See if YOUR Rig can *Handle* Intel/Futuremark's Multi-Core demo

[apoppin]

no ... i meant like a 6600 ... i pm'med someone with a C2D and less capable GPU
i guess it has to be SM3.0, however ... but i am curious if FPS are the same as with a much [much] faster GPU

but of course your results are welcome ....

it appears to be 'all CPU' ... which IS impressive
but .... i don't like the "game" and the demo itself is BORING ...

edit ... 7900 is recommended ... 6600 is minimum according to the requirements ...
.... just want to see how minimum does ....

Ice Storm Fighters is based on a multi-threaded game engine, and its performance scales with the number of processor cores as well as other PC platform components. Using a technique called "n-number threading," the Ice Storm Fighters game engine will generate as many threads as there are CPU cores present on the system.

Ice Storm Fighters is intended to be a forward-looking game engine technology demo for Intel platforms. Here are the system requirements:

CPU: Intel® Core? 2 Extreme QX6700 or Intel® Core? 2 Quad Q6600 processorQuad-Core CPU for ?Demo-high? mode features & capabilities, dual-core Intel CPU for ?Demo-low? mode features & capabilities

Graphics Card: Support DirectX* 9.0 Shader Model 3 required. nVidia* geForce* 6 series (minimum), 7 series (recommended), ATI* Radeon* 1650 or higher

Memory: 1GB or higher

besides the number of cores "its performance scales with ... other PC platform components" ... i wanted to get an idea of the "other variables" besides CPU.

 

[Maximilian]

Discrimination! Cpuist!! I have an opteron.

 

[xSkyDrAx]

Hm, seeing how my rig isnt much different than the other C2D rigs, I was average 40's for the most part. Never went under 30 and occasionally spiked into 70/80. This was all played in low. I don't understand why some people would have averages of 20?

 

[evolucion8]

I tested in my P4 EE and performed like this:N
Low Quality Demo: Min FPS: 16 Max FPS: 26 Average: 22
High Quality Demo: Min FPS: 13 Max FPS: 28 Average: 19
Game Low Quality: Min FPS: 4 Max FPS: 4 Average: 4
Game High Quality: Min FPS: 2 Max FPS: 2 Average: 2

Not bad for a single core CPU. Seems that Hyperthreading coupled with the large 2MB L3 cache helps somewhat, the demo was enjoyable, but the game was far from being playable.

 

[Aikouka]

I couldn't even get the download to start .

EDIT: Scratch that, it started this time! Except it's hella slow .

 

[RussianSensation]

Demo on LOW - dual core

E6400 2.13ghz 2GB of ram + Geforce 6600 256mb

Low: 1fps
High: 7fps
Average fluctuates 4-5fps

E6400 3.40ghz 2GB of ram + Geforce 6600 256mb

Low: 1fps
High: 8fsp
Average fluctuates 5-6fps

At 2.13ghz only 1 core hit 100% and the 2nd core never approached 100%.
At 3.4ghz, neither of the cores hit 100% cpu usage at any time.

Clearly this is far more gpu limited than cpu limited demo.

 

[apoppin]

Thank-you!

and this is with a C2D 3.4Ghz and a stock 6600!
a perfect match of 'extremes' for a test

yours is the "minimum" GPU ... i guess if you have the "suggested" - '7900', the GPU will not hold back your CPUs
[by deduction ... as the fastest GPUs seems to have little advantage over the 'medium' ones]

i wonder what difference there would be if you had Quad Core ... still with a 6600


so i was pretty off in my speculation that it wasn't very GPU dependent ... it is

 

[RussianSensation]

Appopin, that test is by far GPU limited for me. If you want to know how severe my system is limited by the GPU just check out this benchmark:

Quake 3 Arena - 1280x1024 0AA/0AF, Trilinear Filtering, everything on high, 32 bit

timedemo 1

E6400 2.13ghz - 116.7fps
E6400 3.40ghz - 115.0fps

:Q

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Thank-you!

and this is with a C2D 3.4Ghz and a stock 6600!
a perfect match of 'extremes' for a test

yours is the "minimum" GPU ... i guess if you have the "suggested" - '7900', the GPU will not hold back your CPUs
[by deduction ... as the fastest GPUs seems to have little advantage over the 'medium' ones]

i wonder what difference there would be if you had Quad Core ... still with a 6600


so i was pretty off in my speculation that it wasn't very GPU dependent ... it is

Well, I think it's only GPU dependent up to a certain point.

If it was indeed GPU dependent in the sense I am thinking, then there is no reason why people with 8800GTX's should be scoring only 10fps or less more than your X1950Pro./

 

[lopri]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=2047216&enterthread=y

All the way down to the bottom of the thread.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
If you want to know how severe my system is limited by the GPU check this out:

Quake 3 Arena - 1280x1024 0AA/0AF, Trilinear Filtering, everything on high, 32 bit

timedemo 1

E6400 2.13ghz - 116.7fps
E6400 3.40ghz - 115.0fps

:Q

ok ... i might have asked before ... and sorry for the OT

but ... but ... WHY are you running such a NICE rig with a 'minimum' GPU ?


i know you are a gamer .. and can play Q4 fine ... but what about games like STALKER and even more demanding?
--you have to have decent FPS but no detail

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: lopri
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=2047216&enterthread=y

All the way down to the bottom of the thread.

limited by the gpu ... thanks

good think i didn't blab all over
... thanks every one for testing !

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: apoppin

i know you are a gamer .. and can play Q4 fine ... but what about games like STALKER and even more demanding?
--you have to have decent FPS but no detail

I havent played PC games for a long time actually. I beat Warcraft 3 on Radeon 8500 which ran it at 1280x1024 with everything on High (except AA/AF) with no problems. Also HL2 was fine for me at 800x600. I wouldn't consider myself a gamer. I used to play games 5 years ago. Last game I beat on PC was Warcraft 3 and recently I beat Gears of War on Xbox360.

By the way, I overclocked 6600 from 350/1000 stock speeds to 400/1100 which is 14% on the gpu and 10% on the ram and I am now hitting a high of 9fps which is a full frame higher

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: apoppin
limited by the gpu ... thanks

good think i didn't blab all over
... thanks every one for testing !

The GPU in use is a 8600 GT.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: apoppin
limited by the gpu ... thanks

good think i didn't blab all over
... thanks every one for testing !

The GPU in use is a 8600 GT.

ok ... what did i miss?

 

[lopri]

Oh nothing. It worked like this. The demo is both CPU and GPU bound in a sense;

1. Depending on # of core, FPS drops and soars.
2. Under the same # of cores, FPS drops and soars depending on GPU clocks. (overclocking boosted decent amount of FPS)

Sorry I wasn't clear of what I wrote.

 

[apoppin]

thanks for explaining ... at first i thought i was still giving out misinfo ... even after RussianSensation posted
--but your summary is quite correct

and it's a pretty impressive demo, really ... considering what they are trying to do

now if only AMD could get something even more spectacular going for all CPUs that showed theirs in a favorable light
... something that could choke intels FSB