On a whim, I tried the oldest SPEC OpenGL benchmark, SPECviewperf 6.
SPECViewperf 6.1.2 lives here: http://www.spec.org/gwpg/pastissues/Feb2_02/opc.static/opcview.htm It's also downloadable from ftp://spec.it.miami.edu/dist/gpc/opc/viewperf/specviewperf612is01.exe
So far, the two tests I've tried seem to run ok, though I don't know if the rendering is correct.
On one machine, $ cd ".wine/drive_c/Program Files/SPECopc/SPECviewperf 6.1.2" $ wine cmd /c RunLight04.bat produced a proud 3 frames per second, woot!
This is pretty slow compared to the published results from 2002, http://www.spec.org/gwpg/pastissues/Feb2_02/opc.data/summary.html even without thinking about how much faster today's CPUs are.
Still, it's nice that it runs. Perhaps we can take some baseline data and start looking for bottlenecks one of these days. - Dan
On a whim, I tried the oldest SPEC OpenGL benchmark, SPECviewperf 6.
SPECViewperf 6.1.2 lives here: http://www.spec.org/gwpg/pastissues/Feb2_02/opc.static/opcview.htm It's also downloadable from ftp://spec.it.miami.edu/dist/gpc/opc/viewperf/specviewperf612is01.exe
So far, the two tests I've tried seem to run ok, though I don't know if the rendering is correct.
On one machine, $ cd ".wine/drive_c/Program Files/SPECopc/SPECviewperf 6.1.2" $ wine cmd /c RunLight04.bat produced a proud 3 frames per second, woot!
This is pretty slow compared to the published results from 2002, http://www.spec.org/gwpg/pastissues/Feb2_02/opc.data/summary.html even without thinking about how much faster today's CPUs are.
Still, it's nice that it runs. Perhaps we can take some baseline data and start looking for bottlenecks one of these days.
- Dan
First of all these tests should be performed on solid display drivers. The performance of most open source drivers is crap (in case of Intel an upgrade to the new i915tex branch can do miracles it easily doubles performance). For best results use ATI or Nvidia.
Second I expect the performance on a Geforce / Radeon card to reasonable to good. For the best performance you likely need a Quadro or FireGL the reason being that the drivers of those cards have been optimized for CAD-functionality which is basically what the Spec-tests test.
There are also some more consumer orientated OpenGL tests (something a bit like a 3dmark for opengl). Glmark is one though a bit old, much more recent is FurMark though I have never tried it.
Roderick
Roderick Colenbrander <thunderbird2k <at> gmx.net> writes:
On a whim, I tried the oldest SPEC OpenGL benchmark, SPECviewperf 6.
On one machine, $ cd ".wine/drive_c/Program Files/SPECopc/SPECviewperf 6.1.2" $ wine cmd /c RunLight04.bat produced a proud 3 frames per second, woot!
- Dan
Second I expect the performance on a Geforce / Radeon card to reasonable to
good. For the best performance
you likely need a Quadro or FireGL the reason being that the drivers of those
cards have been optimized for
CAD-functionality which is basically what the Spec-tests test.
Roderick
Out of curiosity, I also tried Dan's test and I also get an average of 3 frames per second with a GeForce 8800 GTS, 100.14.19.
Jeff
Jeff Zaroyko wrote:
Roderick Colenbrander <thunderbird2k <at> gmx.net> writes:
On a whim, I tried the oldest SPEC OpenGL benchmark, SPECviewperf 6.
On one machine, $ cd ".wine/drive_c/Program Files/SPECopc/SPECviewperf 6.1.2" $ wine cmd /c RunLight04.bat produced a proud 3 frames per second, woot!
- Dan
Second I expect the performance on a Geforce / Radeon card to reasonable to
good. For the best performance
you likely need a Quadro or FireGL the reason being that the drivers of those
cards have been optimized for
CAD-functionality which is basically what the Spec-tests test.
Roderick
Out of curiosity, I also tried Dan's test and I also get an average of 3 frames per second with a GeForce 8800 GTS, 100.14.19.
Jeff
I'll just confirm that with my GeForce 8800 GTS, too. I've attached the output from both runs. I'd like to run the native version, but I couldn't get it running, yet. So the difference between wine and windows in the light test is really big.
Rico
Light-04 Viewset -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Weight Frames DLB Visual Double Framebuffer Depth Stencil # Percent Per Sec Sec ID Buffer R G B Alpha Buffer Buffer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 25.00 20.7 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0 2 25.00 28.8 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0 3 25.00 12.9 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0 4 25.00 17.8 N/A 7 True 8 8 8 0 24 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Light-04 Weighted Geometric Mean = 19.24
Light-04 Viewset -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Weight Frames DLB Visual Double Framebuffer Depth Stencil # Percent Per Sec Sec ID Buffer R G B Alpha Buffer Buffer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 25.00 4.28 N/A 1 True 8 8 8 0 24 8 2 25.00 6.37 N/A 1 True 8 8 8 0 24 8 3 25.00 2.71 N/A 1 True 8 8 8 0 24 8 4 25.00 4.04 N/A 1 True 8 8 8 0 24 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Light-04 Weighted Geometric Mean = 4.157
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Roderick Colenbrander thunderbird2k@gmx.net wrote:
On a whim, I tried the oldest SPEC OpenGL benchmark, SPECviewperf 6.
SPECViewperf 6.1.2 lives here: http://www.spec.org/gwpg/pastissues/Feb2_02/opc.static/opcview.htm It's also downloadable from ftp://spec.it.miami.edu/dist/gpc/opc/viewperf/specviewperf612is01.exe
First of all these tests should be performed on solid display drivers. Second I expect the performance on a Geforce / Radeon card to reasonable to good. For the best performance you likely need a Quadro or FireGL ...
Check and check. My card is a Quadro FX 1400, and /proc/driver/nvidia/version says NVRM version: NVIDIA UNIX x86 Kernel Module 169.12 Thu Feb 14 17:53:07 PST 2008 I believe this is the current released driver. And my workstation is fast enough; it's a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 (running at 2800 MHz, according to /proc/cpuinfo) with 2MB L2 cache.
Not all the tests are so horrible. My workstation scores 64.5 on AWadvs-04, which according to http://www.spec.org/gwpg/pastissues/Feb2_02/opc.data/summary.html matches the performance of a Dell Precision Workstation 340 2.0AGHz / nVIDIA Quadro2 EX from 2002. And on MCAD01, it scores 176, which is almost twice the hightest result in 2002 (though again I'm not sure we display everything properly).
Anyway, as I said earlier, I'm just jazzed this stuff runs at all. - Dan
-
Dan Kegel -
Jeff Zaroyko -
Rico Schüller -
Roderick Colenbrander