GeForce 7950 GX2 test


    Aug 11 2006 | 5:15 pm
    Hi all,
    Just did a little openGL test on a PC with a GeForce 9750 GX2 (http:// www.nvidia.com/page/geforce_7950.html) with 1Gb of VRAM, pentium D 3.2Ghz, 1 GB RAM What we tested was the difference between dual gpu and dual screen mode and the results were somewhat puzzeling: in dual gpu mode, using both gpu's for one screen, fps was 50, in dual screen mode, using one gpu on each of 2 displays, fps only dropped 1 or 2 frames.
    We were expecting a much bigger drop of framerate in the second mode, since only 1 gpu is used to do the same? Or is this a false assumption...
    rgds
    b.

    • Aug 11 2006 | 5:24 pm
      On Aug 11, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Brecht Debackere wrote:
      > Just did a little openGL test on a PC with a GeForce 9750 GX2 > (http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce_7950.html) with 1Gb of VRAM, > pentium D 3.2Ghz, 1 GB RAM > What we tested was the difference between dual gpu and dual screen > mode and the results were somewhat puzzeling: in dual gpu mode, > using both gpu's for one screen, fps was 50, in dual screen mode, > using one gpu on each of 2 displays, fps only dropped 1 or 2 frames. > > We were expecting a much bigger drop of framerate in the second > mode, since only 1 gpu is used to do the same? Or is this a false > assumption...
      For real benchmarking, make sure you turn of he vertical sync attribute of jit.window i.e. @sync 0. Otherwise you will see only he framerate of the vertical sync and no higher. I would imagine that you may see a difference in thsi case. However, you might not be executing enough graphics instructions for it o make any difference in using the dual GPUs.
      -Joshua
    • Aug 11 2006 | 10:49 pm
      sync was set to 0, but you're absolutely right about the graphics instructions. Will try some other stuff and post it if people are interested. b. On Aug 11, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:
      > > On Aug 11, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Brecht Debackere wrote: > >> Just did a little openGL test on a PC with a GeForce 9750 GX2 >> (http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce_7950.html) with 1Gb of VRAM, >> pentium D 3.2Ghz, 1 GB RAM >> What we tested was the difference between dual gpu and dual screen >> mode and the results were somewhat puzzeling: in dual gpu mode, >> using both gpu's for one screen, fps was 50, in dual screen mode, >> using one gpu on each of 2 displays, fps only dropped 1 or 2 frames. >> >> We were expecting a much bigger drop of framerate in the second >> mode, since only 1 gpu is used to do the same? Or is this a false >> assumption... > > > For real benchmarking, make sure you turn of he vertical sync > attribute of jit.window i.e. @sync 0. Otherwise you will see only > he framerate of the vertical sync and no higher. I would imagine > that you may see a difference in thsi case. However, you might not > be executing enough graphics instructions for it o make any > difference in using the dual GPUs. > > >
    • Aug 12 2006 | 12:08 am
      On Aug 11, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Brecht Debackere wrote:
      > sync was set to 0, but you're absolutely right about the graphics > instructions. Will try some other stuff and post it if people are > interested.
      Then perhaps the metro is only set to 20ms, since your card should probably run much faster than 50fps unless there really were a lot of graphics instructions or CPU load which is the bottleneck.
      One test for raw GPU performance would be to use some large geometry in a displaylist (e.g. jit.gl.gridshape @dim 400 400 @displaylist 1) , so that you're just rendering polygons in bulk via the displaylist and not submitting vertices or having other CPU based vertex calculation.
      Best of luck, and of course, it'd be great if you share some findings.
      -Joshua
    • Aug 12 2006 | 12:58 am
      OK. Test results are in, using gridshape with a sphere @dim 400 400
      Dual gpu mode @displaylist 1 :
      1280x1024 = 200fps 1024x768 = 200fps 800x600 = 120fps
      Here I was expecting a higher framerate at a lower resolution?
      Dual screen mode using 1 screen :
      1280x1024 = 120fps
      Using 2 screens, @displaylist 1 doesn't seem to work...? I duplicated the gl.render, jit.window and gl.gridshape
      1280x1024 = 12.5 fps 1024x768 = 11.8
      Are displaylists not supported when rendering to 2 screens at a time? I'd think that with one card that might be a problem, but since this one is basically 2 cards stuck together, they'd have their own storage capabilities for the displaylist...
      also, in all these, cpu was running up to 100%... I don't understand what is going on on the cpu side?
      rgds,
      Brecht.
      On Aug 12, 2006, at 2:08 AM, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:
      > > On Aug 11, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Brecht Debackere wrote: > >> sync was set to 0, but you're absolutely right about the graphics >> instructions. Will try some other stuff and post it if people are >> interested. > > Then perhaps the metro is only set to 20ms, since your card should > probably run much faster than 50fps unless there really were a lot > of graphics instructions or CPU load which is the bottleneck. > > One test for raw GPU performance would be to use some large > geometry in a displaylist (e.g. jit.gl.gridshape @dim 400 400 > @displaylist 1) , so that you're just rendering polygons in bulk > via the displaylist and not submitting vertices or having other CPU > based vertex calculation. > > Best of luck, and of course, it'd be great if you share some findings. > > -Joshua > > >
    • Aug 12 2006 | 1:09 am
      On Aug 11, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Brecht Debackere wrote:
      > > Using 2 screens, @displaylist 1 doesn't seem to work...? I > duplicated the gl.render, jit.window and gl.gridshape > > 1280x1024 = 12.5 fps > 1024x768 = 11.8 > > Are displaylists not supported when rendering to 2 screens at a > time? I'd think that with one card that might be a problem, but > since this one is basically 2 cards stuck together, they'd have > their own storage capabilities for the displaylist...
      Sorry there's a bug currently with multiple instances of jit.gl.gridshape @displaylist 1which is fixed in the forthcoming JItter 1.6 beta for PC. In the meantime you might be able to use matrixoutput->jit.gl.mesh instead for fast vertex buffer based rendering.
      > also, in all these, cpu was running up to 100%... I don't > understand what is going on on the cpu side?
      It might be due to individual vertex submission or some other aspect of this bug.
      -Joshua
    • Aug 12 2006 | 1:14 am
      cheers, thx for the info. Looking forward to seeing 1.6 running on PC and compare speeds.
      On Aug 12, 2006, at 3:09 AM, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:
      > > On Aug 11, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Brecht Debackere wrote: > >> >> Using 2 screens, @displaylist 1 doesn't seem to work...? I >> duplicated the gl.render, jit.window and gl.gridshape >> >> 1280x1024 = 12.5 fps >> 1024x768 = 11.8 >> >> Are displaylists not supported when rendering to 2 screens at a >> time? I'd think that with one card that might be a problem, but >> since this one is basically 2 cards stuck together, they'd have >> their own storage capabilities for the displaylist... > > Sorry there's a bug currently with multiple instances of > jit.gl.gridshape @displaylist 1which is fixed in the forthcoming > JItter 1.6 beta for PC. In the meantime you might be able to use > matrixoutput->jit.gl.mesh instead for fast vertex buffer based > rendering. > >> also, in all these, cpu was running up to 100%... I don't >> understand what is going on on the cpu side? > > It might be due to individual vertex submission or some other > aspect of this bug. > > -Joshua > >
    • Aug 14 2006 | 10:35 pm
      FWIW, make sure to have a look in the Options->Performance menu and play with settings there.
      I've been using an ATI FireGL V7350 and was expecting blazing performance, but was suprised to see the frame rate dropping pretty quickly with 60 gridshapes with attendant max objects for movement algorithms, some audio stuff, and a few textures. Once I noticed that only 50% of my CPU was in use, I tweaked the performance settings and more than tripled my polygon count, with 90% cpu usage. Seemed like the Max scheduler itself was the limiting factor.
      On Aug 11, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Brecht Debackere wrote:
      > cheers, thx for the info. Looking forward to seeing 1.6 running on > PC and compare speeds. > > On Aug 12, 2006, at 3:09 AM, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote: > >> >> On Aug 11, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Brecht Debackere wrote: >> >>> >>> Using 2 screens, @displaylist 1 doesn't seem to work...? I >>> duplicated the gl.render, jit.window and gl.gridshape >>> >>> 1280x1024 = 12.5 fps >>> 1024x768 = 11.8 >>> >>> Are displaylists not supported when rendering to 2 screens at a >>> time? I'd think that with one card that might be a problem, but >>> since this one is basically 2 cards stuck together, they'd have >>> their own storage capabilities for the displaylist... >> >> Sorry there's a bug currently with multiple instances of >> jit.gl.gridshape @displaylist 1which is fixed in the forthcoming >> JItter 1.6 beta for PC. In the meantime you might be able to use >> matrixoutput->jit.gl.mesh instead for fast vertex buffer based >> rendering. >> >>> also, in all these, cpu was running up to 100%... I don't >>> understand what is going on on the cpu side? >> >> It might be due to individual vertex submission or some other >> aspect of this bug. >> >> -Joshua >> >> >