phiol

I am starting a new thread with Pedro Santos's nicely crafted Jitter benchmark patch.

It is taken from my post titled "best computer (graphic card etc..) for Jitter".

This more important part was buried to deep in the thread to be missed out on.

Here is his reply with the patch "jitter_benchmark-v1.01.maxpat" :

(this patch version has "cache_mode immediate" to the jit.gl.gridshape object present in the GPU Geometry 1)

Hello, again! Here’s a better Jitter benchmark utility I just built. It could be a start for a more definitive tool with the help of the community.

It’s also theoretically expandable to include other scenes…

For your reference here’s the data for my custom-built desktop:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 @ 3.2 GHz, 6GB RAM

I am starting a new thread with Pedro Santos's nicely crafted Jitter benchmark patch.
It is taken from my post titled "best computer (graphic card etc..) for Jitter".

Here is his reply with the patch "jitter_benchmark-v1.01.maxpat" :
(this patch version has "cache_mode immediate" to the jit.gl.gridshape object present in the GPU Geometry 1)

Hello, again! Here’s a better Jitter benchmark utility I just built. It could be a start for a more definitive tool with the help of the community.
It’s also theoretically expandable to include other scenes…

For your reference here’s the data for my custom-built desktop:
CPU: 97.8
GPU Geometry 1: 110.8
GPU Geometry 2: 98.3
GPU Pixel Shaders: 96.5

Windows 7 (64 bit), Max 6.1.9 (32 bit)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 @ 3.2 GHz, 6GB RAM
AMD HD 4870 1GB RAM


benchmarking-jitters-cpugpu-performance-on-your-computer

GPU Geometry 2: 200.8 I didn't see the background during the test.

GPU Pixel Shaders: 39.4 This test was just a bunch of frozen noise

Lenovo w520
2.2ghz cpu
16gb ram
Nvidia quadro 2000m

max 6
CPU: 117.7
GPU Geometry 1: 55.1
GPU Geometry 2: 363.4 
GPU Pixel Shaders: 28.4

max 7
CPU: 150.9
GPU Geometry 1: 37.1
GPU Geometry 2: 359.7
GPU Pixel Shaders: 44.2

MAX 7 test patch version 1.012
CPU: 153.8
GPU Geometry 1: 36.3
GPU Geometry 2: 200.8  I didn't see the background during the test.
GPU Pixel Shaders: 39.4 This test was just a bunch of frozen noise


Geometry test 2 uses 3 high poly-count objects.

Professional graphics card drivers are usually optimized for these kinds of operation (modelling with many polygons).

On the other hand, the shader performance is low.

It's really useful to see such differences between cards...

Geometry test 1 uses jit.gl.multiple.
Geometry test 2 uses 3 high poly-count objects.
Professional graphics card drivers are usually optimized for these kinds of operation (modelling with many polygons).
On the other hand, the shader performance is low.
It's really useful to see such differences between cards...


macbook pro (from 4 5 years back)
OSX 10.9.5
2.2 ghz intel icore i7
8 GB 1333 Mhz DDR3
AMD Radeon HD 6750M 1024 MB

CPU: 96.2
GPU Geometry 1: 20.4
GPU Geometry 2: 96.8
GPU Pixel Shaders: 47.2


Results from three MacBook Pros of various ages. Disappointing numbers from the brand new lappy...

MacBook Pro 15" Early 2008
OSX 10.6.8
Max 6.0.7
2.6GHz Intel Core Duo
2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT

CPU: 59.4
GPU Geometry 1: 5.8
GPU Geometry 2: 7.8
GPU Pixel Shaders: 19.4 

MacBook Pro 15" Late 2011
OSX 10.7.5
Max 6.1.8
2.5GHz Intel Core i7
4GB 1333Mhz DDR3
AMD Radeon HD 6770M 1024MB

CPU: 93.1
GPU Geometry 1: 19.8
GPU Geometry 2: 95.4
GPU Pixel Shaders: 39.3 

MacBook Pro 15" Retina Mid 2014
OSX 10.9.5
Max 6.1.8
2.5GHz Intel Core i7
16GB 1600MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048MB

CPU: 109.9
GPU Geometry 1: 6.4
GPU Geometry 2: 27.0
GPU Pixel Shaders: 84.1


MacBook Pro 15" non Retina Mid 2012
OSX 10.9.4
Max 6.1.7
2.6GHz Intel Core i7
8GB 1600MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1024MB

CPU: 108.6
GPU Geometry 1: 5.2
GPU Geometry 2: 22.6
GPU Pixel Shaders: 77.4


MacBook Pro
Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013
2,6 GHz Intel Core i7
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048 MB

CPU: 126.2
GPU Geometry 1: 6.4
GPU Geometry 2: 26.8
GPU Pixel Shaders: 82.5 

Macbook pro 5.3
15" mi-2009
2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
8GB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce 9400M 256 MB
CPU: 36.7
GPU Geometry 1: 2.7
GPU Geometry 2: 16.9
GPU Pixel Shaders: 7.7 

NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT 512 MB
CPU: 49.1
GPU Geometry 1: 4.6
GPU Geometry 2: 50.3
GPU Pixel Shaders: 21.9

NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT 512 MB
CPU: 61.7
GPU Geometry 1: 6.6
GPU Geometry 2: 53.4
GPU Pixel Shaders: 25.7


mbp 15" (4 days old)
OSX 10.9.4
Processor 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048 MB

1st version
CPU: 109.8
GPU Geometry 1: 6.3
GPU Geometry 2: 26.5
GPU Pixel Shaders: 82.9

2nd version
CPU: 109.6
GPU Geometry 1: 6.4
GPU Geometry 2: 27.2
GPU Pixel Shaders: 84.9

Hackintosh OSX.9.5 I7-2700K @ 4.5 GHz 16 GB 1600 MHz RAM AMD6870

Hackintosh OSX.9.5 I7-2700K @ 4.5 GHz 16 GB 1600 MHz RAM AMD6870
CPU: 110.4
GPU Geometry 1: 31.0
GPU Geometry 2: 112.7
GPU Pixel Shaders: 168.8


iMac 27" (late 2012),
OS X 10.8.5
3.4 GHz Intel Core i7
8GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (1024 MB):
Max 6.1.5

CPU: 107.7
GPU Geometry 1: 6.8
GPU Geometry 2: 32.1
GPU Pixel Shaders: 207.9 

Macbook Pro (late 2013)
OS X 10.9.5,
2.6 GHz Intel Core i7
16GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M (2048 MB)
Max 6.1.5

CPU: 110.3
GPU Geometry 1: 4.9
GPU Geometry 2: 27.2
GPU Pixel Shaders: 85.6


Boy looking at some of your guys results , I can’t help but have the feeling that I washed 3334$ canadian dollars down the drain with this week old 15" mbp.

I've built this crazy jitter/physic/kinect patch for a show i'm doing next friday and it stutters like crazy.

I guess I'll have to face the fact that i'll have to go windows pc for jitter from now on.

Boy looking at some of your guys results , I can’t help but have the feeling that I washed 3334$ canadian dollars down the drain with this week old 15" mbp.
I've built this crazy jitter/physic/kinect patch for a show i'm doing next friday and it stutters like crazy. 

Hello. ZIP BOTERBLOEM, since you've got a Hackintosh, could you run the test on a Windows 7 or 8 partition (if you have one..)?

That would be some useful information for comparison purposes.

And we don't have many AMD results in Windows.

It is very strange that my geometry results using an "old" AMD HD4870 1GB in Windows are better than almost anyone with better and newer cards. Coincidentally, under Windows, even a relatively new NVIDIA card (example: GTX670 2GB) got much worse results. Compare:

DTR's computer is theoretically better than mine in every aspect. Both are running the same OS. The difference is he has better and newer graphics card but from another vendor (NVIDIA). Could it be that AMD's Windows drivers for OpenGL are more optimized than NVIDIA's for geometry drawing?

So, I think we would benefit from trying to understand these performance problems. Possibilities for this:

- Windows vs MAC OS X driver optimizations

- Older vs Newer cards' Jitter optimization (or lack of)? Sometimes, modern graphics cards have different ways of doing things. Since Jitter's OpenGl implementation is not very modern (I guess it might be OpenGL 2.. I'm certain it isn't OpenGL 4...), these performance boosts might not be exposed to Jitter. This is pure speculation on my part...

By the way, don't be sad because of the very low geometry numbers! ;-)

They might mean very little in a practical context because of the very high number of polygons being drawn.

If you open the scenes' sub-patches and change them, the performance will certainly quickly ramp up.

In geometry1: change the dim of the jit.gl.gridshape to something like 24 24; also change the number of instances of jit.gl.multiple being drawn by changing the dim of jit.noise.

In geometry2: change the dim of the jit.gl.gridshapes from 320 320 to something less extreme...

Since I did the benchmark in my machine, the resolution and processing involved in each scene was done with the goal to achieve 100 fps, so it's all relative to that reference... anyway i think it would be useful to understand these very pronounced differences performance-wise...

One last thing: don't forget that Jitter is not multi-threaded... so for this purpose your shiny eight-core won't be so much superior than a dual-core right now... I'm crossing my fingers to see that changed in Max 7... by the way, how cool would it be if someone from Cycling just to mess with us run this benchmark and presented their results with huge gains when compared with Max 6? ;-)

P.S: I'm starting to get worried about Sam. Has anyone seen him lately? The last time we heard from him, he was going out with Scarlett Johansson... it's been what... two weeks?

Hello. ZIP BOTERBLOEM, since you've got a Hackintosh, could you run the test on a Windows 7 or 8 partition (if you have one..)?
That would be some useful information for comparison purposes.
And we don't have many AMD results in Windows.

Pedro Santos's Desktop System:
Windows 7 (64 bit), Max 6.1.9 (32 bit)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 @ 3.2 GHz, 6GB RAM
AMD HD 4870 1GB RAM

CPU: 97.8
GPU Geometry 1: 110.8
GPU Geometry 2: 98.3
GPU Pixel Shaders: 96.5

DTR's Desktop system:
i5 4690k 3.5GHz
GA-Z87X-OC mobo
EVGA (Nvidia) GTX670 2GB FTW gfx card
8GB RAM 1600Mhz
Win 7 pro 64 bit
Max 6.1.9 32bit

CPU: 157.9                
GPU Geometry 1: 10.6      
GPU Geometry 2: 54.3      
GPU Pixel Shaders: 245.8  

- AMD vs NVIDIA drivers
- Windows vs MAC OS X driver optimizations
- a combination of the previous two.
- Older vs Newer cards' Jitter optimization (or lack of)? Sometimes, modern graphics cards have different ways of doing things. Since Jitter's OpenGl implementation is not very modern (I guess it might be OpenGL 2.. I'm certain it isn't OpenGL 4...), these performance boosts might not be exposed to Jitter. This is pure speculation on my part...

By the way, don't be sad because of the very low geometry numbers! ;-)
They might mean very little in a practical context because of the very high number of polygons being drawn.
If you open the scenes' sub-patches and change them, the performance will certainly quickly ramp up.
In geometry1: change the dim of the jit.gl.gridshape to something like 24 24; also change the number of instances of jit.gl.multiple being drawn by changing the dim of jit.noise.
In geometry2: change the dim of the jit.gl.gridshapes from 320 320 to something less extreme...

P.S: I'm starting to get worried about Sam. Has anyone seen him lately? The last time we heard from him, he was going out with Scarlett Johansson... it's been what... two weeks?


even I don't do a lot of work in Jitter I think it is a great thread with all the informations. I thought maybe all the benchmarking results could be collected in an overview table as a wiki page for easy comparison. Would start doing myself but very litle time these days...

@Pedro: Give him some private time with Scarlett. The first weeks with a new love are precious!! He'll be back I am sure :)

Hola todos,
even I don't do a lot of work in Jitter I think it is a great thread with all the informations. I thought maybe all the benchmarking results could be collected in an overview table as a wiki page for easy comparison.  Would start doing myself but  very litle time these days...
What do you think?
Cheers Jan.
@Pedro: Give him some private time with Scarlett. The first weeks with a new love are precious!! He'll be back I am sure :)


Yes I do hope things change in max 7 for a multi-threaded Jitter. Take advantage of the machine we have :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLVZoTBO3ws&feature=em-subs_digest

@Pedro and Jan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLVZoTBO3ws&feature=em-subs_digest

I was thinking of something even more automated, but never tried it myself: upload the results via php queries to a MySQL database on the web.

I've some minimal experience with it, but never tried to do it with Max however. If someone has some experience with this, it would be great.

But your solution is a great alternative!

Hi Jan.
I was thinking of something even more automated, but never tried it myself: upload the results via php queries to a MySQL database on the web.
I've some minimal experience with it, but never tried to do it with Max however. If someone has some experience with this, it would be great.
But your solution is a great alternative!


if there is the backend you can simply do it with maxurl and a post request. but there should be a login or some other meassures to prevent spam. further more there is work to do to collect the hardware data ..

for simplicity i'd go for the wiki. also the results will stay on the c74 site where new people will most likely search first.

if there is the backend you can simply do it with maxurl and a post request. but there should be a login or some other meassures to prevent spam. further more there is work to do to collect the hardware data ..
for simplicity i'd go for the wiki. also the results will stay on the c74 site where new people will most likely search first.


Good points, Jan. I agree with your that the results should be located in Cycling'74 website, so I guess the Wiki should be the best solution.

But before someone starts gathering info in the Wiki, I think it would be useful to improve the benchmark to a more definitive status.

For example, given the discrepancies in the results, I think it would be useful to have a baseline value based on a more conventional machine, that better represents the majority of Max/Jitter users. From the results up until now, it seems to be a MacBook Pro with a discrete graphics card (Nvidia or AMD). Any thoughts?

And someone should also build a nice physics test!

Any other tests suggestions? Jitter with audio processing on?

Good points, Jan. I agree with your that the results should be located in Cycling'74 website, so I guess the Wiki should be the best solution.
But before someone starts gathering info in the Wiki, I think it would be useful to improve the benchmark to a more definitive status.
For example, given the discrepancies in the results, I think it would be useful to have a baseline value based on a more conventional machine, that better represents the majority of Max/Jitter users. From the results up until now, it seems to be a MacBook Pro with a discrete graphics card (Nvidia or AMD). Any thoughts?

And someone should also build a nice physics test!
Any other tests suggestions? Jitter with audio processing on?


... and don't forget to mention your computer specs!"

MacBook Pro
Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013
2,3 GHz Intel Core i7
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048 MB

CPU: 104.9
GPU Geometry 1: 6.4
GPU Geometry 2: 26.9
GPU Pixel Shaders: 99.3
... and don't forget to mention your computer specs!"


First: Great idea and thanks for the test patch!

FirePro W600 1x 1280x1024 + 4x 1920x1080 simultaneously connected

Slightly different results depending on which screen the test is running

I was working for years on Macs but I had to switch to PC ... (see "trash can" values below)

There is currently only one big fault I have with crashes on quit with WIN7 standalones I already posted in this thread:

https://cycling74.com/forums/bug-standalone-6-08-vs-6-17-status-window-visible-01/

It would be nice if one of you guys could verify that too (or better, you have a solution for that, C74 has no idea).

Thanks and sorry if that is too cross posted, but nobody has an idea about that since months...

Self build PC:
i5 3570k itx board, no Overclocking
8 GByte RAM
FirePro W600 1x 1280x1024 + 4x 1920x1080 simultaneously connected
WIN7 Pro 64bit , Max 6.1.8 32bit
Slightly different results depending on which screen the test is running

CPU: 143.6
GPU Geometry 1: 77.7
GPU Geometry 2: 238.1
GPU Pixel Shaders: 77.9 

I was working for years on Macs but I had to switch to PC ... (see "trash can" values below)
There is currently only one big fault I have with crashes on quit with WIN7 standalones I already posted in this thread:

It would be nice if one of you guys could verify that too (or better, you have a solution for that, C74 has no idea).
Thanks and sorry if that is too cross posted, but nobody has an idea about that since months...


I'm back from touring. Will do the test on my hackintosh that runs both Win7 and OSX10.8 as well, for OS comparison. Interestingly on that computer the 2nd part of the benchmark hangs OSX entirely and crashes Max in Win7. I need to look into this before reporting. The computer has no network/internet at the moment and I have 2 more shows this week. Will do ASAHP (= as soon as humanly possible).

I also have an old AMD HD6870 gfx card lying around somewhere so I'll swap out my Nvidia GTX670 for direct AMD-Nvidia comparison. Not this week though.

Hi guys ('n girls?)
I'm back from touring. Will do the test on my hackintosh that runs both Win7 and OSX10.8 as well, for OS comparison. Interestingly on that computer the 2nd part of the benchmark hangs OSX entirely and crashes Max in Win7. I need to look into this before reporting. The computer has no network/internet at the moment and I have 2 more shows this week. Will do ASAHP (= as soon as humanly possible).

I also have an old AMD HD6870 gfx card lying around somewhere so I'll swap out my Nvidia GTX670 for direct AMD-Nvidia comparison. Not this week though. 

Sorry, don't have a copy of Windows running on my Hack.

From the hack world I know that AMD and NVIDIA both have their specific strengths. AMD is quite good at OpenGL.

I expect a modern card like a AMD R9 280X to be three times as fast as my 6870 for OpenGL.

From the hack world I know that AMD and NVIDIA both have their specific strengths. AMD is quite good at OpenGL.
I expect a modern card like a AMD R9 280X to be three times as fast as my 6870 for OpenGL.


MacBook Pro (17-inch, Mid 2010)
2.66 GHz Intel Core i7
8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M 512 MB
OS X 10.10
Max 6.1.9 64bit

CPU: 59.9
GPU Geometry 1: 6.4
GPU Geometry 2: 29.2
GPU Pixel Shaders: 28.4


your old axe performs farely equal to my 2 week old newborn mbp

well cheer up
your old axe performs farely equal to my 2 week old newborn mbp 

Prozessortyp:    Quad-Core Intel Xeon E5

Modellname:	Mac Pro
Modell-Identifizierung:	MacPro6,1
Prozessortyp:	Quad-Core Intel Xeon E5
Prozessorgeschwindigkeit:	3,7 GHz
Anzahl der Prozessoren:	1
Gesamtanzahl der Kerne:	4
L2-Cache (pro Kern):	256 KB
L3-Cache:	10 MB
Speicher: 12 GB
OSX: 10.10

CPU: 116.0
GPU Geometry 1: 25.7
GPU Geometry 2: 163.6
GPU Pixel Shaders: 192.7


CPU: 59.2
GPU Geometry 1: 10.6
GPU Geometry 2: 52.7
GPU Pixel Shaders: 15.8
window as it comes.
macbook air Mid 2011 / 4GB memory


Howdie, I 'm doing some more testing. My i5 GTX670 system results were already posted:

I now changed the geometry dim's in GPU geometry 1 and 2 to get close to Pedro's 100 score baseline.

That's a whole lot lower than the original settings.

Now if I can manage to find that old AMD HD6870 card I'll swap it out and do a direct comparison...

i5 4690k 3.5GHz
GA-Z87X-OC mobo
EVGA (Nvidia) GTX670 2GB FTW gfx card
8GB RAM 1600Mhz
Win 7 pro 64 bit
Max 6.1.9 32bit

CPU: 157.9
GPU Geometry 1: 10.6
GPU Geometry 2: 54.3
GPU Pixel Shaders: 245.8 

GPU Geometry 1: 99.9 > dim 11 11
GPU Geometry 2: 105.6 > dim 220 220 

That's a whole lot lower than the original settings. 

Now if I can manage to find that old AMD HD6870 card I'll swap it out and do a direct comparison...


Found it... The good ol' HD6870 destroys the shiny new GTX670 (ok, not so new, but still...).

CPU: 124.2 > this one's funny as we 'd expect the CPU test not to be much different with another GPU, still there's a 35fps drop

Old AMD cards beating newer Nvidia ones by so much shouldn't be the case. In 3d engine benchmarks like Heaven (in openGL mode) the GTX670 scores multiples of what the HD6870 does. Anyone at C74 willing to share some insights?

i5 4690k 3.5GHz
GA-Z87X-OC mobo
XFX (AMD) RADEON HD6870 2GB gfx card
8GB RAM 1600Mhz
Win 7 pro 64 bit
Max 6.1.9 32bit

CPU: 124.2 > this one's funny as we 'd expect the CPU test not to be much different with another GPU, still there's a 35fps drop
GPU Geometry 1: 185.5
GPU Geometry 2: 193.9
GPU Pixel Shaders: 201.5
(tested at original dim settings)

Old AMD cards beating newer Nvidia ones by so much shouldn't be the case. In 3d engine benchmarks like Heaven (in openGL mode) the GTX670 scores multiples of what the HD6870 does. Anyone at C74 willing to share some insights?


This computer is only a month or two old and cost a bit - is it just me, or does it seem to be producing some pretty crap figures here? if so, any ideas? (im fairly new to this, and i'd bought this computer exclusively to use Jitter)

intel core i5-4590 3.30ghz
GeForce GTX 750 ti
16GB RAM
win 8.1
Max 6.1.9

CPU: 158.1
GPU Geometry 1: 8.5
GPU Geometry 2: 34.4
GPU Pixel Shaders: 172.6 

This computer is only a month or two old and cost a bit - is it just me, or does it seem to be producing some pretty crap figures here? if so, any ideas? (im fairly new to this, and i'd bought this computer exclusively to use Jitter)


@daddymax: If you care to read the thread above you should get some answers. Apart from that, keep in mind that this is a synthetic test with unusual parameters on the geometries. In your real life applications you might get fine results. I get equally bad GPU results in this test while in my actual projects I run at over 100fps steady.

These results are from standalones on a Lenovo ideapad Flex 14 Hackintosh, running OSX 10.9/Max 6.18(32bit) and WIN 8.1(64bit)/Max 6.19(32bit).

Screen is 1366x768, I assume this lifts the values somehow...

Unfortunately I had not the same Max versions.

I got much better results when hiding the dock (had no secondary monitor at place to check on it)

These results are from standalones on a Lenovo ideapad Flex 14 Hackintosh, running OSX 10.9/Max 6.18(32bit) and WIN 8.1(64bit)/Max 6.19(32bit).
It uses the built in HD4400 GPU.
i5 4200U, 4 GByte , SSD(OSX), SSHD(WIN)
Screen is 1366x768, I assume this lifts the values somehow...
Unfortunately I had not the same Max versions.

OSX Hackintosh :
CPU: 60.9
GPU Geometry 1: 13.6
GPU Geometry 2: 72.2
GPU Pixel Shaders: 24.0

I got much better results when hiding the dock (had no secondary monitor at place to check on it) 

WIN 8.1:
CPU: 81.6
GPU Geometry 1: 4.2
GPU Geometry 2: 84.0
GPU Pixel Shaders: 27.8


Welcome back, DTR! Your AMD HD6870 results confirmed what I was suspecting: AMD's OpenGL drivers, at least on Windows, seem to be more optimised than NVidia's. I suspect that NVidia's OpenGL drivers might be intentionally limited at least on high polygon geometry drawing, typically used on professional CAD markets, in order to sell professional Quadro graphics cards instead of consumer/gaming Geforce cards...

We have some kind of proof on this with JNINEK's results:

BENE's computer results, using a professional AMD graphics card, also shows that the drivers are optimized for high poly drawing (geometry test 2). The difference here is that the regular AMD gaming card's drivers are not so limited in this regard.

FirePro W600 1x 1280×1024 + 4x 1920×1080 simultaneously connected

I would love to see the results of a modern AMD graphics card (R9 280 or R9 290, or similar).

CPU: 117.7
GPU Geometry 1: 55.1
GPU Geometry 2: 363.4 
GPU Pixel Shaders: 28.4

Self build PC:
i5 3570k itx board, no Overclocking
8 GByte RAM
FirePro W600 1x 1280×1024 + 4x 1920×1080 simultaneously connected
WIN7 Pro 64bit , Max 6.1.8 32bit
Slightly different results depending on which screen the test is running

CPU: 143.6
GPU Geometry 1: 77.7
GPU Geometry 2: 238.1
GPU Pixel Shaders: 77.9

I would love to see the results of a modern AMD graphics card (R9 280 or R9 290, or similar).


@Pedro: Interesting theory. I'll see if I can do some more tests in the coming days to check if there is a clear poly count threshold where the Nvidia's drop off. If this is really the case it might be useful to add one or more tests to the benchmark that have a poly count closer to what one would encounter in practical projects.

2013 Macbook Air 11" i5 1.3ghz
CPU: 69.4
GPU Geometry 1: 23.2
GPU Geometry 2: 106.6
GPU Pixel Shaders: 42.7
Intel HD5000

2013 Toshiba Qosmio i7 2.4ghz
CPU 139.7
GPU Geometry 1: 4.1 
GPU Geometry 2: 18.6 
GPU Pixel Shaders 122.3
NVIDIA Geforce GTX670M


SECRETKILLEROFNAMES, very interesting indeed! (in a strange kind of way ;-)

To me, it really seems like a driver implementation issue.

Intel HD5000 around 5 times better than a GTX670M? That's crazy.

This thread's subject is starting to become more relevant, given these odd results...

Cycling, Rob Ramirez, any possible explanations for these results?

Hardware architecture differences? Driver implementation decisions?

Jitter design decisions favoring a certain kind of OpenGL method / implementation?

I've said before that these geometry scenes have a very high poly-count, so they might not be your typical everyday scenario.

In a couple of days, I could post an update on the benchmark patch that tests each scene while gradually increasing the geometry and pixel's dim values, in order to obtain a more complete opinion of the tested hardware.

Anyway, given the radical differences seen, perhaps Cycling'74 should have some sort of recommendation on the subject? Do you guys ever noticed such performance differences on different brands (AMD, NVIDIA, Intel)?

SECRETKILLEROFNAMES, very interesting indeed! (in a strange kind of way ;-) 

To me, it really seems like a driver implementation issue.
Intel HD5000 around 5 times better than a GTX670M? That's crazy.

Cycling, Rob Ramirez, any possible explanations for these results?
Hardware architecture differences? Driver implementation decisions?
Jitter design decisions favoring a certain kind of OpenGL method / implementation?

I've said before that these geometry scenes have a very high poly-count, so they might not be your typical everyday scenario.
In a couple of days, I could post an update on the benchmark patch that tests each scene while gradually increasing the geometry and pixel's dim values, in order to obtain a more complete opinion of the tested hardware.

Anyway, given the radical differences seen, perhaps Cycling'74 should have some sort of recommendation on the subject? Do you guys ever noticed such performance differences on different brands (AMD, NVIDIA, Intel)?


2 GHz Intel Core i7 - 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3

MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013)
2 GHz Intel Core i7 - 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Intel Iris Pro 1536 MB
OSX 10.10
Max 6.1.9 32bit

CPU: 95.2
GPU Geometry 1: 31.7
GPU Geometry 2: 125.9
GPU Pixel Shaders: 65.2


Yep, those integrated graphics laptops outdoing GTX cards nearly as big as those laptops is beyond ridiculous :D

I filed a support request on the subject to C74 yesterday. We should hear about it soon.

Just had a thought: anyone capable of setting up a quick similar high poly scene in Processing or other openGL environment to compare? Not a full benchmark, just one scene. Curious whether we 'd see the same slow down on Nvidia cards.

On a somewhat related note, here's an interesting article from Tom's Hardware comparing professional cards with gaming cards in a variety of benchmarks:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-workstation-graphics-card,review-32728.html

On a somewhat related note, here's an interesting article from Tom's Hardware comparing professional cards with gaming cards in a variety of benchmarks:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-workstation-graphics-card,review-32728.html


Hi and thank you for the test.
Macbook Pro mld-2009 15"
2.8 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
4 Go 1067 Mhz DDR3
Max 6.1.8
10.9.5

Benchmarking Jitter's CPU/GPU performance on your computer