Post your results...new MEMORY benchmark

[Mixxen]

Cool little OpenGL benchmark...will test your MEMORY speed and NOT your video card cause this program is not fill rate limited.

Particle Fury 210K

My Celery sucks arss...

Celeron 533@896MHz 112MHz Bus
32000 Particles
27.2 FPS
Ave. 879 Kp/sec
Peak 1020 Kp/sec

To do the benchmark:
Open the program, press "N" then press "R".

[edit]My bad...the author posted below stating that this program will bench your memory through output and not your CPU speed. Here are some more results at HardOCP.[/edit]

 

[Mixxen]

Just a quick note...if you do change the resolution and your frame rate changes, then you probably have a stone age video card and you are fill rate limited.

 

[Verygreedy]

hmm.. I get a GLUT32.dll error.. Dont know what that is.

My system is very new but I have an aging v card.. its a Voodoo 3 3k AGP.

 

[Dulanic]

BTW the thing about if your FPS chages when you change window size.... its BS atleast in Win2K, I know im not fillrate limited cause I even OCed the video card and no change.... but if I maximize the window I drop over 30%.

Anyways at the default size Im 1303Kp/sec Average 38.4 FPS

T-Bird 800@1035... I normally run higher but Im running a bit slow right now... Also if I shrunk the window to very small then it got up to over 40FPS.

 

[Mixxen]

Did you extract all the files into one directory?

 

[Verygreedy]

Im showing 27.8 fps and 920 k or so

This is a reflect of an old video card? I have voodoo3 3000 AGp..

My processor is a genuine 1200 Tbird

 

[dingdongdingdong]

that program is suck ass even I overclock my redeon LE to 204mhz the FPS still the same no change. but it 3dmark score at up to 4600 poin under win 2k

 

[Dulanic]

<< that program is suck ass even I overclock my redeon LE to 204mhz the FPS still the same no change. but it 3dmark score at up to 4600 poin under win 2k >>



Considering its supposed to test your CPU/Memory system not your video card, this is a good thing.

 

[dingdongdingdong]

I don't trust that sh!tty program man. my is 1gig@1.400 same result at you guy lol

 

[Verygreedy]

yeah.. whats up. I run slower than most of you with a genuine 1.2 GHZ T-bird.. this program cant be correct. Video card has to have a bearing on the scores..most of the scores. I have an older Voodoo 3 3000AGP.. (I upgrade that soon) but my process whoops both yours..

 

[Ausm]

DOH !!

Ausm

Looks like Sandra is the way to go...

Ausm

 

[ChrisIsBored]

Umm yeah I don't trust these results much either...

23.3 FPS
Avg: 743 kp/sec
Peak: 752 kp/sec

That's off my Win2k box with dual p3 750's, 1ghz pc-100 ram, elsa gladiac(32mb) with det 3 (7.52 drivers)

EDIT: Compared the results with my 1Ghz T-Bird, I guess this program is only using one processor from my dual setup. Cheap program.

 

[Wingznut]

From the site... &quot;On systems with a P6-class FPU or higher, it is almost totally limited by memory speed, making Particle Fury an excellent benchmark of memory performance.&quot;

 

[PliotronX]

Pee3 700@868
34.1 FPS
Avg: 1085 kp/sec
Peak: 1106 kp/sec

 

[Nightwish]

Hey all,
This is George Pantazopoulos, the author of Particle Fury. Thanks for trying out the program guys and gals. The reason a 1400MHz TBird is not doing better than lower CPU speeds is because the benchmark tests memory performance, and not clockspeed! Also on most vid cards its not fillrate limited. However if you have an older vid card, you can try making sure youre running in 16-bit mode. Also try shrinking the window until your score stabilizes, then you will be really testing your mem bandwidth. It only runs at 640x480 so a Voodoo 3000 would probably be fine, but let me know if I'm wrong about that!
Also if you expand the window all the way, then a LOT of cards will become fillrate limited. I know my benchmark isn't as controlled as say 3DMark2000, but I'll work on that for the next release. And yes, Dulanic youre right. Its a completely diffrent benchmark than 3DMark. 3DMark is heavily video card dependant, ParticleFury is not!

Also, make sure VSYNC is off!!

A major reason why AMD scores can be lower is that the KT133 boards run at default 100MHz FSB, and even if you have 133MHz RAM, it runs asynchronously, hurting performance. People with KT133A boards are getting great scores though, since it runs at a true 133/133.

I'm still jealous of you AMD people though, TBird rocks!


George Pantazopoulos
http://www.videocarddrivers.com/particlefury

 

[Wingznut]

Wow, thanks for the info George!

I'm looking forward to release #2.

 

[aGeNt73]

&quot;that program is suck ass even I overclock my redeon LE to 204mhz the FPS still the same no change. but it 3dmark score at up to 4600 poin under win 2k&quot;

the only thing that sucks ass is your english and your rudeness. this guy just wanted some testing help. Let's see you do a better job.

 

[Smbu]

Well, I am getting a really strange score. In Win98SE my score with my P3 700@1ghz (143fsb), 512mb RAM 2-2-2 5t,7t, and a 32mb DDR ATI AIW Radeon was about 24fps, with the other 2 scores in the upper 700's kp.

When I tried it out in Win2k Pro my score plummeted. My score went down to about 5fps and I don't recall what the kp scores were since I tested it last night.

I think maybe this program doesn't like my Radeon, because I have a faster system than the author of the program and I am running my cpu at a higher fsb(143fsb vs. 142fsb),(more memory bandwidth) so I should be getting a higher score right? Also, I'm pretty sure that I have more memory bandwidth than people using Celeron II cpu's(even overclocked ones).

Just for reference my Sandra memory benchmark score at this speed is:
ALU: 434 MB/s
FPU: 511 MB/s

 

[yo2tup]

i'll try it later. my kt7a-raid is running on a 155mhz fsb

 

[KameLeon]

<< Celeron 533@896MHz 112MHz Bus
32000 Particles
27.2 FPS
Ave. 879 Kp/sec
Peak 1020 Kp/sec >>



I'm getting scores in the 500's on Athlon 700, 512mb PC133 ram, tnt2 32mb. Am I doing something wrong?

My sisoft sandra score:
ALU: 430MB/s
FPU: 520MB/s

 

[Nightwish]

Hey, thanks a lot for your support guys! It looks like a more than a few Radeon users are getting really low scores under Win2K (5-6fps). Sounds like a driver issue to me. Do Win2K Radeon drivers have a lot of known problems in general? I'll try to get to the bottom of this.

George Pantazopoulos
http://www.videocarddrivers.com/particlefury

 

[Vinny N]

Tbird 1100MHz 100MHz Bus/ 133mhz mem
32000 Particles
33.9 FPS
Ave. 1082 Kp/sec
Peak 1091 Kp/sec

Windows 98SE.

This is with the VIA 4in1 drivers installed...

I actually was running without them and my fps was 8.6! The Kp/sec numbers were absurdly low too.

I'll try 145mhz mem speed in a sec...

edit:

Tbird 1200MHz 109MHz Bus/ 145mhz mem
32000 Particles
35.6 FPS
Ave. 1128 Kp/sec
Peak 1145 Kp/sec


edit:

This is on an MSI K7T Pro2. Mem is Crucial CAS2 PC133.
Mem is running at CAS2 in both cases, and with 4 way interleave.

 

[Dulanic]

I guess it does depend mostly on memory... Im runnin 148 FSB, I should try 154 or so.

 

[darth maul]

32.3 FPS
1035

Thats with a Duron at 954 (106Mhz bus) and 128megs of memory at running 141Mhz. Oh and thats on a Abit KT7 RAID.

EDIT:

My sandra scores;
ALU/RAM Bandwidth 478MB/s
FPU/RAM Bandwidth 560MB/s

 

[macssuck]

My sucky PII 400 with 256 Crucial Pc133@100 cas2-2-2

16FPS
AVG 500
peak 542Kp/sec