Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Announcements, advice, random banter, unrelated discussion, et cetera.

Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby clueless1 » 2016-7-17 @ 17:07

Xonotic is an open-source first person shooter using the DarkPlaces engine. OS requirement is WinXP or higher and 32/64 bit linux. It runs from a folder (no installing) so is portable; it has highly configurable detail settings, so you can use it to compare systems old and new; and it has a built-in benchmark that makes it easy to get results.

I started a database that I'm opening up to Vogons users to add to. I've added results from my systems to it already, and made it publicly available here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
xon_sheets.png


Xonotic 0.8.1 can be downloaded at http://www.xonotic.org

First make sure you set your resolution and color depth to 1024x768 and 32bpp:
xon_vid_set.png

In order to compare across the widest range of systems, I chose the 1024x768x32 resolution and three detail presets (feel free to run your system on all three detail settings if it will run):
LOW: most any system can participate here. An Athlon XP/Radeon 9800Pro can run this, probably even slower systems can do this setting.
xon_low.png

NORMAL: While the Athlon/9800Pro seems to run out of video memory on this test, a P4 2.8/6800GS can run at Normal just fine.
xon_norm.png

ULTRA: All the game's eye candy is turned on.
xon_ultra.png


Next post: how to run the benchmark.
Last edited by clueless1 on 2016-7-17 @ 23:02, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
clueless1
l33t
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2015-12-22 @ 17:43
Location: Midwest US

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby clueless1 » 2016-7-17 @ 17:21

EDIT: to launch Xonotic, unzip the download. It will be in a folder called Xonotic. This folder is portable so you can move it to whatever system you want to bench. There are many executables to choose from:
xonotic-x86.exe is the SDL 32-bit Windows exe
xonotic-x86-wgl.exe is the WGL version for 32-bit Windows.
The devs recommend xonotic-x86.exe. There may be slight performance differences between the two, but from what I've read, the WGL version can be more buggy.
xonotic.exe is the SDL 64-bit Windows version
xonotic-wgl.exe is the 64-bit WGL version.
In addition, there are 32-bit and 64-bit SDL and WGL linux launchers in the main folder.

To run the benchmark, go to Multiplayer->Media->Demos and choose the-big-keybench demo, then click the Timedemo button at the bottom. Very important: run this benchmark twice and take the results of the second run. I've found that there's a lot of caching going on on the initial run, so the 2nd run is more representative of real results.
xon_bench.png

When the benchmark completes (anywhere from <20 seconds to over 5 minutes, depending on the speed of the run), hit the tilde key (~) to bring down the console. The results will be listed there:
xon_results.png

There are 10510 frames in the demo. Take the seconds to complete (rounded to two decimals), along with the one-second fps min/avg/max results and enter them into the database. The FPS column will auto-populate from the time value you put in. There are separate tabs for LOW, NORMAL, and ULTRA, as well as a free-for-all tab that you can add other configurations on. Feel free to submit results for all three detail presets. People can then download the spreadsheet and sort however they wish.

If you want to submit results for any other resolution or with AA/AF, enter them on the Anything Goes! tab. :)

If you've already go Xonotic on your system and have changed the settings, you can reset all defaults here:
xon_reset.png


If there's any questions or I missed something, please let me know and I'll edit these posts to reflect the updates.

EDIT: From the Xonotic Forums, here is a list of video cards that are NOT recommended:
==========
ATI/AMD:
==========
For reference please view this list of all ATI/AMD cards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_...sing_units

All pre-Radeon cards, eg Rage, Mach, All-in-Wonder. No OpenGL 2.0 support, too old to see much driver support.

Radeon 7xxx, 8500, 9000, 9100, 92xx, All r100 and r200 series cards and onboard Integrated Graphics Processor (IGP) do not support OpenGL 2.0

Radeon r300 series cards using official Windows driver show warpzone issues:
http://forums.xonotic.org/showthread.php?tid=3759
Linux r300 driver is OK!
List of effected cards is long: 95xx, 9600, 9700, 9800, X300, X550, X600, X1050, Xpress 200, Xpress X200, Xpress 1100, Xpress 1150

==========
NVIDIA:
==========
For reference please view this list of all NVIDIA cards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_...sing_units

All pre-Geforce cards, eg. Riva, Riva TNT, TNT2 - Lack OpenGL 2.0 (or 1.3!) support.

Geforce 4 and earlier - No OpenGL 2.0 support
This also includes Geforce PCX4300 and derived onboard graphics in NForce 1 and 2 chipsets.

Geforce FX running Nouveau driver - No OpenGL 2.0 support, graphical issues.

Any card running Forceware 70 series or earlier - No OpenGL 2.0 support in these older drivers. Update your drivers to Forceware 75 or newer.

Any card running the old 'nv' driver - This driver is now discontinued, users wanting an open source driver should use Nouveau.

==========
Intel:
==========
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_...sing_units

Intel740, lack of OpenGL 1.3 or 2.0 support

Extreme Graphics - Lack of OpenGL 2.0 support

GMA 900, GMA 950, GMA 31xx - Lack of OpenGL 2.0 support
GMA3000 (confusing!) and later should be fine.

==========
S3/Via:
==========
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniChrome
NB: Modern Via chipsets are rare, there is limited experience of running Xonotic on this hardware, if you have one by all means contribute your experience!

CLE266 - I tried running The Big Benchmark on one of these once. I think it's still going. No OpenGL 2.0 support..

KM400N onboard graphics - No OpenGL 2.0 support.

As far as I'm aware this is the only Via hardware Xonotic has been run on. The rest really might be just as bad. They still sell some chipsets but with existing experience, they can't be recommended.

==========
Matrox, 3dfx, SiS, PowerVR and others
==========
All old designs now, no OpenGL 2.0 support, driver support for modern systems is problematic, very slow. Not recommended.
Last edited by clueless1 on 2016-7-17 @ 23:05, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
clueless1
l33t
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2015-12-22 @ 17:43
Location: Midwest US

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby foey » 2016-7-17 @ 18:57

Added my Athlon 2100xp, 5900 Ultra build. :happy:

Code: Select all
Athlon XP 2100+ 1733mhz (133)   Geforce 5900 Ultra 256mb AGP   WinXP 32   165.49   63.51   38   66   95
Cyrix Instead Build, 6x86 166+ | 32mb SD | 4mb S3 Virge DX | Creative AWE64 | Win95
ATC-S PIII Tualatin Win9x Build :- http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40248
User avatar
foey
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 2014-5-27 @ 20:11
Location: UK

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby clueless1 » 2016-7-17 @ 19:19

Cool, thanks. :) Looks like the 5900 Ultra is more capable than the 9800 Pro.
User avatar
clueless1
l33t
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2015-12-22 @ 17:43
Location: Midwest US

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby vladstamate » 2016-7-17 @ 21:32

Added my Phenom II. Too bad it is XP or up only as I would like to run my even older systems through it.

Code: Select all
Phenom II X4 960T 3000Mhz   Radeon HD 6670   Vista   71.37   147.00   93   154   301                                                      
User avatar
vladstamate
Oldbie
 
Posts: 950
Joined: 2015-8-23 @ 01:43

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby leileilol » 2016-7-17 @ 22:09

it might work on 98 with kernelex maybe. It definitely won't work on win95 though, it links to a d3d9 dll. Also the engine itself can get along with Techland's MiniGLs last time I checked. :)
by the way, DOSBox is not for running Windows 9x
User avatar
leileilol
l33t++
 
Posts: 9703
Joined: 2006-12-16 @ 18:03

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby clueless1 » 2016-7-17 @ 22:39

leileilol wrote:it might work on 98 with kernelex maybe. It definitely won't work on win95 though, it links to a d3d9 dll. Also the engine itself can get along with Techland's MiniGLs last time I checked. :)

Any idea if Xonotic will run on Win2k?
User avatar
clueless1
l33t
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2015-12-22 @ 17:43
Location: Midwest US


Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby clueless1 » 2016-7-18 @ 16:36

vladstamate wrote:I want to try WinME actually, not 98.

I'm pretty sure ME falls in the same category as 98, so leileilol's link might help. I asked about Win2k just for clarity (thought leileilol might know). I don't know for sure if Xonotic will run on it and I don't have an install up and running at the moment to test.

Appreciate those who have added to the results so far. Thanks.
User avatar
clueless1
l33t
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2015-12-22 @ 17:43
Location: Midwest US

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby foey » 2016-7-18 @ 18:51

clueless1 - Did you overclock the 9800 Pro? :)
Cyrix Instead Build, 6x86 166+ | 32mb SD | 4mb S3 Virge DX | Creative AWE64 | Win95
ATC-S PIII Tualatin Win9x Build :- http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40248
User avatar
foey
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 2014-5-27 @ 20:11
Location: UK

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby clueless1 » 2016-7-18 @ 19:52

foey wrote:clueless1 - Did you overclock the 9800 Pro? :)

Nope! I don't overclock any of my graphics cards, and usually don't overclock cpus either (with a couple of exceptions).
User avatar
clueless1
l33t
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2015-12-22 @ 17:43
Location: Midwest US

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby foey » 2016-7-18 @ 21:44

What did you do to get the slightly quicker benchmarks! :)
Cyrix Instead Build, 6x86 166+ | 32mb SD | 4mb S3 Virge DX | Creative AWE64 | Win95
ATC-S PIII Tualatin Win9x Build :- http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40248
User avatar
foey
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 2014-5-27 @ 20:11
Location: UK

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby clueless1 » 2016-7-18 @ 22:01

foey wrote:What did you do to get the slightly quicker benchmarks! :)

Are you referring to the two entries I have with that same graphics card? If so, they are two different cpus. The XP-M has more cache and is running at a higher FSB, even though the Mhz is almost the same between the two cpus. :)
User avatar
clueless1
l33t
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2015-12-22 @ 17:43
Location: Midwest US

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby clueless1 » 2016-7-22 @ 18:42

Added results for an i5-4300U laptop with Intel HD4400 GPU for Low, Normal and Ultra detail:
Code: Select all
Low:   178.74 fps  Min: 113 Avg: 183 Max: 270
Norm:  153.43 fps  Min:  71 Avg: 161 Max: 251
Ultra:  82.35 fps  Min:  37 Avg:  85 Max: 124
User avatar
clueless1
l33t
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2015-12-22 @ 17:43
Location: Midwest US

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby foey » 2016-7-29 @ 18:40

Added my slightly overclocked Athlon Rig with 9800Pro @ Stock.

Code: Select all
Athlon XP 2500+ @ 2000mhz (180x11)   Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB AGP   WinXP 32   133.58   78.68   47   82   152
Cyrix Instead Build, 6x86 166+ | 32mb SD | 4mb S3 Virge DX | Creative AWE64 | Win95
ATC-S PIII Tualatin Win9x Build :- http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40248
User avatar
foey
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 2014-5-27 @ 20:11
Location: UK

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby SPBHM » 2016-8-03 @ 17:38

I tried to run the game on a 9500PRO but it was seriously broken,
but I added results on low and normal for a 8400GS PCI (not PCIE) and an HD 5850 (added this one a few days ago) on low and ultra
SPBHM
Oldbie
 
Posts: 551
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby clueless1 » 2016-8-03 @ 22:50

I added:
Pentium D 950 with Radeon HD5450 PCIe
i3-3240 with onboard Intel HD2500

Results for both in Low, Normal and Ultra.
User avatar
clueless1
l33t
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2015-12-22 @ 17:43
Location: Midwest US

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby villeneuve » 2018-11-27 @ 23:09

Nice project! I just re-discovered Xonotic and more or less by accident found out how to benchmark it thanks to this thread that came up in search results when I was trying to find out which exe is recommended to use.
I just added my results from my Phenom II X4 945 with Radeon HD3850 PCIe. I wonder why my HD3850 scores better than the HD6670 that's in the list running on what's basically the same CPU. Maybe Vista ate performance on that system.
villeneuve
Newbie
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 2014-1-09 @ 11:31
Location: Germany

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby villeneuve » 2019-1-11 @ 00:22

I just added a Linux running, AMD Ryzen 5 2400G based system that I built today for someone using just the integrated RX Vega 11 GPU.
villeneuve
Newbie
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 2014-1-09 @ 11:31
Location: Germany

Re: Xonotic FPS Benchmark Database

Postby SPBHM » 2019-1-11 @ 23:26

villeneuve wrote:Nice project! I just re-discovered Xonotic and more or less by accident found out how to benchmark it thanks to this thread that came up in search results when I was trying to find out which exe is recommended to use.
I just added my results from my Phenom II X4 945 with Radeon HD3850 PCIe. I wonder why my HD3850 scores better than the HD6670 that's in the list running on what's basically the same CPU. Maybe Vista ate performance on that system.


something else to consider, Xonotic seems to have been updated to 0.8.2 did you use that or the older version likely used by the 6670?

also, there was a version of the 6670 that used 128bit DDR3, and one with GDDR5; the 128bit DDR3 version might struggle against the 3850 (256bit GDDR3) if the test is extremely limited by memory bandwidth I guess,

I might test this in more hardware
SPBHM
Oldbie
 
Posts: 551
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Next

Return to Milliways

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EldritchNexus and 1 guest