Squawk Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I threatened to 'introduce' my computer to an 8lb sledge hammer and I came out with this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blairgowrie Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Looks like the current winner to me. What are your specs Squawk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squawk Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4 Ghz) Asus P5KE Mobo. 4 Gigs Patriot Extreme DDR2 RAM Nvidia 8800GTX Vid card Hitachi 320GB SATA2 7200rpm Hard drive. Asus Xonar DX 7.1 sound card my generic dvd writer was the weak point. and misc. bits n pieces... Oh! and of course that 8 lb hammer. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyKnight Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Damn! I have the same CPU, RAM & VGA card as Squawk. So this time, I'll re-run the test with loads of shit turned off and... my PC facing downhill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonar Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) You guys and your big number are driving me mad!! So Squawk, I assume your water has texture and reflections (maybe I should re think the PC overhaul, I am so jelous) Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyKnight Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 DO IT TONAR! And look what you'll get... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blairgowrie Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I am beginning to figure out how this program scores. It obviously gives quad cores a high score as well as fast video cards. But keep in mind guys, il2 runs on a single core and does best on some of the slightly older video cards so don't despair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1. DDz Quorum Friar Posted January 9, 2009 1. DDz Quorum Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) Ha Ha...I laugh in the face of your 1000+ results...... No anti-virus, spooler stopped, printer disabled, only 18 processes running at time of the test...... Do I officially have the worst results? Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1. DDz Quorum B16Enk Posted January 9, 2009 1. DDz Quorum Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I think you need to either feed the hamster, or stop fooling around with those nuns Friar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireman Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 565.1 for me, with nothing shut off or tweaked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1. DDz Quorum Pooka Posted January 9, 2009 1. DDz Quorum Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Curiosity always gets the best of me, now I sit here disappointed. 488.9 But IL-2 runs fine, life is good. Pooka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I am beginning to figure out how this program scores. It obviously gives quad cores a high score as well as fast video cards. But keep in mind guys, il2 runs on a single core and does best on some of the slightly older video cards so don't despair. BG: I think you are exactly right. I wonder if there is another test that doesn't show favoritism for certain processors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) 440.0 for me with stuff shut off on a Dell Workstation with dual Xeon 3.06 ghz cpu, 2 gig Ram, 6800XT vid card with 84.26 drivers (original). I always wonder about "scores" on performance tests and whether there is some industry standard for them or whether benchmarks are peculiar to the publisher. As long as the sim runs with minimal stutters, I'm good to fly! Strider Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) 440.0 for me with stuff shut off on a Dell Workstation with dual Xeon 3.06 ghz cpu' date=' 2 gig Ram, 6800XT vid card with 84.26 drivers (original). I always wonder about "scores" on performance tests and whether there is some industry standard for them or whether benchmarks are peculiar to the publisher. As long as the sim runs with minimal stutters, I'm good to fly! Strider [/quote'] That's close to the comp specs for my HP workstation. Only difference is I have 4 gig RAM and an nVidia 9800 GT with 1 GIG of onboard RAM with 64-bit drivers on WinXP Pro 64-bit OS. You can probably get a good boost with a better video card or more RAM. But be careful about exceeding the maximum useable RAM if you are using Windows XP Home. See my previous post in this thread about useable RAM. I have zero stutters on my comp and the graphics are really great. I am still tempted to put the max of 16GIG of RAM on the comp just to see what happens I am also wondering about these scores and whether they are weighted more to modern processors over older ones. I also wonder which items EXACTLY would provide the most boost in scores. Are hard drive speeds weighted more than fast video cards? I wish we had a test program that was game-oriented instead of just a general test. Some games like Crysis require a VERY powerful computer to run with all the options turned on. That game has been the most computer-devestating game as far as killing performance. Here are the requirements for Crysis: Minimum Requirements CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista) Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better VRAM: 256MB of Graphics Memory Storage: 12GB Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible ODD: DVD-ROM OS: Microsoft Windows XP or Vista DirectX: DX9.0c or DX10 Recommended Requirements CPU: Core 2 Duo/Athlon X2 or better RAM: 1.5GB Video Card: NVIDIA 7800 Series, ATI Radeon 1800 Series or better VRAM: 512MB of Graphics Memory Storage: 12GB Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible ODD: DVD-ROM OS: Microsoft Windows XP or Vista DirectX: DX9.0c or DX10 And now the REAL info on the game's requirements: The above "Official Recommended System Requirements" will not run the game on very high. To run the game at 30+ frames per second on very high the following is recommended. OS - Windows Vista Processor - A dual core processor 2.6 GHz or above Memory - 3.0 GB RAM GPU - NVIDIA GeForce 280 GTX or a Radeon HD 4870 X2 And here is why 64-bit is going to be the OS of the future: Crysis takes advantage of 64-bit processors although only by using a 64-bit operating system such as Windows XP Pro 64-bit edition or Windows Vista 64-bit edition. According to Cevat Yerli, Crysis will have a 10-15% performance increase per thread running in 64-bit. Thus a dual core processor will run 20-30% faster than a single and a quad will run 40-60% faster than a single. Dep Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) Hi, Dep! I've been following this thread and noting the great info in it. Thanks for adding more to it! I keep an ongoing wish list of the parts i would get to do a build, hehe. Only dang problem is the recreation budget has been pretty slim cause I have to grease the ground chief so much to scrounge up parts to fix all the crates I bring back full of holes and fried engines (when I actually get back!). Oh, yeah...and my tab at the Downed Pilot Club---gotta talk to Friar about a payment plan. This rig is 3 years old and I'm due for an upgrade---but it's a Dell. It's also an AGP vid slot so it limits how high I can go that way too. I figure saving (who can do that these days?) for a new unit is a better application of funds than getting a max AGP card for this one and then having to get a proper PCI-e card for a new rig. I run XP PRO 32 bit with game settings on perfect, water 2 and forest 2. I've read the Tweak guides for Windoze and the conf.ini., run defrag/anti-vius and malware scans/CCleaner etc. and delete Temp. files/.zip and .rar files/recycle bin regularly. The only time I've been kicked from a server was during the present SEOW. I'll continue to lurk. It's kind of cool to see other people's spec's and all but it's still more the pilot than the machine lol. See you in the skies, m8! Strider Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) My school laptop - 253.6. Beat that, sucka's Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) Strider: I too am following this thread closely. And I'd be a lieing sack of poo if I didn't admit I have Passmark envy over some of the scores. I have a comp with an AGP slot as the only video slot. That one was the one that has the Rambus RAM that I recently upgraded. But the Pent 4 2 GIG processor was a major limiter to better speed. That's why I bought the two workstation comps. I haven't really got a chance to test the xw4200 with the Pent 4 3.8 GIG processor because I ran into a glitch with improving the power supply. It appears I am limited to 400 watts. So I will probably install the same nVidia video card I have in the Xeon in the Pent 4 comp. It's a good one and should work fine. I can't even conceive of guys that are using 2 or 3 of the newest/fastest video cards joined together. The benchmarks for those comps must be fantastic. But the price for a comp like that is also fantastic. So I will stick with what I have. BTW...I downloaded the demo of Crysis. It's similar to the Tom Clancy FPS games, only more modern. I ran it on the Xeon in 64-bit mode (it gives you a choice of 32 or 64-bit) and the best settings I could run at were medium. Even at that setting the graphics are spectacular!!! Not really my type of game, but I can see where this game would kill a low end comp. I wonder if the BoB sim will be written to both 32 and 64 bit? I sure hope so!!! BTW....there IS an AGP card that is supposed to actually exceed some of the low-to-mid grade PCI-E cards in performance. Here's the link at Tiger Direct... http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3805427&CatId=318 It's an ATI card and I'm not a very big fan of ATI. You can see other posts in this section that describe the various problems some folks have with ATI. But I could make an exception for this card if it can bring an AGP slot up to PCI-E levels. Dep Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1. DDz Quorum B16Enk Posted January 10, 2009 1. DDz Quorum Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Crysis is a bear of a game when it comes to hardware. I was able to run it with full graphics @ 1680 x 1050 on my AMD 6000+ 4Gb and ATI 4870HD, but there were areas it would stutter... Valid points made about the meaning of this bench mark, and if truth be known to us guys the proof of the pudding is what our systems will do with the good old gold standard, and I'm surprised it has not been mentioned before, of using IL2 and Fraps (or the in game counter) to determine the min/max/average frame rates. Mine with maxed settings: Avge 41 Max 83 Min 14 I haven't optimized my GPU largely because the ATI CCC failed to install (8.12 CCC has known issues with XP64 ) and I haven't got around to installing RivaTuner. I do ponder the value of a faster hard drive, yes applications/windows/games will load faster, but I would not expect that to have an impact on frame rates, unless the system needs to page virtual memory - but then more RAM would be a better buy in that case . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gec Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Crysis is a bear of a game when it comes to hardware. I was able to run it with full graphics @ 1680 x 1050 on my AMD 6000+ 4Gb and ATI 4870HD, but there were areas it would stutter... Valid points made about the meaning of this bench mark, and if truth be known to us guys the proof of the pudding is what our systems will do with the good old gold standard, and I'm surprised it has not been mentioned before, of using IL2 and Fraps (or the in game counter) to determine the min/max/average frame rates. Mine with maxed settings: Avge 41 Max 83 Min 14 I haven't optimized my GPU largely because the ATI CCC failed to install (8.12 CCC has known issues with XP64 ) and I haven't got around to installing RivaTuner. I do ponder the value of a faster hard drive, yes applications/windows/games will load faster, but I would not expect that to have an impact on frame rates, unless the system needs to page virtual memory - but then more RAM would be a better buy in that case . well said Besixteenenk. the best way to show or check how your comp is working with IL2 is to play the Black Death movie in the game and check the frame rate with fps START SHOW typed in the console gec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Roger: I agree 100% that a faster hard drive will have little if any effect on framerates. Maybe it would be effective for those who have a "RAM ceiling" of 3.5GIG and are still having problems with paging the hard drive. So far my dual Xeon and 4GIG of RAM has had no stuttering problems with IL-2 and doesn't ding the hard drive at all. I am downloading FRAPS right now so I will test it out and see what I am getting. I think many of us don't want to limit our computer upgrades to improving the performance of just one sim (IL-2). I want an OVERALL performance boost where I can play most any of the current games without lowering the game options to graphics that look fugly. I didn't try Crysis at full settings, but I have no doubt it would be low in framerates and stutter like crazy. The graphics level of that game is just plain awesome. Dep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) 454.2 with End It All. Can't wait till my new video card arrives Just did a test on the same comp with a new nVidia 9600 GT video card with 2 GIG of RAM on the card and 4 GIG system RAM. Score was 645.5 with everything running, 647.8 with End It All. Not a bad increase from the previous 454.2 with End It All and the crappy Matrox 2D video card I had. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Arthur Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 638.2 with an Intel E6600@2.4ghz, Nvidia 7950gt, 2 gigs decent ram, maxtor 500gb h/d on win. xp 32 bit. Not completely sure what it all means but like Fireman, Il2 runs fine, life is good! Oh yeah; I'm running one of those awful, cheap power supplies that everyone says should'nt be touched with a barge pole! 650w. and £19.50 new, including postage, off e-bay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Brando Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Ummm, 767 here, and maybe that's to do with running an x1950 Pro. Also the CD-read seems a tad retarded, what's other people getting in that respect? B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HH_RitterCuda Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 437.1 on a laptop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logos Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I got a 490.2 on my Dell XPS 400 2005 puter. It works I guess. Logos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.