Any performance difference with OpenMark 1.6 128Mb vs. 256Mb VRAM?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Ken S, Apr 8, 2006.

  1. Ken S macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    #1
    There had been some threads about performance differences between the 1600XT 128 Mb VRAM vs. 256 Mb on the iMac.

    Would something like OpenMark1.6 be able to measure any difference?

    Out of curiosity, I ran it on my 20" iMac CD with 2G RAM, 128 Mb Vram (just some data points since the output is quite long):

    hardware detected:
    cpu family: 0x69353836
    cpu type: 0x69353836
    opengl vendor: ATI Technologies Inc.
    opengl renderer: ATI Radeon X1600 OpenGL Engine
    opengl version: 1.5 ATI-1.4.26
    test parms:
    surface 1680x1050 32bpp
    textures: on
    lighting: on
    keep in sync: off
    test started
    FPS 788.0 0 triangles
    FPS 80.0 1107072 triangles
    FPS 35.0 2765952 triangles
    FPS 20.0 5018112 triangles
    FPS 9.0 10839168 triangles
    final score: 11063


    What are others getting with either 128Mb or 256Mb?
     
  2. Ken S thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    #2
    Anyone?

    Is OpenMark1.6 a good measure of graphics performance?
     
  3. truz macrumors 6502a

    truz

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Location:
    Florida
    #3
    iMac Intel 20", 2.0GHz, 2GB Ram, 256mb vram

    hardware detected:
    cpu family: 0x69353836
    cpu type: 0x69353836
    opengl vendor: ATI Technologies Inc.
    opengl renderer: ATI Radeon X1600 OpenGL Engine
    opengl version: 1.5 ATI-1.4.26
    test parms:
    surface 1680x1050 32bpp
    textures: on
    lighting: on
    keep in sync: off
    test started
    FPS 787.0 0 triangles
    FPS 689.0 1152 triangles
    FPS 657.0 4608 triangles
    FPS 621.0 10368 triangles
    FPS 586.0 18432 triangles
    FPS 550.0 28800 triangles
    FPS 507.0 41472 triangles
    FPS 468.0 56448 triangles
    FPS 430.0 73728 triangles
    FPS 399.0 93312 triangles
    FPS 366.0 115200 triangles
    FPS 338.0 139392 triangles
    FPS 310.0 165888 triangles
    FPS 287.0 194688 triangles
    FPS 264.0 225792 triangles
    FPS 246.0 259200 triangles
    FPS 226.0 294912 triangles
    FPS 208.0 332928 triangles
    FPS 193.0 373248 triangles
    FPS 180.0 415872 triangles
    FPS 167.0 460800 triangles
    FPS 155.0 508032 triangles
    FPS 145.0 557568 triangles
    FPS 135.0 609408 triangles
    FPS 125.0 663552 triangles
    FPS 117.0 720000 triangles
    FPS 110.0 778752 triangles
    FPS 102.0 839808 triangles
    FPS 96.0 903168 triangles
    FPS 91.0 968832 triangles
    FPS 85.0 1036800 triangles
    FPS 80.0 1107072 triangles
    FPS 76.0 1179648 triangles
    FPS 72.0 1254528 triangles
    FPS 68.0 1331712 triangles
    FPS 65.0 1411200 triangles
    FPS 61.0 1492992 triangles
    FPS 59.0 1577088 triangles
    FPS 56.0 1663488 triangles
    FPS 53.0 1752192 triangles
    FPS 51.0 1843200 triangles
    FPS 48.0 1936512 triangles
    FPS 46.0 2032128 triangles
    FPS 44.0 2130048 triangles
    FPS 42.0 2230272 triangles
    FPS 41.0 2332800 triangles
    FPS 39.0 2437632 triangles
    FPS 37.0 2544768 triangles
    FPS 36.0 2654208 triangles
    FPS 35.0 2765952 triangles
    FPS 33.0 2880000 triangles
    FPS 32.0 2996352 triangles
    FPS 31.0 3115008 triangles
    FPS 30.0 3235968 triangles
    FPS 29.0 3359232 triangles
    FPS 28.0 3484800 triangles
    FPS 27.0 3612672 triangles
    FPS 26.0 3742848 triangles
    FPS 25.0 3875328 triangles
    FPS 24.0 4010112 triangles
    FPS 24.0 4147200 triangles
    FPS 23.0 4286592 triangles
    FPS 22.0 4428288 triangles
    FPS 22.0 4572288 triangles
    FPS 21.0 4718592 triangles
    FPS 20.0 4867200 triangles
    FPS 20.0 5018112 triangles
    FPS 19.0 5171328 triangles
    FPS 19.0 5326848 triangles
    FPS 18.0 5484672 triangles
    FPS 18.0 5644800 triangles
    FPS 17.0 5807232 triangles
    FPS 17.0 5971968 triangles
    FPS 16.0 6139008 triangles
    FPS 16.0 6308352 triangles
    FPS 15.0 6480000 triangles
    FPS 15.0 6653952 triangles
    FPS 15.0 6830208 triangles
    FPS 14.0 7008768 triangles
    FPS 14.0 7189632 triangles
    FPS 14.0 7372800 triangles
    FPS 13.0 7558272 triangles
    FPS 13.0 7746048 triangles
    FPS 13.0 7936128 triangles
    FPS 12.0 8128512 triangles
    FPS 12.0 8323200 triangles
    FPS 12.0 8520192 triangles
    FPS 12.0 8719488 triangles
    FPS 11.0 8921088 triangles
    FPS 11.0 9124992 triangles
    FPS 11.0 9331200 triangles
    FPS 11.0 9539712 triangles
    FPS 11.0 9750528 triangles
    FPS 10.0 9963648 triangles
    FPS 10.0 10179072 triangles
    FPS 10.0 10396800 triangles
    FPS 10.0 10616832 triangles
    FPS 10.0 10839168 triangles
    FPS 9.0 11063808 triangles
    final score: 11290
     
  4. Nar1117 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    #4
    11063 for the 128 vs. 11290 for the 256

    thats a 2% difference in numbers, with he same amount of RAM.

    Now since i dont have a complete list for the 128 from Ken S, my calculation isnt perfect, and i dont know how the numbers weight against themselves, so.. yeah...

    Obviously the 256 scored higher, but not by much.
     
  5. truz macrumors 6502a

    truz

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Location:
    Florida
    #5
    I was surfing the web lastnight (google) and I was searching for 128 vs 256 x1600 mac. I seen a few posts on other message boards saying the FPS was better as they went from 10fps to like 30fps from the 17" (1.8ghz, 128mb vram) to 20" (2.0ghz, 256mb vram) I'm sure there is a difference, but I don't see how is could be this big of a difference. I honestly don't see 0.2ghz and an extra 128mb vram helping that much. As long as you have 2GB of memory on your system I think all will run flawless. AGAIN... this was all talk I see on other message boards so nothing is 100%. the x1600 is still the x1600 regardless of 128mb vram or 256mb vram, all this is, is the games memory, if it needs more it will run off your systems memory so make sure you max it out to 2GB.
     
  6. Ken S thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    #6
    Okay, here are the complete results from a 20" iMac CD 2.0Gb RAM, 128Mb VRAM:

    hardware detected:
    cpu family: 0x69353836
    cpu type: 0x69353836
    opengl vendor: ATI Technologies Inc.
    opengl renderer: ATI Radeon X1600 OpenGL Engine
    opengl version: 1.5 ATI-1.4.26
    test parms:
    surface 1680x1050 32bpp
    textures: on
    lighting: on
    keep in sync: off
    test started
    FPS 786.0 0 triangles
    FPS 686.0 1152 triangles
    FPS 651.0 4608 triangles
    FPS 619.0 10368 triangles
    FPS 584.0 18432 triangles
    FPS 542.0 28800 triangles
    FPS 502.0 41472 triangles
    FPS 453.0 56448 triangles
    FPS 434.0 73728 triangles
    FPS 401.0 93312 triangles
    FPS 367.0 115200 triangles
    FPS 338.0 139392 triangles
    FPS 312.0 165888 triangles
    FPS 287.0 194688 triangles
    FPS 265.0 225792 triangles
    FPS 244.0 259200 triangles
    FPS 225.0 294912 triangles
    FPS 209.0 332928 triangles
    FPS 194.0 373248 triangles
    FPS 180.0 415872 triangles
    FPS 167.0 460800 triangles
    FPS 154.0 508032 triangles
    FPS 143.0 557568 triangles
    FPS 134.0 609408 triangles
    FPS 125.0 663552 triangles
    FPS 117.0 720000 triangles
    FPS 109.0 778752 triangles
    FPS 102.0 839808 triangles
    FPS 96.0 903168 triangles
    FPS 90.0 968832 triangles
    FPS 85.0 1036800 triangles
    FPS 80.0 1107072 triangles
    FPS 76.0 1179648 triangles
    FPS 72.0 1254528 triangles
    FPS 68.0 1331712 triangles
    FPS 65.0 1411200 triangles
    FPS 61.0 1492992 triangles
    FPS 58.0 1577088 triangles
    FPS 56.0 1663488 triangles
    FPS 53.0 1752192 triangles
    FPS 51.0 1843200 triangles
    FPS 48.0 1936512 triangles
    FPS 46.0 2032128 triangles
    FPS 44.0 2130048 triangles
    FPS 42.0 2230272 triangles
    FPS 41.0 2332800 triangles
    FPS 39.0 2437632 triangles
    FPS 37.0 2544768 triangles
    FPS 36.0 2654208 triangles
    FPS 35.0 2765952 triangles
    FPS 33.0 2880000 triangles
    FPS 32.0 2996352 triangles
    FPS 31.0 3115008 triangles
    FPS 30.0 3235968 triangles
    FPS 29.0 3359232 triangles
    FPS 28.0 3484800 triangles
    FPS 27.0 3612672 triangles
    FPS 26.0 3742848 triangles
    FPS 25.0 3875328 triangles
    FPS 24.0 4010112 triangles
    FPS 24.0 4147200 triangles
    FPS 23.0 4286592 triangles
    FPS 22.0 4428288 triangles
    FPS 21.0 4572288 triangles
    FPS 21.0 4718592 triangles
    FPS 20.0 4867200 triangles
    FPS 20.0 5018112 triangles
    FPS 19.0 5171328 triangles
    FPS 19.0 5326848 triangles
    FPS 18.0 5484672 triangles
    FPS 18.0 5644800 triangles
    FPS 17.0 5807232 triangles
    FPS 17.0 5971968 triangles
    FPS 16.0 6139008 triangles
    FPS 16.0 6308352 triangles
    FPS 15.0 6480000 triangles
    FPS 15.0 6653952 triangles
    FPS 15.0 6830208 triangles
    FPS 14.0 7008768 triangles
    FPS 14.0 7189632 triangles
    FPS 14.0 7372800 triangles
    FPS 13.0 7558272 triangles
    FPS 13.0 7746048 triangles
    FPS 13.0 7936128 triangles
    FPS 12.0 8128512 triangles
    FPS 12.0 8323200 triangles
    FPS 12.0 8520192 triangles
    FPS 12.0 8719488 triangles
    FPS 11.0 8921088 triangles
    FPS 11.0 9124992 triangles
    FPS 11.0 9331200 triangles
    FPS 11.0 9539712 triangles
    FPS 10.0 9750528 triangles
    FPS 10.0 9963648 triangles
    FPS 10.0 10179072 triangles
    FPS 10.0 10396800 triangles
    FPS 10.0 10616832 triangles
    FPS 9.0 10839168 triangles
    final score: 11063
    test stopped
     
  7. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #7
    Interesting results. Does not seem like the extra VRAM makes a huge difference ( at least not according to this benchmark utility). I wonder if other methods of benchmarking would show similar or different results.
     
  8. Nar1117 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    #8
    This is interesting:

    24 FPS is the limit that the average human eye can detect frames passing, anything above that, and its completley smooth.

    Both the 128 and 256 mb Vcards could handle the same amount of triangles (according to this test) at 24 FPS. The lower or higher the number of traingles, the more the variance in FPS between the 256 and the 128.

    The places where they intersect, if you will, are in the mid ranges, from about 20-50 FPS, eacdh card could handle approx. the same amount of triangles. I guess its better to say that the same number of triangles brought out the same number of FPS, since thats the way the test was conducted, but you get my point.
     
  9. steelfist macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
  10. Ken S thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    #10
  11. Nar1117 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    #11
    That first article is pretty good, it explains a lot.

    In each frame of, say, Battlefield 2, during a huge firefight, theres going to be a lot of detail. Obviously, the more detail, the more the GPU has to process. We all know this.

    If you have a higher frame rate, there is more detail on the screen per second. Ever seen Gladiator? The Patriot? These movies have some scenes where the director utilized a higher frame rate to show the dirt flying up from under Maximus' feet while fighting the barbarians, or to show the cannon fire behind mel Gibson. If these scenes were shot in the standard frame rate for movies (25-30), the dirt would be a blur, and the movement wouldnt be as 'smooth'.

    Its the same with Video games. Mind you, BF2 running at 10-15 FPS is sucky, and a higher frame rate is better for flying.

    But yes, i wonder which tests the 256 would really excell at, and the 128 wouldnt do as well... If there arent any, theres no point in getting the 256 unless you really want it, just to say you have it (i.e. me :D ).
     

Share This Page