Redwolf Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I am curious how CMAK performs on different processors. Obviously, that mostly affects the combat resolution, so lets benchmark that if you are interested. if this is your thing, please post how long your computer takes to compute this example turn. I made a test scenario to have mostly defined conditions: http://schlepper.hanse.de/tmp/bench3a.cmg a copy is on http://redwolf.dyndns.org/tmp/bench3a.cmg Instructions to use: - get a stopwatch - load file (it's a saved game) - [EDIT] Press Shift-S until sound is "off" - press "GO" without giving any orders - start stopwatch AFTER the "computer player thinking" box disappears, that means when the blue bar at the bottom starts - stop the stopwatch when the blue bar disappears. Not when it is full, when it disappears Please run it a number of times, about 5, then post: - the times you got for the blue bar without computer player - what kind of CPU you have, clockspeed - overclocked, if yes what is original and what is overclock speed? - how much RAM? - (EDITED to add: how fast is your RAM, e.g. "333 MHz" or "800 MHz dual-channel") - (EDITED to add: if you know, the processor core you have (Prescott, Thunderbird etc.) or if you don't know that, post your cache sizes and socket) My results: - AMD Athlon XP 2500+ (runs at 1800 MHz), Barton core - not overclocked - 512 MB RAM at 333 MHz My times: 55, 58, 58, 55 and 59 seconds. [ August 31, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Results after five tests -Power Mac G4 1.2Ghz (Sonnet Encore/ST G4 upgrade card) -not overclocked -512MB RAM TImes: 1m:35s, 1m:29s, 1m:35s, 1m:30s, 1m:31s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabpub Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Pentium 1.6 1 GB Ram 3:04 2:55 I got tired after that...bed time... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_UXcva Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 -Power Mac G4 800DP -Not overclocked -1.6GB RAM Times w/sound = off_1:58, 2:01, 2:07, 2:09, 2:11 Times w/sound = on_2:55, 2:58, 3:00, 3:02, 3:11 [ August 31, 2004, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: _UXcva ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 P-IV 2.4 (not overclocked) / 1GB Ram / W2K with sound: 2:03 / 1:59 without sound 1:54 Then I got bored... Those times are quite a bit longer than Redwolf's and Panzerman's, even though their CPU's are slower than the one I have, and they both have half the RAM I have. Now why is that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 512 MB or 1 GB doesn't matter for this test. Only if you are very short it should become an issue. I didn't measure how much this turn takes but it is very likely much less than 128 MB. I wonder why you have a different time with and without sound. The combat resolution computation shouldn't be affected and the game is playing no sound. Very odd. I am not in front of my computer to see whether it's the same for me. Are you sure you only stopwatched the blue bar progress, without "Computer player thinking"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I figured RAM wouldn't have too much to do with it, but that still leaves the CPU speed difference. I tried it once without sound because _UXcva's times (the post above mine) with and without sound differ tremendously. Almost a minute! And yes, I'm sure I timed it just as you intended. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 It is not surprising that the older Pentium-4s perform bad. I had longer posts on this in the GF, but the Pentium-4 was very radically designed to make some code run very fast, and leave other code behind. On top of that, P4s depend heavily on fast RAM but early P-4 systems have slow RAM, some every 133 MHz RAM (and not RDRAM either). My employer's main product performed as fast on a 2.4 GHz Pentium-4 as on a 1 GHz Pentium-3 before I went optimizing it. By now, things are fine on 2.8GHz Xeons for us, but if a codebase was optimized for earlier CPUs and never P4'ed you can expect bad performance on older P4s. There is a 322 page manual about how to code so that it runs fast on a P4. http://www.intel.com/design/pentium4/papers/24943801.pdf %% I would be very curious to see how CMAK performs on an AMD-64 processor (in 32 bit mode obviously) and on Celerons. [ August 31, 2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ales Dvorak Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 -I book G3 600 MHz -RAM 640 MB -not overclocked 1) 4.35 2) 4.31 3) 4.45 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by Juju: P-IV 2.4 (not overclocked) / 1GB Ram / W2K with sound: 2:03 / 1:59 without sound 1:54 Then I got bored... Those times are quite a bit longer than Redwolf's and Panzerman's, even though their CPU's are slower than the one I have, and they both have half the RAM I have. Now why is that? Juju, it is generally know that a Mac's speed is faster than a compairable PC, and they may not messure the CPU speeds the same way, although I don't know why. At the peak, I believe CM was useing only 85-100MB of RAM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoSimonds Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 It took me 3:04 to benchpress my CPU. Of course, most of this time was spent opening the case and taking out the CPU. I hope this helps! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 He said benchmark, not press. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AOK. 11 Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 AMD Athlon XP 3200+ 1034MB Ram Geforce 6800 GT 256MB ______________________ 52 secs 53 secs 55 secs 53 secs 54 secs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AOK. 11 Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 By the way, not overclocked 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_UXcva Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by Juju: I tried it once without sound because _UXcva's times (the post above mine) with and without sound differ tremendously. Almost a minute! Perhaps a Mac guru can pipe in with a better explanation but having the sound on and not having a dedicated sound card eats CPU resources with bigger turns like this one. Also the game doesn't take advantage of the 2nd processor which might handle some of the burden as it does in some OSX apps. I generally turn on sound only for replays on larger turns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 That is one reason my 1.2Ghz's upgrade card does well compaired to some other Mac's since it only has a single processor. Since CM doesn't take advantage of the sceond CPU, its of little use. If I turned off the sound I might find my times go faster as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platehead Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Dual Intel Pentium III 800 512 MB RAM Not overclocked Times: 1) 2:50 2) 2:45 3) 2:47 - No sound 4) 2:54 - No sound 5) 2:49 - No sound 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 AMD 2600+, not overclocked, 512 MB Ram. Average time after 5 runs: 57 seconds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mies Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Desktop machine: - AMD Athlon 1200 Mhz (overclocked to 1300 Mhz) - Windows XP Pro - 640 MB RAM Times: 1 => 1:26 2 => 1:24 3 => 1:30 4 => 1:28 5 => 1:25 Notebook: - PIII 1 Ghz - W2K - 256 MB RAM (32MB allocated for video memory) Times: 1 => 3:12 2 => 4:37 3 => 4:57 4 => 2:18 (after restarting CMAK) 5 => 3:39 6 => 2:39 (after restarting CMAK again) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Mac G4, 1.25GHz DP Not overclocked 512MB RAM 64MB Radeon 9000 1:28 or near enough for each run. Of all my gadgets, I don't have a stop watch, so I just pressed go at the minute and timed it from there. Computer thinking was up for about 2 seconds, so it's hardly a considerable error. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyewacket Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 XP / PIV 2.8 MHz / 500MB Ram 1:30 average benchmark 1:00 to loose the game 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Athlons are pretty hot at this, aren't they. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: Athlons are pretty hot at this, aren't they. The Pentium-III posted above is in the same ballpark, relatively speaking, it uses one 800MHz CPU. It is just the Pentium-4s with less than 2.8 GHz (which usually have slow RAM and old cores) that don't like the CM code. And the Macs, surprisingly :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Above 1GHz, the Macs are coming in roughly on a par with the P4s (1:30) Considering G5s won't run CM, they're not doing too bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Juju, it is generally know that a Mac's speed is faster than a compairable PC, and they may not messure the CPU speeds the same way, although I don't know whyYou have to know a little bit about what the "speed" numbers are measuring. In the case of processors, it's the clock speed. This is roughly comparable to RPM measurement of an automobile engine. It is only directly useful for comparing processors of the same type, since then the other parts of system that affect performance don't vary. That is why most cross-computer benchmarks published by Mac and PC magazines usually rely on measuring the time to do something useful like compute Excel Spreadsheets or do Photoshop filters or something like that. To push the automotive analogy a bit further: Can you figure out if a Corvette with its engine running at 2500 rpm is faster or slower than a VW Golf with its engine running at 3500 rpm? Of course not, since rpm is only one of the measures of engine "speed" and not generally the one you most care about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.