10.3.6

Discussion in 'Games' started by vraxtus, Nov 5, 2004.

  1. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #1
    10.3.5
    For further information, please visit the timedemo FAQ at: http://halo.bungie.net/site/halo/features/hpcperformancefaq.html
    Date / Time: 9/1/04 8:23:53 (0ms)
    1800MHz, 1024MB
    Macintosh G5 HD\Applications\Halo\Halo -console Frames=4700
    Total Time=200.50s
    Average frame rate=23.44fps
    Below 5fps= 5% (time) 0% (frames) (10.829s spent in 11 frames)
    Below 10fps= 6% (time) 0% (frames)
    Below 15fps= 21% (time) 8% (frames)
    Below 20fps= 42% (time) 23% (frames)
    Below 25fps= 60% (time) 41% (frames)
    Below 30fps= 81% (time) 64% (frames)
    Below 40fps= 91% (time) 79% (frames)
    Below 50fps= 96% (time) 88% (frames)
    Below 60fps= 97% (time) 91% (frames)
    ###Sound Options###
    Hardware Acceleration= No
    Sound Quality= Normal
    Environmental Sound= No
    Sound Variety= High
    ###Video Options###
    Resolution= 1280 x 1024
    Refresh rate= 0 Hz
    Framerate throttle= No Vsync
    Specular= No
    Shadows= Yes
    Decals= Yes
    Particles= Off
    Texture Quality= High


    10.3.6
    For further information, please visit the timedemo FAQ at: http://halo.bungie.net/site/halo/features/hpcperformancefaq.html
    Date / Time: 11/6/04 4:44:28 (0ms)
    1800MHz, 1024MB
    Macintosh G5 HD\Applications\Halo\Halo -console Frames=4700
    Total Time=188.47s
    Average frame rate=24.94fps
    Below 5fps= 5% (time) 0% (frames) (9.754s spent in 12 frames)
    Below 10fps= 6% (time) 0% (frames)
    Below 15fps= 20% (time) 7% (frames)
    Below 20fps= 37% (time) 19% (frames)
    Below 25fps= 55% (time) 35% (frames)
    Below 30fps= 72% (time) 54% (frames)
    Below 40fps= 89% (time) 77% (frames)
    Below 50fps= 95% (time) 87% (frames)
    Below 60fps= 97% (time) 91% (frames)
    ###Sound Options###
    Hardware Acceleration= No
    Sound Quality= Normal
    Environmental Sound= No
    Sound Variety= High
    ###Video Options###
    Resolution= 1280 x 1024
    Refresh rate= 0 Hz
    Framerate throttle= No Vsync
    Specular= Yes
    Shadows= Yes
    Decals= Yes
    Particles= Off
    Texture Quality= High


    Comments:
    The increase is still within the 5% margin off error but it remains an increase. I'd like to see any other benching posted here, thanks.
     
  2. Littleodie914 macrumors 68000

    Littleodie914

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #2
    Hmm... In the 10.3.6 benchmarks it also states that the "Specular" option was turned on, while it was off in the 10.3.5 tests. Is this just a typo, or did you really get BETTER results with the specular effects turned on? 'Cuz I know that when I turn them on in the PC verion, it slows to a crawl.
     
  3. woxel1 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    #3
    I'm just going to do an eyeballing test and say that 10.3.6 is the best update (graphicswise) since 10.3.3. I'm on a 1.25 G4 iMac, and I'm playing UT2k4 on maximum settings (hovering somewhere between 40 and 20 fps depending on the environment). So sweet. Everyone update! Woo!
     
  4. Capt Underpants macrumors 68030

    Capt Underpants

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #4
    With maximum settings? I find that hard to believe...
     
  5. vraxtus thread starter macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #5
    MMM good call, I'll have to verify that and get back to you.
     
  6. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #6
    I'm still seeing a problem with seams in a certain CBP2 map for UT2004--you can see light where the objects' parts meet and you shouldn't. I noticed this same mess in the Tiger Woods 2003 game when I updated from 10.2.8 to 10.3.

    However, even the UT2004 menus seemed a bit better, especially since I'm running two instances of folding@home in the background.
     
  7. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #7
    Don't have Halo, but I've done a test with Ut2003.

    UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]
    MacOS 10.3.5
    Unknown CPU @ 1333 MHz
    NVIDIA NV34MAP OpenGL Engine
    dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound
    15.622748 / 48.433643 / 132.648178 fps rand[93372187]
    Score = 48.201378

    UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]
    MacOS 10.3.6
    Unknown CPU @ 1333 MHz
    NVIDIA NV34MAP OpenGL Engine
    dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound
    16.838791 / 50.734070 / 145.222137 fps rand[93372187]
    Score = 50.488918

    My results also showed a roughly 5% increase, i also tried the botmatch test, but the difference was about <1% (10.3.5 was faster...). Anyway the botmatch test is much more cpu bound than the flyby tests.

    The test was run in 1024x768, else standard UT2003 config on a Powerbook 12-inch with 768MB RAM
     

Share This Page