GZDoom benchmark info needed

Discuss anything ZDoom-related that doesn't fall into one of the other categories.
Post Reply
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49223
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by Graf Zahl »

Updated for current test:

I added a CVAR to enable different render methods with buffers to see which one is fastest on different hardware.

Like last time there's the same WADs - the voxel mod has been changed so that the savegame can load.
I need the following tests:

Frozen Time
PAR without lights
PAR with lights
Voxel test map

with both the latests official version or dev build, and this test build. The test build has a new CVAR, called gl_rendermethod. This can have values from 0-3. I need to have this test run with all 4 values.

Last but not least: If your graphics driver reports OpenGL version 4.4, don't bother to run the test. I know it's fine on modern hardware, I just need some info what to optimize in the fallback code for older GPUs.


http://www6.zippyshare.com/v/41974177/file.html

The new test build offers different methods:

- immediate mode (obviously not on MacOSX due to lack of compatibility profile)
- uniform arrays (that's what the last test build had)
- buffer uploads for each draw call
- map/unmap buffer for each draw call
Spoiler: Original message
Last edited by Graf Zahl on Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
_mental_
 
 
Posts: 3820
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:32 am

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by _mental_ »

Intel Core2 Duo CPU U9400 @ 1.40GHz
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4330, OpenGL 2.1
Spoiler: Results
Cannot test with Intel GMA X4500HD on the same machine because of crash after OpenGL initialization, despite reported OpenGL 2.1 :| Missing extension maybe... But their drivers are crappy, I know.

P.S. glew32.dll is missing from the package, so I took it from the latest build on DRD.
User avatar
Hellser
Global Moderator
Posts: 2768
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:43 pm
Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
Operating System Version (Optional): Manjaro Linux
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan/Metal Support
Location: Citadel Station

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by Hellser »

Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.20 GHz
nVidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti, OpenGL 4.4, 337.88 Drivers
8GB of RAM
GZDoom ran at 1920x1080, Fullscreen
Spoiler:
I know it isn't a old system. But I sure did get a slight boost in FPS.
Last edited by Hellser on Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
VGA
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:56 am

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by VGA »

Core 2 duo e8400 @3.3ghz
4gb RAM
Nvidia gtx260 with 337.88 whql drivers
OpenGL version reported is 3.3.0
Spoiler:
My performance got murdered :D
User avatar
Kappes Buur
 
 
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 12:19 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia (Legacy GZDoom)
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by Kappes Buur »

Results are about the same either way, around 25 fps.

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Processor
8.0 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460
GL_VERSION: 4.4.0
NVIDIA driver 335.23
Spoiler:
User avatar
Enjay
 
 
Posts: 26935
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:58 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by Enjay »

Win 7 Ultimate 64bit
Intel Core i7 920@2.67GHz
12GB RAM
GeForce GTX 285
Driver 335.23
Resolution 1920x1200 (full screen)
Spoiler:
Definitely not great figures and setting gl_usevbo to 1 definitely seems to cause quite a hit. I guess my system is falling behind the curve quite a bit these days. :?
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49223
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by Graf Zahl »

So far everything as expected. GL 4.x capable NVidia cards are quite a bit better with buffers and older ones take a huge hit. For the curious ones: GL 4 implements a much more efficient method to update buffers and it clearly shows in these numbers.

Now I need some AMD and Intel results.
User avatar
ibm5155
Posts: 1268
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:24 pm
Contact:

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by ibm5155 »

^ roger that....

EDIT: ehm, I got a missing glew32.dll error '-'
EDIT 2: I got an glew32.dll from the gzdoom v1.8.9999

Processor:intel Core I7 3635QM (Quad Core - 2400 - 3400 MHz)
8GB Ram DDR3 1,6GHz
1TB HDD

And here's the score

Using the AMD HD8870m, AMD Catalyst 14.4 beta drivers (04/25/2014, 14.100.0.0000).
opengl (3.3.12874 acording to gzdoom), OpenGL 4.3 support (acording to this)
Spoiler:
Using Intel HD4000, driver (10.18.10.3574)
Opengl 3.3.0 (acording to gzdoom), 4.0.0 - Build 10.18.10.3540 (acording to aida and Wikipedia)
Spoiler:
One interesting thing.
At the titlepic part, on AMD gpu the titlepic image,menus, console are not rendered, but the mouse is, when I start the game I can see the menu and the console :S
And the same problem didn't happened on Intel GPU >.>
Should I start the loadgame and then start the bench or start the first bench and then load the game ?

EDIT: People are making wrong benchmarks, and they should use the same resolution...
Like I did, I used the main resolution when you start gzdoom for the first time (640x480)

EDIT2: when gl_usevbo is 0, the drawcalls from AMD and Intel goes to 0 :lol: , and when it's 1 AMD make 9000 draw calls while intel make 70000 draw calls :shock:
Last edited by ibm5155 on Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:46 am, edited 7 times in total.
Blue Shadow
Posts: 5039
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:59 am

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by Blue Shadow »

OS: Windows 8.1 Update 1
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7670M
GL Version: 3.3.12420
Resolution: 1366 x 768 (fullscreen) -- this is my max resolution
Spoiler:
I ran into a couple of issues while running the build, like a black screen on load, with only the cursor being visible and some weirdness with the console.

I suppose the build isn't bug-free?
User avatar
BouncyTEM
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 5:42 pm
Preferred Pronouns: He/Him
Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 10
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: 2280 Lol Street: The Calamitous Carnival (formerly Senators Prison)

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by BouncyTEM »

OS: Windows 7 Home Premium Service Pack 1
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 3.07 GHz OC'd to 3.45 GHz
GPU: NVidia GTX 295 x2 under 334.89 drivers
GL Version: 3.3
Resolution: 1024x768 (windowed)
Spoiler:
WIll nab results from my laptop later today.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49223
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by Graf Zahl »

ibm5155 wrote: EDIT2: when gl_usevbo is 0, the drawcalls from AMD and Intel goes to 0 :lol: , and when it's 1 AMD make 9000 draw calls while intel make 70000 draw calls :shock:

Drawcalls doesn't measure the immediate mode code. I just wanted to know how much time the driver needs for the glDrawArrays calls.

It's interesting, though. AMD wastes tons of time on issuing draw calls - on NVidia it's completely irrelevant.

This means for speeding up things, AMD needs entirely different optimizations. What speeds up NVidia doesn't do a thing on AMD and what helps on AMD only increases CPU load on NVidia.


And holy crap - that Intel HD4000 is truly a piece of garbage...
User avatar
ibm5155
Posts: 1268
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:24 pm
Contact:

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by ibm5155 »

Isn't it related to the "16 execution units" and four pixel pipelines?
And why is it a crap? :s like
the NVidia GTX 295 x2 got 9fps with gl_usevbo 0 while the hd4000 got 15 :roll:
User avatar
VGA
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:56 am

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by VGA »

ibm5155 wrote:the NVidia GTX 295 x2 got 9fps with gl_usevbo 0 while the hd4000 got 15 :roll:
No it got 33fps with gl_usevbo 0.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49223
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by Graf Zahl »

ibm5155 wrote: the NVidia GTX 295 x2 got 9fps with gl_usevbo 0 while the hd4000 got 15 :roll:

I see 9 fps with buffers and 33 fps without - that's quite a bit faster. The buffer code is not meant to be used on GL 3.x hardware, I just wanted to know how badly they actually fare.
On GL 4 I can use a persistent buffer mapping, allowing me quick'n easy updates. For GL 3.x I have to constantly map and unmap the buffer which is quite the performance killer and this certainly won't make it into production code.

I have to admit, I'm a bit disappointed with AMD's numbers. Since everyone is bragging about reducing driver overhead recently - with AMD even leading to a new API - I would have expected them to actually work on this - but still a third of the entire time is spend issuing draw calls. With NVidia it's barely 2% on GL 4.x hardware.

But I'll be blunt: This optimization will have to wait until I can afford releasing a GL 4.x only version and remove all the backwards compatibility cruft for good. Maybe AMD surprises us with a better driver in the mean time.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49223
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: GZDoom benchmark info needed

Post by Graf Zahl »

_mental_ wrote: Cannot test with Intel GMA X4500HD on the same machine because of crash after OpenGL initialization, despite reported OpenGL 2.1 :| Missing extension maybe... But their drivers are crappy, I know.

I suspect it runs into a function meant for newer GL versions that isn't checked for in the code. GLEW isn't particularly helpful finding such occurences and unfortunately I can't test this because I have no idea how I can restrict GLEW to only retrieve functions for specific GL versions and extensions.

I'm afraid but I'm going to need some help here from somebody who can run this in the debugger on such old hardware. You got to checkout the Glew_Version_For_Real branch for that.
Post Reply

Return to “General”