Ok, i think it''s a good idea to test the Nvidia''s SphereMark demo, which can act as a benchmark. Looks like it runs fine on any hardware (not restricted to GeForces..). I''m wondering what results would you all get for the default demo (ie., w/o activating/desactivating any option). Here is the link: http://www.nvidia.com/marketing/developer/devrel.nsf/TechnicalDemosFrame?Openpage (Download the demo exe called SphereMark, it''s only 57 kb). As for now, here are the results: PII 400 + GeForce 256 => 4.5 M Tri/s But i''d like someone else who got a very similar system to tell us if he really gets this score, since Nvidia is a little..biaised P200 + Vaudoo2 => 0.11 M Tri/s That''s my computer Looks like there is a ratio of 41 (!) with the PII400/Geforce system. Do you think it''s normal ? Anyway, try it and post your comp. specs (cpu+3d card) results so we can compare Y.

Celeron300A o/c to 450MHz | 128Mb |TNT(viper550) | win98 | 1152*864*16 |

19-22fps and 2.4-2.7M Tri/s

alistair

Edited by - alistair b on July 23, 2000 8:20:32 AM

PIII 450/TNT2 32MB
18-20fps
2.4-2.6 M tri/sec

Zack

PIII-500 / ELSA Gloria L/MX (3Dlabs GLINT MX)
1.5M Tri/s, 12fps

PIII-800 / ELSA Gloria II (NVIDIA Quadro)
10.8M Tri/s, 89fps

If I run at 640x480 in 16 bit color (taking the default window size it gives me), I get almost 6.8 M Tri/s. At 1152x864 (again with default window size) I get 4.68 M Tri/s and 39 fps. My results also were different (read lower) when I was running in 32bit color, as well as when I turned options on and off.

I''m running with an Athlon 700 and a g-force.

What I''m getting at is that the benchmark is going to run at different speeds for more reasons than just processor/ video card combo''s.



Mark Fassett
Laughing Dragon Entertainment
http://www.laughing-dragon.com

PIII-500 | 64MB | TNT2 M64 32MB (Creative) | win98 | 16 Bit color

- default window size
- FPS: 13.2
- 1.59M Tri/s

Celeron 366 @ 550
GEforce SDR

80 fps

9.47M tri/sec

p3 600, 128MB, geforce 256

9.6M Tri/sec @ 78fps

Come on, we need more results

Anyway, here are a few observations:

1. Zeotron''s system (P3 450 + TNT2 ) is around 2.5 Mtri/s, which is almost twice faster than Richardve''s system (P3 500 + TNT2 ) which is around 1.59 Mtri/s.
Did you do the test in the same conditions ? I''m just guessing that Richardve used 32 bits colors and Zeotron 16 bits ? Else i can hardly explain a such difference
To compare i think we''d all need to make it in 16 bit colors in the default window (640x480).

2. So far the best result is Serge, with a PIII 800 + Else Gloria II.. 10.8 Mtri/s.. impressive The worst result is..(*arg*) my computer with 0.11 Mtri/s. Shame on me

3. LaughingD.. i don''t understand for your results. As i understandd it, the results shouldn''t be dependent on the resolution / framerate. Personnally, i get constant results whatever the resolution/framerate is. Though it''s true that the color depth is important. Probably the RAM too.

Y.

thats cause in this test youre not fillrate limited but geometry limited which is what i think its meant to test