|
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 17 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
Xenoc wrote: Thought a few of you might like some numbers. Yeah, I have got to get a proper benchmark released that really reflects performance of dual and quad cores. Those scores really show how perftest was made for slower CPU's, but it is the best people have for now. I've always said perftest doesn't give fast hardware accurate granularity in it's tests results, well I may not have said it that way.  Interestingly Anandtech said the engineers suggested a new method for testing: anandtech wrote: We've changed our Supreme Commander benchmark a bit at the advice of Gas Powered Games' senior engineers. We created a skirmish with 7 AI players and let them duke it out for almost 30 minutes, we saved the replay and then measured the amount of time it took to playback the recording at maximum gamespeed (+10).
I consider that having it's flaws as well, but what can you do. Like AA settings do something real strange to that running length I think, and the AI/pathfinding may not be running like normal.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Xenoc
|
Posted: 17 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 16 Feb, 2007 Posts: 4494 Location: UK
|
|
Maybe we should find a big replay on the vault and use it as a standard. That way at least everyone gets exactly the same game. Put it to +10, see how long it takes, don't move the camera from a fully zoomed out view with view of all players enabled.
Problem then is that it gets broken every patch.
_________________
 http://lithics.wordpress.com Invented the BBQ
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Spooky
|
Posted: 17 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 9774 Location: Austria
|
|
I like andantech's approach, since it uses the AI heavily, causing even more CPU load.
_________________ TF2 • Demigod • FA
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Xenoc
|
Posted: 17 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 16 Feb, 2007 Posts: 4494 Location: UK
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 17 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
Xenoc wrote: Maybe we should find a big replay on the vault and use it as a standard. That way at least everyone gets exactly the same game. Put it to +10, see how long it takes, don't move the camera from a fully zoomed out view with view of all players enabled.
Problem then is that it gets broken every patch.
I will be finishing my benchmark shortly, I was hoping to release it with a front end, that won't happen due to time constraints. Infact I am working on it in a little while, so it should be soon. You need good intense simultaneous battles because they add huge strain. People do that much more in 2 vs 2 or FFA than just AI, my benchmark reflects simultaneous battles for an intense CPU test.
But I tell you this if you, using that methodology above, I think Core Maximizer will look pretty damn good. 
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 17 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
Spooky wrote: I like andantech's approach, since it uses the AI heavily, causing even more CPU load.
Like I said, it has it's drawbacks though. I'll put my test up against that method. 
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Xenoc
|
Posted: 17 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 16 Feb, 2007 Posts: 4494 Location: UK
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 17 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
Xenoc wrote: Looking forward to seeing it Boris - good work 
I've had a goal to making a test that scales, having 3 sections in increasing complexity, where new squads get spawned and go straight to war, I think something like that could be awesome to properly reflect low end to high end hardware, but that will have to wait. It's in my plans for when a front end is complete.
I had a front end I made for myself in beta with batch benchmark testing with multiple settings, just never got around to polishing it for public. If all goes well, some day. I've got a huge multi-month project that is eating my time.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Spooky
|
Posted: 17 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 9774 Location: Austria
|
Front end  . Even though you have "time constraints"... you seem to have way too much time 
_________________ TF2 • Demigod • FA
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 17 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
Spooky wrote: Front end  . Even though you have "time constraints"... you seem to have way too much time 
A lot of my tools are just the product of R&D work on bigger projects or other past stuff. Atleast the R&D bears some fruit, where normally it doesn't.
Besides, I haven't worked on the front end since beta, but I have a doc of my plans around here somewhere.
Enough of my spamming for now. 
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
dcbo89
|
Posted: 18 Jul, 2007
|
|
Joined: 16 Apr, 2007 Posts: 2037
|
|
im on vista but i have UAC disabled, do i need to update to 1.01 because it seems to be working.
_________________ Disclaimer: Sarcasm often used
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 18 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
dcbo89 wrote: im on vista but i have UAC disabled, do i need to update to 1.01 because it seems to be working.
Not like upgrading takes any longer than writing a post but no, mostly just forcing administrative privileges in .01
You can't interact with processes and threads without admin privileges.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Maktube
|
Posted: 19 Jul, 2007
|
|
Joined: 12 Jul, 2007 Posts: 25 Location: California
|
|
I'm running vista home premium, 2.13GHz core 2 duo, 4GB of RAM (not that it can use all of it, but I do get about 3+1/3) and the latest drivers and such. I got the maximizer, and ran it, but I didn't hear a beep or see a difference in either game play or core usage, since fps was the same and it was still about 90/10% core 0/1. I was sure to run as an admin, and I didn't get any error message. Only thing I can think of is that I changed my OS boot file to enable 3GB ram for apps, and supcom.exe to flag it as a large-RAM app. Could that have something to do with it, or am I missing something else?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 19 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
Maktube wrote: I'm running vista home premium, 2.13GHz core 2 duo, 4GB of RAM (not that it can use all of it, but I do get about 3+1/3) and the latest drivers and such. I got the maximizer, and ran it, but I didn't hear a beep or see a difference in either game play or core usage, since fps was the same and it was still about 90/10% core 0/1. I was sure to run as an admin, and I didn't get any error message. Only thing I can think of is that I changed my OS boot file to enable 3GB ram for apps, and supcom.exe to flag it as a large-RAM app. Could that have something to do with it, or am I missing something else?
Well it requires the executable to be of the same name as the original. If you renamed it for the 3GB fix you can rename it to the original, it is safe now with their current patching system to keep it the same name. I am assuming that is your issue. I'll update the 3GB workaround topic sometime soon not to have to rename the exe anymore, just back up the original.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Maktube
|
Posted: 19 Jul, 2007
|
|
Joined: 12 Jul, 2007 Posts: 25 Location: California
|
MadBoris wrote: Maktube wrote: I'm running vista home premium, 2.13GHz core 2 duo, 4GB of RAM (not that it can use all of it, but I do get about 3+1/3) and the latest drivers and such. I got the maximizer, and ran it, but I didn't hear a beep or see a difference in either game play or core usage, since fps was the same and it was still about 90/10% core 0/1. I was sure to run as an admin, and I didn't get any error message. Only thing I can think of is that I changed my OS boot file to enable 3GB ram for apps, and supcom.exe to flag it as a large-RAM app. Could that have something to do with it, or am I missing something else? Well it requires the executable to be of the same name as the original. If you renamed it for the 3GB fix you can rename it to the original, it is safe now with their current patching system to keep it the same name. I am assuming that is your issue. I'll update the 3GB workaround topic sometime soon not to have to rename the exe anymore, just back up the original.
I tried that, still no beep, but I did notice that before the maimizer, core usage was 90/10, and after it, though there was no beep or performance chage, usage had flipped, and was 10/90.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 19 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
|
Is their an errorlog.txt file with the Core Maximizer?
if not, it is likely something like being the wrong name.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Maktube
|
Posted: 19 Jul, 2007
|
|
Joined: 12 Jul, 2007 Posts: 25 Location: California
|
MadBoris wrote: Is their an errorlog.txt file with the Core Maximizer? if not, it is likely something like being the wrong name.
Nope, just the .exe and the .manifest files. I'm using a shortcut to the .exe on my desktop, but that shouldn't matter, should it?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
kreyson
|
Posted: 19 Jul, 2007
|
|
Joined: 25 Feb, 2007 Posts: 302
|
|
Trying this out now with my Conroe 6700.
For updated versions down the road, or if i dont like it for some reason. How do i uninstall it? It is not showing up under add/remove programs.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Maktube
|
Posted: 19 Jul, 2007
|
|
Joined: 12 Jul, 2007 Posts: 25 Location: California
|
kreyson wrote: For updated versions down the road, or if i dont like it for some reason. How do i uninstall it? It is not showing up under add/remove programs.
I don't belive it's installed (hence it's absence from add/remove programs), just delete the folder and the .exe file, though I don't think you'll ever need to do so unless you want to free up space. As long as you don't run it, it won't interfere with other versions, etc.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Maktube
|
Posted: 19 Jul, 2007
|
|
Joined: 12 Jul, 2007 Posts: 25 Location: California
|
|
I think my issue may be resolved. I didn't change anything, it just... started working. I'll have to try it a couple more times to be sure, but...go figure.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
ARGH69
|
Posted: 19 Jul, 2007
|
|
Joined: 29 Jun, 2007 Posts: 34
|
|
i tried this and it did not appear to do anything for me.
P4 3.6ghz with hyperthreading
geforce 6800 256
both my fps and gamespeed remained unaltered. i simply loaded a saved game but there were not alot of units. although i increased fidelity settings and brought the camera to a spot where i was getting 10 fps and +8 gamespeed. nothing changed after i ran this program.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 20 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
kreyson wrote: Trying this out now with my Conroe 6700.
How do i uninstall it?
Hit the delete key. I like programs that don't make changes or leave residue behind. 
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 20 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
ARGH69 wrote: i tried this and it did not appear to do anything for me.
Did you hear the beep 20 seconds into the game? Just curious if their may be some bug that is keeping it from coming on for some people.
It helps P4HT's by raising minimum and avg fps under normally stressful conditions for that CPU. But not as much as a real dual core.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Maktube
|
Posted: 20 Jul, 2007
|
|
Joined: 12 Jul, 2007 Posts: 25 Location: California
|
Maktube wrote: I think my issue may be resolved. I didn't change anything, it just... started working. I'll have to try it a couple more times to be sure, but...go figure.
k, so, it does seem to work, but I'd also like to point out that I still don't hear the beep. Not a big deal, but maybe important in some unobvious way.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MadBoris
|
Posted: 20 Jul, 2007
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 15 Feb, 2007 Posts: 1458
|
|
Not really concerned about the beep, as much as it's working. The beep just tells me it graduated through several functions reaching the last stage (helpful to me). But it may not beep up under certain sound configurations.
As a side note to all, I added a Known Current Issues... section in the main topic. I will update it as necessary but it has a couple interesting faqs in it.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
 |
 |
|