Glow Test
Community Forums/Showcase/Glow Test
| ||
| I have uploaded a slight modification of Mikailv's glow effect, and I was interested in some feedback. The file contains a 640x480 and a 1024x768 version of the test. Other than in the average FPS shown in the upper left corner, I am also looking forward to compatibility with low-end and integrated video cards. If the results are positive, I plan to use it as a substitute for the fake glow method I used so far (though it is far less heavy and more compatible, since it just quadruplicates the polycount) in a simple retro style vector engine I coded. I am basically looking for the lower system requirements. Thanks in advance! Download link: Glow Test |
| ||
| 555-561 FPS ----> 640x480 519-520 FPS ----> 1024x768 nVidia 7600GT, 512MB VRAM, WinXP Pro, 2Gig RAM, 3.2GHz |
| ||
| 640x480 :: 140FPS 1024x768 :: 114FPS nvidia EN 7200gs, 2GB ram, core2duo e4400 2.0ghz |
| ||
| 640x480 >> 150~151 1024x768 >> 140~143 nVidia 7600GS, 2GB Ram, Pentium D 2.8Mhz, WinVista |
| ||
| 640 > 305 1024 > 262 P4 2.66, 1GB Ram, ATI 9800 Pro, XP |
| ||
| 640x480 >> 157~158 1024x768 >> 121~122 centrino duo 1.83Ghz, 2gb ram, geforce go7400 |
| ||
| 640x480 >> 72 - 76 1024x768 >> 49 - 50 centrino 1.4Ghz, 1.5gb ram, Intel 915GM/910GML Integrated graphics No problems with graphics looks fine. |
| ||
| crappy onboard gfx card gave me not quite 50 fps 648 and 32 average 1024 |
| ||
| 230 FPS -> 640x480 205 FPS -> 1024x768 |
| ||
| Low-ender here. fps 27/37. Runs fine first time, second run it stops responding when I try to exit. Tried it 3 times to be sure. 1.1 Gig Duron, 384 MB RAM, ATI Radeon VE/7000, WinME. |
| ||
| 200 FPS --> 640x480 157 FPS --> 1024x768 |
| ||
| 640x480 ~1200fps 1024x768 ~1150fps 8800gts 512 @ 750/1800/2140 + Opteron 165 @ 2.8 source code? Looking good |
| ||
| 640x480 ~ 720 fps 1024x768 ~ 710 fps 9600GT Crap _33, what computer you running? |
| ||
| 640x480 ~ 620 fps 1024x768 ~ 603 fps 8800GT - AMD 64 X2 Dual-Core 5600 @ 2.92ghz |
| ||
| 640x480 ~ 430 fps 1024x768 ~ 335 fps ATI 2600 HD AMD Athlon 64 @ 2.21 GHz, 2.50 GB of RAM |
| ||
| EDIT: ??? double post - not my fault! :) |
| ||
| 640x480: 140 fps 1024x768: 110 fps Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.0GHz Memory: 1022MB RAM Windows XP Professional |
| ||
| 640x480 = 90 fps 1024x768 = 69 fps |
| ||
| Yahfree: With an INTEL Core2Duo instead of an AMD cpu, I'd probably be around 1500 fps in the 1024x768 test. The 8800gts 512 is a beast of a graphics card!!! It's basically a rebadged 9800GTX with lowered clocks. I'm sure I could overclock it some more. Doiron: You want anything in exchange for the source? I have a text engine :P |
| ||
| It looks like MikailV did an excellent job with Faxt Extend and Fast Image. I am particularly impressed by the performance on Andy_mc's centrino 1.4Ghz with the Intel 915GM/910GML Integrated chipset. By reducing the glow texture size a bit I was even able to reach 69fps with a AMD 900mhz and a GeForce2 (otherwise it reaches 40fps). It looks like that the minimum requirements for this effect are either a 1.4ghz processor with an integrated chipset, or with a AGP 32mb videocard. Really nice. Runs fine first time, second run it stops responding when I try to exit. Tried it 3 times to be sure. 1.1 Gig Duron, 384 MB RAM, ATI Radeon VE/7000, WinME. What is strange is that it stops responding after executing it for the first time. Normally I would think about a memory leak or a slow fillrate which prevents command execution, but it could depend both on WinME (which is no longer supported by recent software/drivers) or the Radeon 7000 (which is the first radeon card, right after the Rage, and had some design problems that also prevented it to support shader model 1.1). I can't suggest to try installing the latest video drivers too, since ATI doesn't update WinME since 2005. There aren't many developers which still support WinME for current projects however, and anyway I think it would run too slow with the glow on. source code? The core is really this one posted by MikailV, only stretched to whole screen resolution and with a bit of playing on the parameters for the exaggerated exposition. Plus a bunch of rotating cubes displaced always in the same pattern for testing purposes. Thanks to all, it's amazing to have such feedback in just 12 hours! |
| ||
| 537 FPS - 648X480 468 FPS - 1024X768 Pentium D (805) 2 Gig dual channel DDR2 256 MB 8600GT |
| ||
| 640x480: 197 fps 1024x768: 152 fps p4 3.2 (single core), 1gb DDR Radeon 9600/x1050 |
| ||
| 640x480: 976 fps 1024x768: 802 fps Xeon 5150 4x2.66(single core), 3gb DDR2 QuadroFX 3500 |
| ||
| It's so sad how you have to build a new computer every 2 years. Mine was smokin' fast when I built it, now it is a dinosaur - people getting 2 to 10+ times the FPS I got. Ouch. |
| ||
| 640x480: 415 fps 1024x768: 330 fps intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz ATI Radeon X1650XT |
| ||
| 640 x 480: 823 fps 1024 x 768: 797 fps Intel Core2 Duo 2.4 GHz ATI Radeon HD3870 |
| ||
| My dinosaur beats your dinosaur. :) |
| ||
| Confusing results from here: 640 x 480: 280fps with glow, 2454 without 1024 x 768: 292fps with glow, 2480 without Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @2.4GHz 3Gb DDR2 2xGeForce 8800GT 512MB SLi 640 x 480: 169fps with glow, 710 without 1024 x 768: 130fps with glow, 530 without AMD Athlon XP 2100+ @1.7GHz 1Gb DDR GeForce FX5600 256MB 640 x 480: 299 with glow, 1026 without 1024 x 768:249 with glow, 1030 without Intel P4 (single core) 3.2GHz 2.5Gb DDR GeForce 8500GT 512MB Hope the range helps. :) |
| ||
| 800x600 1830 --- 740 1024x768 1890 --- 720 |
| ||
| >It's so sad how you have to build a new computer every 2 years. Mine was smokin' fast when I built it, now it is a dinosaur - people getting 2 to 10+ times the FPS I got. Ouch. Technology is constantly having breakthroughs, you can't expect anything to be #1 for long. That's why when I buy a computer, I buy top of the line, blah blah. So that 2 years later, it's still decent |
| ||
| VMSteadman, your results are obviously weird, mostly those of the 8800GT SLi setup! |
| ||
| _33 You're telling me! I have no problems with any games and such. I did benchmark it with 3d mark when I first got the setup, and it came up with a good ranking (can't remember the score), so I am really puzzled with this result. It would be interesting to know if b3d fully supposts SLi and more impotantly what is in Doiron's demo that causes my pc so much pain? Mind you, it is a Vista machine... ...we may never know... Smilertoo: I am curious does your machine see the full 4gb? If so does that mean you're using 64bit Vista? I ask, because I too have 4gb, but have learned that non-64bit os's (XP and Vista) can only recognise up to 3Gb. I opted against 64bit, because of compatibility. It's bad enough that some of my games don't like Vista, never mind 64bit. |
| ||
| Vista has monopoly-abusing opengl performance limiter, which slows down all the opengl games so that people will have to use dx10 (which was monopoly-abused and locked out of windows xp too). However, I don't know whether this demo is using opengl. |
| ||
| I don't know whether this demo is using opengl. Blitz3D is D3D only. |
| ||
| It is not, however I didn't know it was using Blitz3D. |
| ||
| It would be interesting to know if b3d fully supposts SLi This could be the problem, I wonder if other people tested out SLI performance with B3D in the past. However, the SLI setup still performs well enough for my purposes. and more impotantly what is in Doiron's demo that causes my pc so much pain? Apart from common and simple b3d instructions, the functions are using two external dll's. The problem could either lie into b3d, the external dll's, or your system setup. Mind you, it is a Vista machine... Vista here too, everything working fine. Vista has monopoly-abusing opengl performance limiter, which slows down all the opengl games so that people will have to use dx10 Here we have another anti-microsoft fondamentalist. Some people (expecially linux users) should learn that you can't win through misinformation. Take a look here: http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_9/ If you don't want to lose this edge you can always disable Aero. And these tables refer to april 20, 2007, so by now drivers and games should have even improved the situation. Please don't reply from speculation articles written two years ago during the beta (also because it would be off topic since it is a DX7 test). |
| ||
| WMSteadman: I ran the test again in 1024x768. Without glow I get around 2550 fps, with glow I get 1150 fps. My Nvidia settings are Antialias: 4x, multisample: transparency, anisotropic: 16x, texture filter: quality, mipmap: trilinear, thread optimisation: on. I don't think Blitz3D uses your SLi capabilities. |
| ||
| I don't think Blitz3D uses your SLi capabilities. I think he was referring to the fact that it could hamper performance if SLI is not supported (as it happens with some games, such as NFS Most Wanted). |
| ||
| My thoughts exactly. I agree though, even without proper SLI support, it runs well enough for my projects too. |
| ||
| Here we have another anti-microsoft fondamentalist. Some people (expecially linux users) should learn that you can't win through misinformation. Your source proves that performance is generally better in XP, so maybe you should learn to read your sources? P.S. What is a fondamentalist? |
| ||
| P.S. What is a fondamentalist? It's someone that bases his life on things that he is fond of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist |
| ||
| Neat effect, but like most full screen effects made up for/with B3D its too slow for realtime use on common systems imo. |
| ||
| It's someone that bases his life on things that he is fond of. I would say that it is a blind belief (such as a crusade against a company) which leads a person to distort reality if proof is against his beliefs. Nawi, I'm sorry for being rude: it's just that I prefer to stick on facts and this is a common MS hater argument based on ideological beliefs. Your source proves that performance is generally better in XP, so maybe you should learn to read your sources? I wouldn't call an average 5% decrease in performance with technical reasons described in detail directly on the opengl.org website a voluntary limit which forces users to use DX10 instead of OpenGL (also because most users don't have a DX10 card yet). I have also said how to retrieve the small gap, and how the situation refers at least to one year old articles. @RifRaf: I think that this test proves the opposite... usually games which have bloom had higher requirements (even old ones such as Prince of Persia Sands of Time). |
| ||
| 640x480 :: 75 FPS 1024x768 :: 48 FPS Strange.. if i turn of the glow fx it runs at 1500 fps :D |
| ||
| 640x480 - 618-630 Fps 1024x768 - 545-555 Fps AthlonX2 4000+, 2Gb DDR2 800, GF8600GT 256Mb Sonic+ |
   |