Broken Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade: In fact, my highest performance related frustration for CMAK is the long wait to load the graphics. To solve this you need fast harddisks. And if you put two or more together in a RAID-0 (stripe) you will get much better performance. Another (brutal) solution is to use a network server which holds all the BMPs in RAM, connected via Gigabit ethernet to the Windows machine. If you have enough RAM, say two gigabytes, you can probably load CMAK from a RAMdisk in one Gigabyte. I don't know whether Win2k or XP allow you to create a RAM-disk which is never paged out. But the strip/RAID-0 will probably do good enough. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Redwolf, as regards this benchmarking stuff: When will I know if I've won or not, and what prizes will be distributed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 The person with the fastest Speed has to buy everyone else a new computer of their choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy Lurking Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Speed ups Question - On my Rig (B&WG3/400) will any or all of the following upgrade options be worthwhile? Maybe getting in the wrong forum I guess, but is to do with cpu speed! Install - I Gig cpu (G3 or G4) Install - SATA PCI control card and hard disc Install - Radeon 9200/128 PCI graphics card Yeah I know, or buy a new computer (I am waiting till the "Apple/Battlefront/Graphics standoff" is resolved - ie when CM2 comes around Meanwhile any advice based on experience would be welcomed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 4, 2004 Author Share Posted September 4, 2004 Originally posted by Seanachai: Redwolf, as regards this benchmarking stuff: When will I know if I've won or not, and what prizes will be distributed? Whoever wins sets up his computer so that we can calculate our turns on his rig. Kind of like seti-at-home, just wax-the-panther-at-home. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 4, 2004 Author Share Posted September 4, 2004 Originally posted by Kilroy Lurking: On my Rig (B&WG3/400) will any or all of the following upgrade options be worthwhile? Maybe getting in the wrong forum I guess, but is to do with cpu speed! Install - I Gig cpu (G3 or G4) Install - SATA PCI control card and hard disc Install - Radeon 9200/128 PCI graphics card Forget the disk for games, except if the loading time is annoying. And forget about fancy IDE-133 or something, most modern disks are between 20 and 40 MB/sec so an old controller doesn't hurt much. What graphics card do you currently have? In any case, you probably have old CPU and old graphics, in that case you always upgrade the CPU first. Because a fast CPU can do much stuff on its own (like the combat resolution benchmarked here), while a fast graphics card is always useless when the CPU cannot feed it fast enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy Lurking Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Hi Redwolf! What graphics card do you currently have? I upgraded to a Radeon 7000Mac Edition (32MB) from the original 16MB card. Apart from the slow load/number crunching times everything is OK. (Hell, who really wants to play UT2004, Halo etc...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Originally posted by Kilroy Lurking: Speed ups Question - On my Rig (B&WG3/400) will any or all of the following upgrade options be worthwhile? Maybe getting in the wrong forum I guess, but is to do with cpu speed! Install - I Gig cpu (G3 or G4) Install - SATA PCI control card and hard disc Install - Radeon 9200/128 PCI graphics card Yeah I know, or buy a new computer (I am waiting till the "Apple/Battlefront/Graphics standoff" is resolved - ie when CM2 comes around Meanwhile any advice based on experience would be welcomed. You have a G3 so you can get a G4 upgrade card. (My 1.2Ghz card was $599 Cdn.)(I had a G4 400Mhz before I upgraded) Now most Mac dealers will tell you that its not worth it (they want to sell you a new Mac that will only run OSX) but if stick an upgrade in your current Machine you can still run in OS9. I think the biggest upgrade you can put in a G3 is a 800Mhz G4. I'm not sure though, you might have to go to a local Apple dealer to be sure. You can install new hard disks (You can put three total in a G3 B&W). Mac hard disks run in the $100 range all the way up to $160 Cdn. Newer Radeons do have trouble with CM, you may wont to look in the tech support forum about that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy Lurking Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Thanks Panzerman! I'll go into this in greater depth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Bolt Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Athlon 1600+ 256M Memory Win 2000 88sec 92sec 90sec 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamy Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 I get, 1.03; 0.59; 1.01; 1.01 AMD Athlon XP 2600+ (runs at 1640 MHz), Barton core - not overclocked - 512 MB RAM PC2100 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 On my Athlon 2600+ with the sound on, 1 GIG of RAM with an FX 5200 Vid Card... 59.14 seconds! Hey it ain't so bad... Could be trying to time "To the Volga"... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Ooh yeah... Who won? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 richie, what do you think of your fx5200? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Hmmmm.... It's a Sparkle, noisy fan and intermittently jerky on heavy action but the pictures are real pertty' for the most part. GeForce Chip. For $89 Dollars Australian I can't complain! To be honest it's not the best card I've seen but it sure ain't the worst! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco QNS Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 P 4 2 Ghz 256 Mb RAM 2:02 2:00 2:07 1:57 1:57 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 5, 2004 Author Share Posted September 5, 2004 Now, did somebody figure out a way to reliably measure framerate so that we can benchmark graphic cards? I think there is an independent utility but the name escapes me right now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: Now, did somebody figure out a way to reliably measure framerate so that we can benchmark graphic cards? I think there is an independent utility but the name escapes me right now. Would that be FRAPS ( Fraps.com )? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthias Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 intel cpus are normally slower then their amd counterparts, a intel 4 3.2 ghz cpu is only as fast as a 2 ghz amd xp cpu, the amds chips can do more calulations per cycle, thats why they might be slower but they give better marks, ps if u want to upgrade to a 64 bit cpu, only get a amd chip at the moment, as intels own 64 cpu is just a copy of amds, in fact they pay amd to use it. (ps i don't work for amd ) actually about mac's, i whouldn't say their faster then their pc counterparts, its just all mac's are SCSI (which is faster then a pc's IDE) and unless someone tunes up their XP/win 98 then the mac OS uses alot less resouces normally, thats why a 800 mhz mac seems faster then a 800 mhz pc, but their not 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daman324 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Last time I checked macs used IDE, the newer G5's use SATA I believe. I have IDE, SCSI and SATA in my PC. Macs can have all three too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthias Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 well the last 30 mac's i checked had scsi, tho that could have been part of the college's deal, i just thought it was their standard, yes both mac's and 3 can have all 3 of them, i never said they couldn't tho?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Is someone gunna tabluate the results? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 i tried it again with everything off. no sound both tests. 2:07 movie playback only took 60 seconds first time i've watched it. what a zoo! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 ATA (whatever that is) is what the hard disk is under on both of my Macs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 6, 2004 Author Share Posted September 6, 2004 Macs had SCSI for a reasonably long time. They even had notebooks with 2.5" SCSI disks, a real pain to get a new (bigger) disk for. Modern SCSI is not faster than modern ATA, but you get more professional equipment for it, better RAID controllers with less busload, and they have better drivers in server-oriented operating systems like Linux, FreeBSD etc. Also note that the current speed of the ATA and SCSI interfaces is much more than the disks deliver. IDE-133 or SATA-150 disks usually don't give more than 55 MB/sec off the surfaces. The whole point is moot for privately owned hardware at this time because a RAID-0 with three SATA disks arrives at the maximum throughput that the 33MHz PCI bus delivers easily. Only dedicated server boards have 66 MHz PCI slots, and if it is a network server then you also need to get the Ethernet off the PCI bus (e.g. Intel's CAS chips). Can I have a show of hands who would participiate in a benchmark of video cards? We would need to find a standard scenario and then do a standard movement over the map while FRAPS is running. 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.