nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   NVIDIA Linux (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   FX5900 benchmark with UT2004 (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=25769)

skamp 03-07-04 01:34 AM

FX5900 benchmark with UT2004
 
Hello,

I just bought a GeForce FX5900, and I have been looking for the best compromise in terms of quality / performance, with and without Full Screen Anti-Aliasing & Anisotropic Filtering, for playing UT2004 with all details set to "max". System specs:
  • OS: LFS 5.0 (Linux From Scratch)
  • XFree86 version: 4.4.0
  • Drivers version: 1.0-5336
  • CPU: Athlon XP 2500+ (Barton)
  • RAM: 1 GiB of PC3200 DDR-SDRAM
  • Graphic card: GeForce FX5900 with 128 MiB of DDR-SDRAM
  • Display: flat panel display @ 1280x1024x32

According to NVIDIA's documentation, enabling FSAA and AF is just a matter of setting two environment variables: __GL_FSAA_MODE and __GL_DEFAULT_LOG_ANISO. As a reminder, here are their possible values:
Code:

# Full Screen Anti-Aliasing
__GL_FSAA_MODE=0 # FSAA disabled
__GL_FSAA_MODE=1 # 2x Bilinear Multisampling
__GL_FSAA_MODE=2 # 2x Quincunx Multisampling
__GL_FSAA_MODE=3 # FSAA disabled
__GL_FSAA_MODE=4 # 4x Bilinear Multisampling
__GL_FSAA_MODE=5 # 4x Gaussian Multisampling
__GL_FSAA_MODE=6 # 2x Bilinear Multisampling by 4x Supersampling
__GL_FSAA_MODE=7 # 4x Bilinear Multisampling by 4x Supersampling

# Anisotropic Filtering
__GL_DEFAULT_LOG_ANISO=0 # No anisotropic filtering
__GL_DEFAULT_LOG_ANISO=1 # Low anisotropic filtering
__GL_DEFAULT_LOG_ANISO=2 # Medium anisotropic filtering
__GL_DEFAULT_LOG_ANISO=3 # Maximum anisotropic filtering

I ran UT2004 botmatch benchmarks (?spectatoronly=true?numbots=14?quickstart=true?at tractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=80 -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt %1) on the following maps: Torlan, Bridge of Fate, and Rankin. The results:

Code:

# FSAA,AA          lowest / average / highest

Torlan
0,0    11 / 35 /  55 fps -- Score = 35
0,3    10 / 35 /  59 fps -- Score = 35
1,0    11 / 35 /  54 fps -- Score = 35
2,0    11 / 35 /  58 fps -- Score = 35
4,0    10 / 35 /  58 fps -- Score = 35
5,0    11 / 35 /  56 fps -- Score = 35
6,0      9 / 20 /  49 fps -- Score = 20
7,0      9 / 20 /  52 fps -- Score = 20
7,3      8 / 20 /  49 fps -- Score = 20

Bridge Of Fate
0,0    19 / 60 / 117 fps -- Score = 59
5,3    18 / 58 / 116 fps -- Score = 57

Rankin
0,0    19 / 44 / 119 fps -- Score = 43
5,3    19 / 45 / 134 fps -- Score = 45

From the beginning I noticed that AF had almost no impact on performance, whatever value was used. I then concentrated on FSAA. As you can see, given my setup, performance remains the same with FSAA set to any value from 0 to 5 included. Performance drops dramatically, though, with FSAA set to 6 or 7. Since the framerate changes so little, I assume my CPU is the limiting factor.
I didn't bother testing every possible value with the two other maps, since it was obvious that setting FSAA to 5 (4x Gaussian Multisampling) and AF to 3 (Maximum anisotropic filtering) was the best setup, since it significantly improved image quality with virtually no loss in overall performance. Note that I'm talking about FSAA here: I can't tell the difference between two images with and without AF enabled. Maybe I would if I was told what to look at :-/

The three maps are quite different from one another, and the tests confirmed that the above mentionned settings, given my hardware, were clearly the best to use. It is also worth noting that decreasing screen resolution had no impact either on performance, which confirms that my CPU is the limiting factor, as far as I know; please correct me if I'm wrong!

Jim1 03-07-04 05:37 AM

AF helps the rendering of polys near the zenith, which would otherwise have a tendency to look washed out.

Very interesting results. FSAA kills performance on my system (with an overclocked 4200) so I suppose the vid card is my bottleneck. Would have expected higher fps on a FX5900 mind, I'd bet the Windows drivers top 80fps in most ut2004 tests.

skamp 03-07-04 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim1
Would have expected higher fps on a FX5900 mind, I'd bet the Windows drivers top 80fps in most ut2004 tests.
Doesn't seem so. According to this french review, I would get about 5 more FPS on UT2003, if I ran Windows and had a P4 3 GHz... They note, however, that the FX5900's relatively poor performance compared to the FX5900 Ultra is probably due to a bug in the drivers. But still, since I don't note any difference in performance when settings are set to the lowest or the highest, I really think that my CPU is a bottle neck. I read that the Athlon 64 is the best performing CPU when it comes to UT2003!

SuLinUX 03-07-04 10:47 AM

Rememeber also that UT2004 is fully optimized for D3D not OpenGL, I mayself get higher fps in certain levels on UT2003/Linux that in Windows but UT2004 in Linux is strangley poorer fps. UT2004 has AF settings in the UT2004.ini, I can run 1280x1024, FSAA x4/AF x8 and there performance is about the same, it's seems to degrade then get better but lowering the settings dont make it much smoother.

CTF level and DM are fine and have a comparable speed to Windows, but Torlan and the assult map seem to lag rather a lot, just dont make sence and should be as good as UT2003.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.