Are you a spammer

Please note, that the first 3 posts you make, will need to be approved by a forum Administrator or Moderator before they are publicly viewable.
Each application to join this forum is checked at the Stop Forum Spam website. If the email or IP address appears there when checked, you will not be allowed to join this forum.
If you get past this check and post spam on this forum, your posts will be immediately deleted and your account inactivated.You will then be banned and your IP will be submitted to your ISP, notifying them of your spamming. So your spam links will only be seen for an hour or two at most. In other words, don't waste your time and ours.

This forum is for the use and enjoyment of the members and visitors looking to learn about and share information regarding the topics listed. It is not a free-for-all advertising venue. Your time would be better spent pursuing legitimate avenues of promoting your websites.

Graphics

Post your benchmarks here...


Re: Graphics

Postby aperrigo » Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:42 pm

104180 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20835.977 FPS
103404 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20680.793 FPS
104210 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20841.896 FPS
104308 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20861.500 FPS
103751 frames in 5.0 seconds = 20750.068 FPS

I want more SPEED SCOTTY....
" I can't reach the Panel Captain...I AM TO FAT"

Just a comical moment from the Family Guy.
Intel Quad Processor 9450 2.6 Ghz
Microsoft Windows Vista x64*(Service Pack 1, v.668)
Ultimate Ubuntu Edition 1.8 x64
XFX Nvidia n790i Ultra
1 * Nvidia PNY Geforce GX280 1 GHz 1GB
4GB DDR3 Corsair at 1333MHz
1 * Western Digital Velociraptor 300 GB SATA 3.0 Gbps Vista Drive
1 * Western Digital 320 GB SATA 3.0 Gbps*Linux Drive
2 * Western Digital Raptor 10000 RPM SATA 1.5 Gbps* Game Drive (RAID 0)
I like answers that aren't correct from politicians
User avatar
aperrigo
U.E. Graduate
U.E. Graduate
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:33 am
Location: Gallatin, TN 37066
Age: 37
Operating System: Ultimate Edition 3.2 64 BIT



Re: Graphics

Postby Zero Prime » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:36 pm

Zero Prime wrote:Not the best. Nvidia 6200 128MB

6005 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1200.974 FPS
6022 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1204.394 FPS
5867 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1173.116 FPS
5994 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1198.628 FPS
6015 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1202.907 FPS
5997 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1199.384 FPS

At least that's with CF running.


This was my old one. My new one here is using the AMD 780G chipset with onboard graphics.

7039 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1407.659 FPS
8301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1660.149 FPS
8283 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1656.589 FPS
8296 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1659.023 FPS

Nice improvement considering I went from dedicated graphics to integrated.
Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!
Windows 7 64bit / Ultimate Edition 2.5
AMD Phenom 945 3.0Ghz Quad core
Foxconn A7GM-S AM2+/AM2 AMD 780G HDMI
HIS ATI 4670 1Gig
6GB DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800
Seagate 250gig HD
Thermaltake Xaser V case
User avatar
Zero Prime
U.E. Master
U.E. Master
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Sumter, SC
Age: 43
Operating System: Ultimate Edition 3.2 64 BIT



Re: Graphics

Postby red_team316 » Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:00 pm

112337 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22467.318 FPS
112787 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22557.270 FPS
110607 frames in 5.0 seconds = 22121.264 FPS
108122 frames in 5.0 seconds = 21624.344 FPS

2 EVGA 8800 GTS 512MB Cards in SLI
EVGA 780i Mobo
Core i7 920(working on a decent OC), x58 ASUS P6T Deluxe V2, 6GB DDR3 1600, EVGA 8800GTS512, Silencer 750W PSU, CoolerMaster V8, Red Antec900
Image
User avatar
red_team316
U.E. College Professor
U.E. College Professor
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:37 am
Age: 35
Operating System: Ultimate Edition 3.2 64 BIT



Re: Graphics

Postby moshe » Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:38 pm

24207 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4841.268 FPS
25353 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5070.461 FPS
24064 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4812.635 FPS
23604 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4720.781 FPS

Nvidia GeForce 5900FX

nothing to brag about.Sometimes, it even allows me to run compiz :D
MSI Motherboard Dual core P4 3.0 GHz,2GB DDR ram,Nvidia GeForce FX 256 MB,WD SATA 300 500GBx2 RAID 0,WD 80GB SATA
"If you acquire knowledge,what do you lack?...If you lack knowledge,what have you acquired?
moshe
U.E. Knowledgable
U.E. Knowledgable
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 6:58 pm
Location: Fulton,MS
Age: 62
Operating System: Ultimate Edition 2.2 64 BIT



Re: Graphics

Postby GNU-stuff-Rocks » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:28 am

1318 frames in 5.0 seconds = 263.548 FPS
1380 frames in 5.0 seconds = 273.570 FPS
1360 frames in 5.1 seconds = 269.129 FPS
1280 frames in 5.0 seconds = 253.779 FPS
1380 frames in 5.0 seconds = 275.085 FPS
1380 frames in 5.0 seconds = 274.519 FPS
1380 frames in 5.0 seconds = 274.866 FPS

Dell Inspiron | 1000 Craptop
- Celeron @ 2.2GHz
- 700Mbz hard RAM
- 64Mb onboard video -- | - And... from the System Information applett; VGA compatible controller : Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] 65x/M650/740 PCI/AGP VGA Display Adapter
GNU-stuff-Rocks
U.E. Knowledgable
U.E. Knowledgable
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:39 am
Operating System: Ultimate Edition 3.2 32 BIT



Re: Graphics

Postby jnalli » Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:39 am

8967 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1793.341 FPS
8748 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1749.569 FPS
9982 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1992.495 FPS
9353 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1870.542 FPS
8555 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1708.740 FPS
10215 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2042.004 FPS
9295 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1858.948 FPS
9447 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1889.389 FPS
9415 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1882.932 FPS
9169 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1833.738 FPS
9372 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1874.360 FPS
9783 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1956.534 FPS
9307 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1859.869 FPS
8204 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1638.634 FPS
7440 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1487.997 FPS
9496 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1895.401 FPS
9258 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1850.329 FPS
8843 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1768.395 FPS
9071 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1813.837 FPS
9066 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1812.396 FPS
8535 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1706.971 FPS
8727 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1742.934 FPS
7862 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1571.377 FPS
8288 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1656.873 FPS
9304 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1860.391 FPS
9231 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1846.098 FPS
6849 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1369.730 FPS
8685 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1736.973 FPS
7786 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1557.075 FPS
Windows Vista
ASUS MB Compaq Presario Computer
AMD Athlon 64
Nvidia Geforce 210
4 Gb RAM
250 Gb SATA drive
User avatar
jnalli
U.E. College Professor
U.E. College Professor
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:07 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 49
Operating System: Ultimate Edition 3.2 64 BIT



Re: Graphics

Postby dontgvadamn » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:41 pm

Code: Select all
37614 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7522.694 FPS
38621 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7724.067 FPS
38220 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7643.949 FPS
37513 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7502.574 FPS
36872 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7374.283 FPS
37773 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7554.485 FPS
33445 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6688.805 FPS


These are better results than I get in Vista running Benchmark

Ati FireGL v5600.....I wish FireGL could use crossfire.
Case: Thermaltake Kandalf LCS
Motherboard: Asus Maximus Extreme
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Ram: 2GB OCZ 1600 DDR3
Video Card: ATI FireGl v5600
Sound Card: Supreme FXII
Cooling: D-Tek Fuzion CPU waterblock, Danger Den Black Ice GT 360, Swiftech MCP655 pump, Stock NB/SB maximus cooler, 4 120mm Thermaltake Fans, 2 80mm themtake fans
Power Supply: Ultra Extreme 2 700watt
Hard Drives: 1 Samsung 1TB SATA 7200rpm
Bay Devises: Thermaltake Fan controler, Sony DVD R/RW, Pioneer CD/DVD
Display: Dual 22" widescreen
4 bays filled........8 Bays still free

dontgvadamn
U.E. Newbie
U.E. Newbie
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:41 pm
Age: 40
Operating System: Ultimate Edition 3.1 64 BIT



Re: Graphics

Postby Driver » Sun Sep 06, 2009 5:29 pm

get fences failed: -1
param: 6, val: 0
885 frames in 5.0 seconds = 176.901 FPS
908 frames in 5.0 seconds = 181.434 FPS
917 frames in 5.0 seconds = 183.312 FPS
919 frames in 5.0 seconds = 183.685 FPS

Crappy intel built-in graphics on HP dv6226us laptop. I knew it was bad but I didn't know it was that bad. I guess I won't be playing any games in linux - or running any screensavers either.
User avatar
Driver
U.E. College Professor
U.E. College Professor
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:28 am
Location: Redneckville, WV, USA
Operating System: Other Linux



Re: Graphics

Postby Admin-Amir » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:00 am

Driver
use my HOW TO to FIX your card to work.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3607

After you have the HOW TO done with the process,
ADD the repo of 9.10 to your

Code: Select all
sudo gedit /etc/apt/sources.list


Code: Select all
deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-x-swat/x-updates/ubuntu karmic main
deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-x-swat/x-updates/ubuntu karmic main
Admin-Amir
 



Re: Graphics

Postby Driver » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:38 am

Thank you! I have now followed your How-to as best I was able. There were a couple of things that I did not understand.
please pay attention to this line it is critical issue:
Option "Tiling" "true" # i8xx users: set to false
if your video card is from the old one then i8xx use false!!
if your video card is newer then that please use true!!


I do not know how to determine if mine is from the old one or if it is newer so I left it as it was was written.

The last step will be to open synaptic,and mark all upgrade and apply.
that will upgrade the all process for the cards and the same thing to Nvidia/ATI.


I assumed you meant Synaptic Package Manager. I ran it and looked under all three Graphics headings (*, * multiverse, * universe) using Intel as the search word. I did not see anything. Then I thought it might be that you were referring to Update Manager because you used the term "upgrade," so I ran that. It did not find tell me of any upgrades that I needed. So I am still unsure that I did what you were intending.

However, my graphics performance seems to have increased:
get fences failed: -1
param: 6, val: 0
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately 1/25 the monitor refresh rate.
1640 frames in 5.0 seconds = 327.845 FPS
1606 frames in 5.0 seconds = 321.198 FPS
1614 frames in 5.0 seconds = 322.726 FPS
1607 frames in 5.0 seconds = 321.273 FPS

Still not in the thousands like the others but I will happily take the improvement. Although I am still afraid to run games or to try picking any affects (I selected one to do something when I minimized the windows and it made everything draw as black blocks and I had to reinstall Ultimate Edition to get back the ability to use Gnome as everything I did just drew black blocks and I couldn't find my way blind back to the proper program/menu/option to turn it off) but perhaps I will not be afraid now to go through the list of screensavers.

EDIT: I forgot to add the steps that you mentioned in your post in this thread. After doing so and rebooting my scores have gotten a little better:
get fences failed: -1
param: 6, val: 0
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be
approximately 1/25 the monitor refresh rate.
2291 frames in 5.0 seconds = 458.035 FPS
2011 frames in 5.0 seconds = 402.139 FPS
1666 frames in 5.0 seconds = 333.044 FPS
1667 frames in 5.0 seconds = 333.187 FPS

Should I try changing the "false" line to true?
User avatar
Driver
U.E. College Professor
U.E. College Professor
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:28 am
Location: Redneckville, WV, USA
Operating System: Other Linux

PreviousNext

Return to Benchmarks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron