Benchmarks for 0.9.5

[Tom Wickline]

Hello,

Please take with a large dose of salt.
http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5

Tom

--
Pain needs not cry for me.......

[Chris Morgan]

We appear to be faster now, leading in 67 tests vs. 63 for a previous
set of benchmarks?  Its difficult to see the trend over time having to
go back and forth between pages.

Chris

On 1/17/06, Tom Wickline  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please take with a large dose of salt.
> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Pain needs not cry for me.......

[Tom Wickline]

On 1/17/06, Chris Morgan  wrote:
> We appear to be faster now, leading in 67 tests vs. 63 for a previous
> set of benchmarks?  Its difficult to see the trend over time having to
> go back and forth between pages.
>
> Chris

There is going to be a rather significant change taking place in a
couple minutes.
To make a long story short I was running 3dmark2000 in a 1024x768 window because
when i selected details after a bench it would crash if I was in full
screen.. I did some looking around and found a download
http://www1.3dnews.ru/download/tests/3dmark/

There is a performance hit if you run the graphics test in a window..

I was going to put the new results next to the old wine results, but I
re-ran some of the test on XP as well because wine will run the HDD
test in pcmark04 now. I can put up a page with 20050419  results vs
0.9.5 ??

Tom

[Dimi Paun]

From: "Tom Wickline"
> I was going to put the new results next to the old wine results, but I
> re-ran some of the test on XP as well because wine will run the HDD
> test in pcmark04 now. I can put up a page with 20050419  results vs
> 0.9.5 ??

That would be great, but please don't create another page.
Just add one more column at the end (that would hold just
the percentage difference of the old test), and put N/A for
tests that were not run/available in 20050419.

[Scott Ritchie]

On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:22 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
> From: "Tom Wickline"
> > I was going to put the new results next to the old wine results, but I
> > re-ran some of the test on XP as well because wine will run the HDD
> > test in pcmark04 now. I can put up a page with 20050419  results vs
> > 0.9.5 ??
>
> That would be great, but please don't create another page.
> Just add one more column at the end (that would hold just
> the percentage difference of the old test), and put N/A for
> tests that were not run/available in 20050419.

This seems like the best approach.  Thank you very much for this Tom,
it's rather interesting.

Thanks,
Scott Ritchie

[Tom Wickline]

On 1/17/06, Dimi Paun  wrote:
> That would be great, but please don't create another page.
> Just add one more column at the end (that would hold just
> the percentage difference of the old test), and put N/A for
> tests that were not run/available in 20050419.

Dimi, Chris

Thanks for the feed back guy's, I've made a couple small changes since
my last message. Does the current page look better now? If i put the
percentage change in another column do you think it will confuse
people who don't know what the percentages are based against?

I never knew so many people were interested in this, I guess I should
be more serious
about the benchmarks in the future... As being a wise crack at times
might give a bad impression when it's not intended..

http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0%2e9%2e5?action=info&hitcounts=1

Tom

P.S.

3DMark06 will install and start up, all we need is Pixel Shader 2.0
for 3Dmark05 & 06 and some of the test should start to run.
> --
> Dimi Paun 
> Lattica, Inc.

--
Pain needs not cry for me.......

[Dimi Paun]

From: "Tom Wickline"
> Thanks for the feed back guy's, I've made a couple small changes since
> my last message. Does the current page look better now? If i put the
> percentage change in another column do you think it will confuse
> people who don't know what the percentages are based against?

Looks great! The only nit is that we report percentage change for
tests that did not run as -100%, which is confusing. It should be
N/A too, and maybe highlighted differently...

Also, it seems that people like to see how we've improved from
last time, so another column (with appropriate explanation and
link at the top) would be good. I think it should be the last
column, so that current percentage is kept close to the actual
results.

[Joris Huizer]

I'm a bit confused, how can there be failures under windows? is this 
because of driver problems?

regards,

Joris

[Tom Wickline]

On 1/17/06, Tom Wickline  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please take with a large dose of salt.
> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5

Add more salt, I have the 3dmark2000 result browser installed and can
get scores from full screen runs now.
> Tom

[Aric Cyr]

Tom Wickline <twickline <at> gmail.com> writes:
> On 1/17/06, Tom Wickline <twickline <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Please take with a large dose of salt.
> > http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
>
> Add more salt, I have the 3dmark2000 result browser installed and can
> get scores from full screen runs now.

Just a suggestion, but it might be interesting to post the native Linux scores
for those tests that have native Linux executables (i.e. ut2004, quake3).  That
should give us a "theoretical best score," since it is unlikely that a Wine
setup could surpass a native Linux binary (assume the options/features are
identical of course).

In the case of ut2004, it uses, by default, DirectX in windows and OpenGL in
Linux I believe.  As such a ut2004+opengl test might be a useful comparison as
well. I haven't tried this myself though, so don't ask me how :)

Regards,
  Aric