Quake3World

Hr.O wrote:Since you are all running it on your "working" systems, this benchmark is bound to be pretty subjective.

I'd say it's more of a slightly subjective benchmark.

I gave people the forewarning to close applications when running the bench. I noticed firefox having a page loaded can add 7% to the benchmark.

Hr.O wrote: More often then not it's the background software that dictates the speed of your system, and that makes it dangerous to compare this benchmark with anything else then previous results from your own system.

To conclude that background software is what dictates the speed of the system, you would have to show that the results submitted show no trend. But that is not true. There is a trend, where computers with faster processors seem to do better than computers with slower processors. In particular, an AMD64 processors seems to do very well compared to past AMD processors. But then again it would be nice if a few more people with AMD64 systems would run the benchmark.

mjrpes wrote: I'd say it's more of a slightly subjective benchmark.

There is no such thing as slightly subjective.

mjrpes wrote: To conclude that background software is what dictates the speed of the system, you would have to show that the results submitted show no trend. But that is not true. There is a trend, where computers with faster processors seem to do better than computers with slower processors. In particular, an AMD64 processors seems to do very well compared to past AMD processors. But then again it would be nice if a few more people with AMD64 systems would run the benchmark.

Yes sure there is a difference between processor speeds, but that has nothing to do with the point i was trying to make. I just hope peeps know how relate to the outcome of a benchmark. No two similair user systems will ever perform the same.

edit: See the results of shadd_. and bitwise

but i'll try and do a bit of be-emming just to please you

Hr.O wrote:
Yes sure there is a difference between processor speeds, but that has nothing to do with the point i was trying to make. I just hope peeps know how relate to the outcome of a benchmark. No two similair user systems will ever perform the same.

I know what you were getting at in your post but the way you said it didn't leave room for the fact that there is a basic trend to the results that, even though all factors cannot be weighed out, can offer some meaning.

If you take one example of the results so far, two people have posted results with a system that uses a P4 3.0GHz Northwood (that's the same as my 3.06GHz) processor. The difference between them is 3 seconds. So far that's pretty close, with a range of error between them of less than 2%. There are indeed some results that seem inaccurate, such as survivor's XP 2100+ that seems to be much slower than it should be. Also, there seems to be a a weird thing going on where bitWISE's AMD64 3500+ processor did worse than shadd_.'s AMD64 3200+ @2.45Ghz, but much of that is probably due to him overclocking the beast.

One way to get around the problem of result fluctuations is to get a bigger sample. Now, so far, there are three people who submitted results that use an AMD64 processor. All three have posted the fastest results so far, so, even though there are some weird things going on in the results, one might just be able to argue that AMD64 processors do well in the benchmark. Putting a P4EE into the mix would be interesting. Now, if 100 people could run the test, we could start averaging out the speeds and could see some confident trends.

I never meant for it to be accurate, but as just a test that I could use to fill my curiousity as to how different systems ran a map compile. Since no hardware sites do map compile benchmarks, this was as close as it was going to get for me.

I think shadd beating bit's CPU is easily explained. The 3500+ is 2.4GHz, shadd is running his 3200 at 2.45 up from 2.2.

If he overclocked the RAM only (not HTT or anything), that would be an 11% overclock of the FSB.

2m38s = 158s
2m56s = 176s

158 seconds is 11% faster than 176 seconds. Works out perfect.

I just overclocked from 2.4GHz to 3.0GHz on my P4 2.4C (800MHz FSB) and went from 233 seconds to 186. A 20% better score for a 25% increase in clock speed while maintaining the same memory speed.

In the next few days I'll get the CPU speed up a bit. It won't be 100% stable at the speeds I'm going for, but hopefully it will at least complete the benchmark. I should be able to hit 3.3GHz, maybe 3.4 if I'm lucky.

mjrpes wrote:
There are indeed some results that seem inaccurate, such as survivor's XP 2100+ that seems to be much slower than it should be.

Note, I checked afterward and i actually have a 2200. But I only have a slow ancient 16 gig harddrive which could be limiting my results. Maybe if i get a new one.

submitted some results.

QUAKE3 MAP BENCHMARK 1.3 - RESULTS
==================================
OS = WinXP
CPU = AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+
RAM = 511 MByte
==================================
Map Compile = 00:04
Vis = 00:57
Bspc = 00:19
Lightning = 01:56
Total = 03:17

this is the second run, first run took about 3 secs more. Guess filecreation or mem allocation took a bit of time.

quad cores are fast

lmao 3 year bump

I was surprised this thread still even existed

Fixing to try my AMD quad.

QUAKE3 MAP BENCHMARK 1.3 - RESULTS
==================================
OS = Win 6.0
CPU = AMD Phenom(tm) 9500 Quad-Core Processor
RAM = 3070 MByte
==================================
Map Compile = 00:04
Vis = 00:13
Bspc = 00:39
Lightning = 00:36
Total = 01:33

It was a little faster in xp. The 9500 is 2.2 ghz btw.

QUAKE3 MAP BENCHMARK 1.3 - RESULTS
==================================
OS = WinXP
CPU = AMD Phenom(tm) 9500 Quad-Core Processor
RAM = 2070 MByte
==================================
Map Compile = 00:03
Vis = 00:13
Bspc = 00:25
Lightning = 00:35
Total = 01:18

Dammit, this thread started back when my computer was close to bleeding edge.

Saw this on my hard drive while doing some cleaning. Decided to run it again.

QUAKE3 MAP BENCHMARK 1.3 - RESULTS
==================================
OS = Win 6.1 (windows 7 rc1)
CPU = AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
RAM = 4095 MByte
==================================
Map Compile = 00:03
Vis = 00:08
Bspc = 00:16
Lightning = 00:23
Total = 00:52

Hmmm... the tool doesn't work properly on my computer. Just lists the specs (incorrectly) and no benchmarks.

Manual benchmarks with a batch file:

Windows Vista x64
Intel i7 920 @2.67GHz
12GB DDR3 RAM

Map Compile = 00:02
Vis = 00:09
BSPC = 00:10
Light = 00:26

Total = 00:47

You always seem to have problems with this program. I think it just doesn't like you. I figured the Intels would get a slightly better score even with a .33ghz lower clock.

QUAKE3 MAP BENCHMARK 1.3 - RESULTS
==================================
OS = WinXP
CPU = Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
RAM = 2047 MByte
==================================
Map Compile = 00:04
Vis = 00:06
Bspc = 00:11
Lightning = 00:22
Total = 00:43

im actually running 6gbs of ram(but crappy 32bit lets me cap at 3gb max.)

lol... stumbled upon this through google...

This tool has been officially referenced in a Ph.D thesis:

http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/szander/thesis/thesis.html

See Appendix D, first page, reference 253:

http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/szander/thes ... _app_d.pdf

&

http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/szander/thes ... rences.pdf

It's actually a pretty interesting thesis... explaining how information can be hidden within slight variations in the noise of internet traffic, including the data going back and forth between server and client in quake3.

obsidian wrote:Hmmm... the tool doesn't work properly on my computer. Just lists the specs (incorrectly) and no benchmarks.

I added your results and everyone else's into the benchmark... only took 14 months to get around to it... I hadn't even put the site up in months since changing servers... at least that's less time than it takes doomer to update icons.

hmm thats odd i did about the same even though ive oc'd my cpu to 2.9ghz and ram to 1.9mhz

QUAKE3 MAP BENCHMARK 1.3 - RESULTS
==================================
OS = Win 6.1 **win7 ultimate**
CPU = Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz ** 2.9ghz**
RAM = 4095 MByte **6gb ddr3 ram
==================================
Map Compile = 00:01
Vis = 00:05
Bspc = 00:13
Lightning = 00:22
Total = 00:41

everything in stars ** is the actual info that i added.

QUAKE3 MAP BENCHMARK 1.3 - RESULTS
==================================
OS = Win 6.1
CPU = AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor
RAM = 4095 MByte
==================================
Map Compile = 00:02
Vis = 00:04
Bspc = 00:13
Lightning = 00:19
Total = 00:40


I also didn't show much of an advantage by overclocking more. I don't understand the trend. I ran the test first at 3.8GHz, got 41 seconds, then 4.4GHz and got 43 seconds....and finally I ran it at 4.3GHz which scored me 40 seconds.

I imagine it has to do a lot with how well the motherboard is constructed actually, as well as system services that are enabled.


also....the test results have a typo

it's "lighting" not "lightning"

got new cpu cooler so i oc'd and got some ram..

QUAKE3 MAP BENCHMARK 1.3 - RESULTS
==================================
OS = Win 6.1
CPU = Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 3.38GHz
RAM = 10240 MByte
==================================
Map Compile = 00:02
Vis = 00:04
Bspc = 00:11
Lightning = 00:18
Total = 00:35

That....that is a compile time.

that's 12.5% faster if I can math my numbers.

I gotta get me one of them.


You should see if you can test q3dm17

bsp -meta -samplesize 4
vis
light -samplesize 4 -bouncegrid -bounce 8 -super 2 - filter

(note : I'm not entirely sure what good super 2 does, I've only ever seen it make ONE of my maps look better and I'm not even sure what it's doing code-wise, it just made the patchmeshes light better. I do know that it'll add forever and a half to your compile time)

I just got an i5-2500 and Intel SSD, so had to try it out...

http://www.ciole.net/quake_bench/

QUAKE3 MAP BENCHMARK 1.3 - RESULTS
==================================
OS = Win 6.1
CPU = Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500 CPU @ 3.30GHz
RAM = 4095 MByte
==================================
Map Compile = 00:01
Vis = 00:05
Bspc = 00:10
Lightning = 00:15
Total = 00:33

What a stupid thread.