STAR benchmark

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

Nothing out of the ordinary here - I was surprised to see the results also.
Makes me wonder how heavily it's influenced by the graphics card as that is
one difference - 256 meg vs. 128 meg. It may be the extra RAM, but I really
don't want to yank it out right at the moment. If the RAM were the issue,
that would point to faster access in & out, I would think, and that makes
sense in terms of speeding up everything. I didn't touch the mouse or do
anything during the runnings, but I can't guarantee that Outlook, etc.
didn't in the background.

WT

 

I just ran it again with SW2004 and got the same numbers. I did, however,
have to manually open a new part each time or I would error out. I also
noticed that the conf corner was turned on.

Screen resolution for both SW2004 & SW2005 was 1600 x 1200.

WT

 

Dale
I think you are onto something

My usual level 4 time is 55s approx - however when the SW is reduced
down to just the width of the FM on the left and 1cm wide graphic
window my time is 29-30 seconds and when the SW window is just the
menus at the top and the FM on the left I get level 4 rebuild times of
20-21s.

So is it all in the graphics card ? I'm using an Nvidia FX 500 - no
great shakes compared to others.

Regards

Jonathan

 

level 1 = 1s

level 2 = 2s

level 4 = 17s

level 5 = 112s

SolidWorks 2005 sp3.0EV
Windows XP Pro sp2.0
AMD 3200+
2.00 GB of RAM
Quadro FX1000
My backup location:
C:\Temp\SW_Backup

Conf. corner ON

Muggs

 

Sorry That should be AMD Athlon 64 3400+

Don't want to give anybody a heart attack.

Muggs

 

I just ran it again with the screen resolution changed to 1920 x 1200. All
numbers the same except that the 5 layer went from 102 to 107. The SW
window has been full screen maximized on all the tests.

WT

 

To All,


level 1
Time = 1s
Disp = 0

level 2
Time = 1s
Disp = 0

level 3
Time = 4s
Disp = 0

level 4
Time = 17s
Disp = 0

level 5
Time = 109s
Disp = 0


Dual Opteron 246
MSI K8T master FAR
2Gb Ram
PNY 980XGL
Win2000, SP4


Mark

 

That is interesting because the timing routines are either side of the
call that makes the fractal. On a part of this nature the number of
triangles shouldn't change much with size. And most of the
construction work goes on off screen. Guess we'll have to settle on a
window size.

 

So then how do you reconcile what I found? Maybe my change in resolution
wasn't great enough to really see a difference?

WT

 

Sorry,

That's with SW2005 SP2. Full screen, 1280 x 1024, performance slider all the
way up, shaded no edges, Norton AV disabled.


Mark

 

Paul,

It quits on the line:

Part.SetUserPreferenceIntegerValue swUnitsLinear, swINCHES

I'm using SW 2005 SP1.1

By opening a dummy part first, I got it to run with the following results:

Level Time Disp. time
3 7 1
4 30 1
5 158 1

System specs:

Mobo: MSI K8N Neo 2 Platinum
CPU: Athlon 64 3500+
Video: Quadro FX-1100
Ram: 1 Gb PC3200
OS: Win 2K SP4
HD: 2x WD Raptor 74Gb SATA, in striped array
SWX: 2005 SP1.1

 

I compiled the results. It doesn't look like the graphics card has a
lot of influence on this benchmark although apparently screen size
does. There is a possibility that SP3 will be faster than SP2 judging
from Muggs results.

Wayne's P4 won top honors so far by a nose over Mark's Opteron.

Dale needs to tell us what his graphics card is. Mark and Dale need to
tell us what SP they are on unless I missed something.

 

I thought maybe the performance slider might be an issue as I had mine set
clear to the right because of the big car bodies I am currently using. So I
slid it all the way to the left. The only difference is that my level 5 run
went from 102 to 103. Hmmm.

So, the big question is what's better about my setup than everyone else's?
I know I don't have the hottest hardware as the Opterons run faster and
everyday usage suggests that they would outdo my P4. I have the 3Gb switch
on, 2 Gb RAM, SCSI drive, etc. The one unique thing I have seen is the
FireGL video card. Anyone else have one that can run the test?

So, I guess if the prize lands here today, I'll take it. But I'm too big of
a geek to not want to know why, so we can put it in a can and sell it!

WT

 

How about if I swap settings with someone and we run again. That way if we
see some major difference, maybe we can find it.

WT

 

If this will run on 2001+ could someone post it somwhere else (that I
can get to).

Gary

 

Paul,

You guys aren't gonna believe this, but I just ran this test on my home
machine (which is IDENTICAL to my work machine).

Dual Opteron 246
MSI K8T master FAR
2Gb Ram
PNY 980XGL
Win2000, SP4
SW2005 SP2

I consistently get a level five of 87s !!!! I'll post a screen shot on the
SW forum if ya don't believe me.

What's up wid dat Paul ? I would think they'd be pretty close


Mark

 

Make that 90s, after restarting SW I lost 3 seconds

Mark

 

Mark,

You must have deep pockets to have a dual Opteron at home. How does the
number of tasks in the task manager compare?

The whole point of benchmarking is to find discrepancies like this and
then explain why. It isn't as easy to write these things as I thought
either.

I tweaked the STAR benchmark and posted it in the same thread on the
forum. The new one is STAR_1.1 and will run faster, but it also reports
times to two decimal places.

 

Star 1.0
Shaded but no HLR

Level 4 was 55s approx with HL and no HLR give or take a few seconds
with SW screen maximized to a 15" LCD screen.

- However I have now disabled my second monitor ( running dual screen
on a FX500)

Time is now 34 secs !! shaving off 20 secs - In this race I can't
bare being lapped !!

I seems we have to have some consistancy with the window size inwhich
SW operates.

Maybe I ought to buy a cheap second card to run my second screen which
I only use for Emails and secondary programmes.

I'll download star 1.1 and try later today.

TTFN



Jonathan

 

Devon,

Are you using the same part.slddot file for both? I found that this can
make a difference.