User panel stuff on forum
  9 posts on 1 page  1
General Discussion
2018-06-04, 11:12
Member
23 posts

Registered:
Jul 2017
Never seen more than 3400 :-)
2018-06-04, 13:27
Member
220 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
12000-14000 is maximum i've seen.

Thatsis in 320x240 with ezquake 3.5 and the new renderer :-)
2018-06-04, 17:18
Member
53 posts

Registered:
Apr 2017
Raket's h4xo'rs
2018-06-04, 20:37
Member
71 posts

Registered:
Oct 2010
Evgeniy Vaganovich??)) perelogintes'
2018-07-04, 08:25
Member
71 posts

Registered:
Oct 2010
Raket, I don't really know are you joking or not.. After a few experiments with old phenom 2 955 (year 2009 or arrival) I improve qw perfomance from 1500 fps to 2500 on the top of dm6 center teleporter, and 5549 fps in the darkest corner. And i know that q1 render draws too much polygons that are far off the corners (it usually draws full next room, while you see few polygons) so results over 10000 fps is totally possible..
Where can i see a new render if it exists?
Can i talk to someone about its code or it's top secret?
I tried and I'm trying now to think about visibility problem, have some soughts about memory-over-calculation approach to improve perfomance..
2018-07-06, 08:32
News Writer
21 posts

Registered:
Oct 2015
Guys, FPS values are non-linear!
The speed difference between 1000 and 4000 FPS is exactly the same as between 800 and 1000.

Here is a nice article about it:
https://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

TLDR: "Frame Times in ms" is what we should compare, not FPS.
zin
2018-07-08, 13:48
Member
220 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
VanoZ wrote:
Raket, I don't really know are you joking or not.. After a few experiments with old phenom 2 955 (year 2009 or arrival) I improve qw perfomance from 1500 fps to 2500 on the top of dm6 center teleporter, and 5549 fps in the darkest corner. And i know that q1 render draws too much polygons that are far off the corners (it usually draws full next room, while you see few polygons) so results over 10000 fps is totally possible..
Where can i see a new render if it exists?
Can i talk to someone about its code or it's top secret?
I tried and I'm trying now to think about visibility problem, have some soughts about memory-over-calculation approach to improve perfomance..


It's not trolling. It was on a Geforce GTX 970 with crt connected, fps was stable at 10000-15000 in 320x240.

However i switched to another gfx now, which, sadly makes no difference from the difference renders :-)

Might be drivers, might be the card. I can't tell.
2018-07-08, 18:42
Administrator
1020 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
mission wrote:
Guys, FPS values are non-linear!
The speed difference between 1000 and 4000 FPS is exactly the same as between 800 and 1000.

Here is a nice article about it:
https://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

TLDR: "Frame Times in ms" is what we should compare, not FPS.

Yes and no. That article draws some pretty stupid conclusions too, depending on how you look at it. Comparing a drop from 900fps to 450fps being the same as dropping from 60fps to 56.25fps; sure frame time wise itís the same time. From another perspective the change adds 100% penalty on the total frametime whereas the second adds ~6% of total frame time. From that perspective it might be a pretty crappy addition if it costs 100% added total frame time.

If ezQuake can render a complete frame (_many_ calls) in 1ms, adding a single extra call that costs 1ms then that call is expensive in reference to total frame time.
If ezQuake on the other hand were to render a frame in 20ms, that extra millisecond is not as bad.
2018-07-15, 14:38
News Writer
856 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
raket wrote:
12000-14000 is maximum i've seen.

Thatsis in 320x240 with ezquake 3.5 and the new renderer :-)

This doesn't seem ridiculous at all to me....
I get over 7000fps in 1920x1080 using the new renderer in the ezquake 3.5 alpha.
  9 posts on 1 page  1