PDA

View Full Version : FPS test, 2 versions of DX and FB1.0 against FB1.1b



XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 05:20 AM
I had a cloned hard drive I did about 2 months ago when I still had FB 1.0 and directX 8.1 and decided to take advantage and do a average frame rate test using fraps, during the Blackdeath.ntrk video. Well I was disappointed that neither a newer version of DX or a new patch for FB made any appreciable difference at all, at least for me.
Here are the results:
FB version 1.0 and DirectX 8.1 = 30.854 FPS average
FB version 1.0 and DirectX 9.0b = 31.055 FPS average
FB version 1.1b and DirectX 9.0b - 30.457 FPS average

I was not amused at all....
All three tests were done otherwise using the same hardware and drivers and under the same conditions after a fresh reboot.
I use:
Win98SE ver. 4.10.2222 A
Asus A7M266 mobo
Athlon XP-2100 Ver. 6 Palamino ( stock clock )
1024Mb Corsair XMS2700 DDR 2.0 latency with heat spreaders
SB Audigy Gamer
Leadtek Winfast A250 Ultra AGP4 128Mb DDR ( Nvidia Ti-4600 )



Message Edited on 08/14/03 04:32AM by mortoma

Message Edited on 08/14/0305:58AM by mortoma

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 05:20 AM
I had a cloned hard drive I did about 2 months ago when I still had FB 1.0 and directX 8.1 and decided to take advantage and do a average frame rate test using fraps, during the Blackdeath.ntrk video. Well I was disappointed that neither a newer version of DX or a new patch for FB made any appreciable difference at all, at least for me.
Here are the results:
FB version 1.0 and DirectX 8.1 = 30.854 FPS average
FB version 1.0 and DirectX 9.0b = 31.055 FPS average
FB version 1.1b and DirectX 9.0b - 30.457 FPS average

I was not amused at all....
All three tests were done otherwise using the same hardware and drivers and under the same conditions after a fresh reboot.
I use:
Win98SE ver. 4.10.2222 A
Asus A7M266 mobo
Athlon XP-2100 Ver. 6 Palamino ( stock clock )
1024Mb Corsair XMS2700 DDR 2.0 latency with heat spreaders
SB Audigy Gamer
Leadtek Winfast A250 Ultra AGP4 128Mb DDR ( Nvidia Ti-4600 )



Message Edited on 08/14/03 04:32AM by mortoma

Message Edited on 08/14/0305:58AM by mortoma

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 05:48 AM
Not sure why you'd be disapointed with the results. Shows that you are getting very consistent results and you are running a very good system. I'll presume with the system you have that you are indeed running on high detail.

Now considering that DX8 and DX9 are very similar (so the programmers tell me) and that DX9 essentially adds some extra features (bells and wistles) like programmable pixel shaders and doesn't really offer much in the way of major optimizations AND that FB's engine doesn't currently support DX9 anways...I'd say its a fair judgement to make that you shouldn't be expecting much if any performance boost between DX8 and DX9.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 07:22 AM
at least you didnt loose 20 fps on perfect like me went from getting 35-40 on perfect to low teens

even on excellent im getting 30 fps with anotrpic filters
off and antialias off now

before i had 60's on excellent with 4 and 8x. Now i have lower fps and jaggies now

But the dirt clouds look great just wish the black smoke craters would disapear after 5 min


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter