Author Topic: Performance Test Results (Read 25578 times)

blotz · « **on:** November 27, 2013, 08:16:08 PM »

Post'm
idk if it's out of 20 or something

edit: spelling

tuto99 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 27, 2013, 08:17:36 PM »

I did the performance test. I received 12.4 as my score.
Overall, the array of planets and the meteorite collisions were the only parts of the test that had a decent frame rate for me. I have no bugs or glitches to report.

vh · « **Reply #2 on:** November 27, 2013, 08:23:36 PM »

Breakfestbacon · « **Reply #3 on:** November 27, 2013, 08:29:10 PM »

I got a 50.87
so its not out of 20 lol.

blotz · « **Reply #4 on:** November 27, 2013, 08:33:25 PM »

ok it's out of 100 and we all suck

vh · « **Reply #5 on:** November 27, 2013, 08:37:42 PM »

so this is what happens when i make the screen small before the test:

Dan Dixon · « **Reply #6 on:** November 27, 2013, 08:38:38 PM »

There's no maximum score...

It's basically an average frame rate of the entire test.

Performance Score = Total Frames Drawn / Length of Test

Georg · « **Reply #7 on:** November 27, 2013, 08:46:03 PM »

As Dan said: the score is not a percentage, there's no maximum and there's no such thing as a bad score

We're doing this to understand what performance you guys are getting, how we can improve speed and quality and to find and squish any nasty bugs you might encounter. So every report you submit is really helping all of us, so keep em coming.

That said, please also make liberal use of the feedback function (the star icon in the top right corner will open the window for that) when you find errors or have comments. Much appreciated!

Unreal2004 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 27, 2013, 09:44:33 PM »

82.08

Runs very very smooth, just my bug window will not drop down to the second line (reported in the window itself) so I have no idea what I type past the window size itself.

EDIT: Going to try running US-Alpha on my laptop as well, this should be interesting since it doesnt have a dedicated graphics card to offload some processing to.

FiahOwl · « **Reply #9 on:** November 27, 2013, 09:50:40 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '113436'.

Naru523 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 27, 2013, 09:52:24 PM »

22.81, although my bad on laptop's performance. I might try it on my brother's computer as well.

Unreal2004 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 27, 2013, 10:03:16 PM »

Quote from: molunbun on November 27, 2013, 10:01:59 PM

Text isn't wrapped in that textbox so you need to press enter manually.

Yep, found that out LOL, it is like using a typewriter

Just no DING to let you know you are near the end.

bevis · « **Reply #12 on:** November 27, 2013, 10:12:18 PM »

85.7

Unreal2004 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 27, 2013, 10:23:04 PM »

Laptop..................................13.8, I thought it would do worse.

tuto99 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 27, 2013, 10:23:56 PM »

Quote from: Unreal2004 on November 27, 2013, 10:23:04 PM

Laptop..................................13.8, I thought it would do worse.

Your laptop is better than my desktop.

Unreal2004 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 27, 2013, 10:32:42 PM »

Well that was the best of 2 runs, 1st run was in the low 12s. The laptop gets HOT during this run. What are you running for a desktop tuto?

tuto99 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 27, 2013, 10:47:06 PM »

Quote from: Unreal2004 on November 27, 2013, 10:32:42 PM

Well that was the best of 2 runs, 1st run was in the low 12s. The laptop gets HOT during this run. What are you running for a desktop tuto?

I run a Windows 8 desktop. I have 4 gigabytes of ram but I don't know if I have a good processor or not.

vh · « **Reply #17 on:** November 27, 2013, 11:03:45 PM »

universe sandbox is more graphics oriented rather than requiring processing power. when i was in the galaxy collision phase of the performance test, my cpu usage was at 11% and i was getting around 10 fps. i can only imagine how hard my gpu was struggling.

ericjhilton · « **Reply #18 on:** November 27, 2013, 11:17:22 PM »

We run a number of simulations, and we're tracking how long rendering, drawing the trails/paths/labels, integrating the orbits, etc takes for each simulation. So we'll have more detailed information than just the final number (essentially the average frame rate). What we hope to do is figure out if any of those tasks is especially slow on particular hardware/OS, and then try to optimize.

Arnstein · « **Reply #19 on:** November 27, 2013, 11:56:43 PM »

I just did the introduction, and ran the performance test. During the performance test I had to go to the toilet, and when I came back, the Universe Sandbox window was black. It's still running(doesn't say "not responding" in task manager).

Also, was there more to the introduction after the performance test? Because I had to close US since the window was black, and I want to do the whole introduction! I have to go to university right now, so I will finish the performance test while I get ready to go, but will have to wait with completing the introduction till later tonight.

Edit: Did the performance test again, and got 82.61. I also found the command to do the introduction again.

JAW1002 · « **Reply #20 on:** November 28, 2013, 06:03:10 AM »

Is there still a launch bodies feature?

Kevin1994 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 28, 2013, 06:12:21 AM »

45-46 frames Geforce 660 TI.

XilentDude · « **Reply #22 on:** November 28, 2013, 06:56:45 AM »

So, 133 after I selected my CPU as the OpenCL Device and with the GPU selected I had about 72.

CPU (i5 3570k@ 4.2 GHz)

GPU (Nvidia GTX 460)

blotz · « **Reply #23 on:** November 28, 2013, 07:04:39 AM »

oh wow 4.2 i'm guessing that's a desktop
"Total Frames Drawn / Length of Test"
so anyone have the length of the test?

Chris · « **Reply #24 on:** November 28, 2013, 07:08:35 AM »

A huge thanks to everyone who participates in the Alpha!
Your feedback is very important to us - you'll help us find the weirdest bugs

Don't let yourself get confused over the performance results.
The benchmark is in a very early state and the results can be skewed when you have a very slow HDD, for example.

One thing we haven't told you yet is that eventually you'll be able to create self-running demos like the benchmark yourself. Almost every aspect of the sandbox can be controlled by console commands. When put into a sequence (a script) you can build presentations, demos, screensavers.

You will see a lot of changes between now and beta, just hang in there and keep testing so we can squish those nasty bugs!

Cheers

Chris · « **Reply #25 on:** November 28, 2013, 07:12:43 AM »

Quote from: XilentDude on November 28, 2013, 06:56:45 AM

So, 133 after I selected my CPU as the OpenCL Device and with the GPU selected I had about 72.
CPU (i5 3570k@ 4.2 GHz)
GPU (Nvidia GTX 460)

This is a classic case of a CPU outrunning a GPU.
I could go into a lot of detail here, but suffice to say that the GTX460 is not at the front of the show when it comes to CUDA cores (which are utilized for OpenCL).
Your CPU on the other hands is nicely overclocked and shuffles 64bit registers like a champion!

We are closely analyzing the results and optimizing where possible.
Thanks again!

blotz · « **Reply #26 on:** November 28, 2013, 07:21:44 AM »

i got a 7.62 fail i know
it was with universe sandbox running in high priortiy too! task mamager
also ctrl+backspace doesn't work in the comments box

livelife42 · « **Reply #27 on:** November 28, 2013, 10:41:22 AM »

Got 144.95 using my HD 7970
Using my CPU an i7 3770k O/C 4.2 Ghz I got 145.08
http://i42.tinypic.com/u0zdd.png

Breakfestbacon · « **Reply #28 on:** November 28, 2013, 12:48:49 PM »

Second run: 65.54

Feldruam · « **Reply #29 on:** November 28, 2013, 01:24:54 PM »

Mine was 45 something, I think 45.25, I need to upgrade though, it was chugging on the high detail galaxy collision.

It won't the load thousands of moons simulation, tons of moons(400) it runs at about 13-14 fps.

Also note that using the cpu or cpu tree is a lot slower than using CL(which run rather smoothly).

The impact marks don't disappear/cool over simulated time.

Using anything larger than 500m with basically create armageddon, with all the debris which in turn make's more explosions.

All in all, stability and optimizations and increased performance which requires less resources should improve fps during heavier simulation load.

I'm just beginning to use that omnipotence thoe.

EDIT: Second test is 49.12, I reduced the screen size(windowed mode)