646 memory (SSC speeds)
1680x1050: 8xAF 2xAA max quality Start at 0:03 end at 2:32
Avg: 122.847 - Min: 29 - Max: 284

Now going up to 1920x1200 resolution I will evaluate GPU scaling at 3.6GHz:

Windows XP
4.08, E8400 running at 3.6 GHz, GTX 285SC at 675 MHz core, 1548 shader clocks, 2538 memory
1920x1200 8xAF 2xAA max quality Start at 0:03 end at 2:32
Avg: 111.328 - Min: 29 - Max: 285

Windows XP
4.08, E8400 running at 3.6 GHz, GTX 285SC at 702 MHz core, 1584 shader clocks, 2646 memory (SSC speeds)
1920x1200 8xAF 2xAA max quality Start at 0:03 end at 2:32
Avg: 113.148 - Min: 29 - Max: 284 ::: Overclocking the GPU from SC to SSC speeds we gain 1.82fps average.

Now to see how things change with higher AA and AF settings at 1920x1200:

Windows XP
4.08, E8400 running at 3.6 GHz, GTX 285SC at 675 MHz core, 1548 shader clocks, 2538 memory
1920x1200 8xAF 8xAA max quality Start at 0:03 end at 2:32
Avg: 105.305 - Min: 28 - Max: 263 ::: So going from 2x AA-> 8x AA we lose 6.02 fps average.

Windows XP
4.08, E8400 running at 3.6 GHz, GTX 285SC at 675 MHz core, 1548 shader clocks, 2538 memory
1920x1200 16xAF 16xAA max quality Start at 0:03 end at 2:32
Avg: 98.539 - Min: 29 - Max: 256 ::: Going from 8XAA & 8xAF -> 16xAA & 16xAF  we lose 6.766 fps average.

Windows XP
4.08, E8400 running at 3.6 GHz, GTX 285SC at 675 MHz core, 1548 shader clocks, 2538 memory
1920x1200 16xAF 16xAA and Water=4 max quality Start at 0:03 end at 2:32
Avg: 83.216 - Min: 26 - Max: 222 ::: Going from Water=1 to Water=4 we lose 15.323 fps average.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 07:47:49 pm by TX-EcoDragon » Logged

S!

TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX-Gunslinger
BLACK 2
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2213


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2009, 12:37:10 am »

Cool, thanks!

Not really enough difference to speak of.  The good news is that windows 7 does not take any noticeable performance hit so that Black Shark will run at almost 2X what can be achieved in XP.

I won't be surprised if Age of Flight and Storm of War behave similarly to Black Shark.

Thanks again for all the testing!

S~

Gunny

P.S. - It's really great posting on this new TX-forum software  Grin
« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 12:47:50 am by TX-EcoDragon » Logged

Black 2 TX Flight Leader
TX-EcoDragon
BLACK 1
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3034


G's Please


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2009, 12:50:05 am »

Yeah, I didn't really know what to expect, but I had a feeling that given how IL-2 performed in Vista vs XP, that there might be a slight decrease in performance here.

Of course the difference between 90.7 and 93.13 fps is absolutely imperceptible at this resolution. SimHQ did an OS shootout between XP and Vista and saw the following: http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_110c.html

On a machine that struggles to run IL-2, perhaps the difference could matter. . .but probably not by much.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 04:22:06 am by TX-EcoDragon » Logged

S!

TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX-Gunslinger
BLACK 2
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2213


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2009, 01:15:18 am »

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
 10240,    150985,  18, 157, 67.821

Initial Il2 clocking on new system.....
Il2-res 1600 X 1200
Windows Vista 64
E8500 @ stock clock
GTX-280 @ stock clock w/ 181.22 drivers

Copied Open GL section from Eco's post into my [Render_OpenGL] section in config.ini

Duplicated Eco's Nvidea settings below:

Anisotropic filtering = 8x
Antialiasing - Gamma correction = On
Antialiasing - Mode = Enhance the application setting (?)
Antialiasing - Setting = 2x
Antialiasing - Transparency = Multisampling
Conformant texture clamp = Use OpenGL specification
Error rept and Extension limit both off
Force mipmaps  = None
Maximum pre-rendered frames = 8
Multi-display/mixed-GPU acceleration = Single display performance mode
Texture filtering = Off
Texture filtering - Negative LOD bias = Clamp
Texture filtering - Quality = High quality
Texture filtering - Trilinear optimization = Off
Threaded optimization = Off
Triple buffering = On
Texture filtering - Aniso mip filter optim = Off
Vertical sync = Force off

=================

Look ok?  This is blazing speed for me...

S~

Gunny
Logged

Black 2 TX Flight Leader
TX-EcoDragon
BLACK 1
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3034


G's Please


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2009, 01:46:10 am »

Set Antialiasing Mode to override the application setting, at enhance AA will be off in IL-2. Also, how did you come to use the value of 8 for maximum pre-rendered frames? On your machine I think you would be better off closer to the default of 3. You can verify this by looking at frame rate volatility.


Logged

S!

TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
GOZR
Guest
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2009, 01:48:36 am »

You need to seriously revise this settings and it will be fun  .. Wink  look also in IOCL into Eco's set or the one on il2 corner
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 02:05:47 am by GOZR » Logged
TX-Thunderbolt
BLACK 7
TX-Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 818



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2009, 11:37:48 am »

Did you, by any chance, do a comparison of Vista and Win7?
Logged
TX-EcoDragon
BLACK 1
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3034


G's Please


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2009, 04:28:30 pm »

I don't have Vista, and since I've got 7, I don't imagine I'll get that chance - it's hard to justify buying a copy just for BlackShark, and right before 7 comes out!

That said, word on the street seems to be that 7 is just a little faster than Vista overall. . .it would indeed be fun to see how much faster it is though!
Logged

S!

TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX-EcoDragon
BLACK 1
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3034


G's Please


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2009, 05:11:04 am »

OP updated with 8800GTS vs GTX 285SC results.
Logged

S!

TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX-Thunderbolt
BLACK 7
TX-Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 818



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2009, 12:48:07 pm »

Thanks for the update Eco.  It all helps.
Logged
TX-ColSabeth
Guest
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2009, 03:18:03 pm »

From my experience thus far they have fixed the crippled TCPIP stack in Vista, without my intervention of course ! Smiley.  Overall 7 is peppy with a few minor configuration changes to calm down the gui-riffic cartoon interface in the new aero.. Windows wanting to be linux.. or mac, its incredible, but it works.

TX-ColSabeth
Black8
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: