10.3.6

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

  1. 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. 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. 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. macrumors 68030

    Capt Underpants

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