new benchmark for you guys to test

[Guest]

This benchmark uses 3dsmax4 (3.1 may work, plz let me know). Please post your system specs along with your results to get an idea of performance options. I am looking forward to seeing results from geforce 2 family, radeon and professional graphic cards if any of you have them. The tests will use the video card benchmarks found on the 3.1 cd (I will display a link for those that don’t have the files can download them). Plz make the following edit to your 3dsmax.ini file.

Under performance section of the ini file add “ShowFPS=1” without quotes. This will enable showing of the fps in max. It will show in the textbox to the left of “Add Time Tag” button near the slider. Just note down what the average fps is from what you can tell.

Please make sure that the texture size in the driver configuration is set to 512 and that you are running in opengl (you should be assuming your using win2k)

There are 13 files to benchmark, no need to restart after each one but I needed to restart once I got the texture1.max. My system is a p3 500,256mb pc100,tnt2 (non-ultra).

4views- 3.2
blttest- 27/ max of 42
dplanes- 45/max of 50
geom1- 4.5/max of 5.5
geom2- 1.2
light1- 3.6
light2- 12.5
light3- 5.6
raster- 21
texture1- 2.2
texture2- 9
texture3- 7.8
wirefram- 4.6

As you can see from my results I am in dire need of a new video card.


Here is the link to the benchmark files if you do not have them. Plz let me know of there is a problem getting those files or any other questions.
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/m_kelder?c&.flabel=fld2&.src=bc&start=1

Hope to see your results...

 

[noko]

Link to benchmark files returned the following errors:

<font color=red>The requested URL /18/10bbada7/h/881aa04c/benchmark.r00 was not found on this server.

The requested URL /18/10bbada7/h/3c544102/benchmark.rar was not found on this server.</font color=red>

Will I be able to benchmark without 3dsmax?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 03/02/01 12:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

Download yahoo mage, this little app will get you through the yahoo limit crap.
http://www.take.to/magesoft
Unfortunately, this is a benchmark for max only. It would be nice if there was a viewer of .max files that put out fps but I don't know of one. I've heard that the radeon doesn't like max that much and I wanted to get an idea of how the mainstream cards perform as well as any professional cards if anyone has one.

I also comfirmed that this method does indeed work with max 3 just the same.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by m_kelder on 03/02/01 02:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

Yet another update.
I forgot to mention that I was running at 1280x1024. I like 1600x1200 but the fps is just way too low then.I decided to post benchmarks at 1024x768 as well. Here they are:

4views- 3.2
blttest- 118/ max of 121
dplanes- 120/max of 130
geom1- 4.5/max of 5.5
geom2- 1.2
light1- 3.6
light2- 12.5
light3- 5.6
raster- 35
texture1- 7
texture2- 9
texture3- 25
wirefram- 4.6

As you can see, many of the results were the same due to the fact that the tnt2 just plain can't handle the geometry or just doesn't have enough fill rate. It did however score higher in areas that required neither of those or in the dual plane benchmark.

 

[Guest]

.

 

[noko]

How about going to Rage3d and asking those folks using 3dsmax4.0 to run those benchmarks? Also where did you get the info that the Radeon doesn't do 3dsmax well? Is there a demo version of 3dsmax that I can download?

 

[Guest]

Affraid not, though I think this would work _if_ you got a copy from _somewhere_ but I wouldn't know.

 

[Guest]

This the the link to the same test I did for redeon and geforce2.
http://www.gfxcentral.com/bobo/forum/bench/radeon-geforce2.html

I am trying to vaify with the author or others because it seems a bit weird considering my tnt2 beat the redeon and ge2 in a couple tests. very weird indeed.

 

[noko]

That is kinda weird because it says the Geforce test was done with Max3.1 and the Radeon was done with Max4 beta? Different versions and beta for the Radeon. Plus no Radeon driver version? Newer drivers are significantly faster for the Radeon in W2k. Plus dualplanes was off in the Radeon test while on in the Geforce test. Doesn't look to objective or reliable for me. Well hopefully someone will respond at Rage3d.com for you. I don't know if this will help but this is what Caligai says for Recommended Video cards for TrueSpace 5:
<A HREF="http://www.caligari.com/help/rec_hardware/index.html" target="_new">http://www.caligari.com/help/rec_hardware/index.html</A>

The following 3D cards have been thoroughly tested in a production environment with trueSpace5.

ATI Radeon

Radeon
Featuring ATI's CHARISMA engine and PIXEL TAPESTRY technologies. Supports more DirectX 8.0 features than any other board. The best drivers in industry, rock solid with trueSpace5.


NVIDIA GeForce 2

GeForce 2
What can we say? This is a standard. It works well with trueSpace5, particularly in real time radiosity mode. Drivers just a little bit less robust than Radeon.

All I know is that in W2k Truespace5 just flys with the Radeon in OpenGL and I've have run it for days without a problem. Don't know about 3dsMax 4.0 shipping version.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, I got a reply from the guy that did those tests and he said that they are different versions because they where on different machines. Of course it isn't 100% reliable and I have to ask him what version drivers he has tried.

 

[noko]

Different machines too? Well frankly they don't mean anything as far as I can see.

 

[Guest]

I was actually wrong about that, was thinking about the comparison of the tnt2 ultra and the geforce 2.

 

[Guest]

Ok, the guy replied. He hasn't updated his drivers in a year! Since the got the radeon! ROLF. I guess we can indeed dismiss those findings. I told him to update and do them again but I doubt he will. Hopefully someone at rage3d can do the test.

Also we need to get some geforce 2 benchmarks too.

 

[noko]

ATI has a patch for 3dsMax R3 but should be applicable to R4 I would think:

<A HREF="http://www.ati.com/na/pages/resource_centre/dev_rel/sdk/NPatch/NPatchPlugin.html" target="_new">http://www.ati.com/na/pages/resource_centre/dev_rel/sdk/NPatch/NPatchPlugin.html</A>

Pretty hot info I will give you a snippet here:

<font color=blue>ATI N-Patch Plug-in for 3D Studio MAX R3

Introduction

N-Patches are a higher-order surface primitive developed by ATI for DirectX® 8. N-Patches are Bezier triangles whose control meshes are derived from the position and normal data associated with a given triangle. On implementations which support N-Patches, the tesselation is done on-chip.

</font color=blue>

Whats cool about this is the hardware support it gives to 3dsMax .


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 03/03/01 03:41 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

Very interusting indeed. I will have to look into this.

 

[Guest]

According to the page, the plugin doesn't use the hardware acceleration yet. It's main function is to familiarize the artist with it's future usage. At first look I was hoping it was a way to accelerate the viewports when using the radeon but I guess not.

 

[noko]

Your right, looks like ATI is preparing the way for the Radeon II. ATI claims the Radeon II will be more powerful then the current GF3. <A HREF="http://www.ebns.com/story/OEG20010302S0094" target="_new">http://www.ebns.com/story/OEG20010302S0094</A>

 

[Guest]

Sweet, it is good for everyone that ATI stays with it. They are about 3 or 4 months behind nvidia on releases and when they do they need to make a step above nvidia’s product to start getting good sales. I found scores of the ge2 as well as a bunch of professional cards, here they are.
system: 800Mhz PIII single cpu, i815 mainboard, 256MB ram, NT4.0, resolution 1280x1024 truecolor 75Hz, opengl


|FireGL3|OxygenVX1Pro|OxygenGVX420|GloriaIII|Ge2
4views |12.5 |4.8 |5 |7.8 |3.7
geo2 |4.4 |2.1 |2.2 |2.5 |2.4
light1 |72.7 |9.5 |10.9 |50.7 |41.8
light2 |72.9 |20.7 |31.3 |52.1 |51.2
light3 |72.9 |13.1 |15.9 |52.7 |51.3
raster |77.5 |16.3 |37.7 |100.2 |85.5
text1 |57.6 |8.4 |18.1 |14.2 |5.4
text2 |42.5 |10.4 |18.2 |42.7 |40.5
wire |11.9 |5.7 |6 |7.6 |4.4

I made it look all pretty but the forum messed with it<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by m_kelder on 03/04/01 01:12 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

different graphic cards in 3d apps and test like pro cdrs don´t do any difference. as long as u have a geforce (mx, sdr, whatever) that is. i am getting 3.4 average in geometry2.max on my athlon 1.2 ghz. tried my mates elsa gloria 2 in same machine (was thinking of buying one myself) - got 3.5 - 3.6 @ it´s best..... real speed booster huh? i think not.

u have got to realise that pushing 200 000 polygons around isn´t really what them geforce cards are made for they are made for GAMING and pushing lot´s of textures around, and with the geforce 3, cooler light effects and stuff like that.

desperately tried tomshardware and sharkyextreme to do a test with geforce vs other alternatives/amdvs vs intel/nt vs w2k and 3ds max performance, but no luck.

what will increase fps display with complex geometry in 3ds max is as fast a cpu as possible. that´s THE only thing that´s going to make a difference. my fps with geometry2.max increased from 2.3 with a duron 700 to 3.4 with an athlon 1.2 ghz.

my advice for performance hungry budget max artist is get a abit k7ta raid mobo with athlon 1.2 ghz, geforce whatever model now, upgrade to 1.5 ghz whenever that is possible, keep running on SDRAM (3ds max and 3d graphics like we do it isn´t at all sensitive to memory bandwidth we need fpu power).

thank u for your post though. we need more test in this here area. feel free to email me denantisociala@hotmail.com.

unfortuanetely most 3d artists think upgrading their geforce sdr (for instance) to a geforce 2 ultra will increase 3ds max fps display performance...
they are in for a surprise i´m afraid... if they aren´t into a lot of gaming that is.....

greetings from stockholm
pardon my english

patrik forsberg

 

[Guest]

True we want the fpu but when we aren't rendering we need the bandwidth.

 

[Guest]

i don´t agree.
if u bring up the task manager in nt/w2k and drag a scene around in the viewports, you will see that the cpu is used to 100 percent. rendering OR viewport display doesen´t matter. IT`S PURE FPU PERFORMANCE that could make a performance boost in 3d graphics.
rendering or display wise.

3d graphics is THE LEAST bandwidth sensitive task. read any test about that. here at tomshardware as well. there is NO improvement with an athlon ddr system vs an athlon sdr one in 3d graphic work for instance, really surprised u didn´t know that and hey;

try a geforce sdr and a geforce 2 ultra and see for your self. you will be shocked how small a difference it is. 0.something difference. you can´t tell.

if u want speedy viewport display in max, better get a new diamond fire gl, or the wildcat card that i´m using @ work.
that one i really recomend. forget the geforce all together. also forget bringing in ddr memory to your system.
it´s going to make 0% difference.

i´m really tired with people claiming this or that and don´t know sheit. or use some synthetic benchmarks to prove their point. get a grip and do some real world testing instead.

i knew pc´s inside out from working with them before i got into 3d. and i have done test myself confirming everything i claim. and now i manage the network rendering farm, and handle all pc´s, besides doing graphic work (modelling texturing) @ work every day. i´ve got some real world experience from 3d graphics and performance i think...

here is my experience once again, concerning 3dsmax viewport display performance:

1. get @ least 256 ram. if you are into high rez scenes, the bare minimum is 512. use cheap sdram; ddr are not going to do any difference.

2. get as fast a cpu u can afford. preferably an athlon.

3. get a geforce card, any will do, don´t spend money on geforce ultra or whatever, a mx board is fine. if u can afford; get a wildcat or latest fire gl, THOSE cards ain´t made for gaming, but for pushing tons of poly´s round your viewports, but they are really expensive. i can´t afford 1 for my home system anyway.

4. get mobo for future athlons to 1.5 ghz, like an abit kt7a raid for instance.

but hey it´s your life. if u relly believe u are going to get some imrovements with a geforce 2 ultra in max, or ddr memory in your system, shed out the cash then. me personally won´t be buying any geforce in near future since i enjoy DOING 3d graphics more then GAMING 3d....
even on my home system......

 

[Guest]

heh, I don't claim to be an expert, I just go one what people tell me. Glad to hear that max needs nothing but fpu. Now that the geforce 3 is out the price of the geforce 2 will go down quite a bit so all that money will go to the cpu.

 

[Guest]

yeah u should focus on getting as fast a cpu as possible.
and the prices on athlons been lowered again (@ least here in sweden).

aaahhhh! still longing for an affordable cpu and video card that will give me 15fps in geometry2.max....
and will bring that beast (max) to it´s knees and behave like i want it to....

 

[noko]

Thanks for the info soziopat, finally an expert laying down the facts. So it seems that the CPU FPU is the most important influence in graphic speed while modelling. Not DDR nor a graphic card to a certain extent. Ram is so cheap now for instance at Crucial 256mb pc133 cas2 ram is now selling for $94!!! free 2nd day delivery in the states. I do know in perspective if I use software rountines vice hardware rountines my speed is dramatically reduced on my video card while panning around, so I concluded the video card does have an influence. M kelder, in 3dsmax see if hardware support makes any difference that is if you can choose a software mode for rendering in real time. If you can and there is no speed difference then maybe you can save some money and not even buy a video card yet but the best CPU/mobo/ram possible.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 03/05/01 02:33 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

what will annoy u, the 3d artist the most (i promise u) is: heavy high polygon scenes 200 000 and more, it doesen´t matter if u buy a geforce mx, geforce 2 ultra or whatever (if u can´t spend a fortune on a high-end card wich WILL make a difference).

so i recomend a geforce mx and as fast a cpu as possible.
the geforce is really good with textures and lights. and better then radeon in max.

but u have an interesting point (haven´t tried it myself) some guys at work tried running 3ds max in software heidi mode on a geforce 2 gts, a cardexpert i think it was, and got higher fps then in open gl. not that much but still. worth to mention and experiment with.