Sonic and Sega Retro Message Board: S2HD Render Engine Test - Sonic and Sega Retro Message Board

Jump to content

Hey there, Guest!  (Log In · Register) Help
  • 5 Pages +
  • ◄ First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
    Locked
    Locked Forum

Choose graphics rendering system for Sonic 2 HD's new engine in development (119 member(s) have cast votes)

1: Which render would you like the S2HD engine to be primary developed with?

  1. You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

2: Do you want Sonic 2 HD to run fast rather than look good?

  1. You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote

S2HD Render Engine Test Test and choose between 5 different renders...

#46 User is offline Meph 

Posted 24 May 2009 - 03:17 PM

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: 08-April 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Wiki edits:4
QUOTE (wangle @ May 23 2009, 09:13 AM)
only R3 worked flawlessly on my computer, full screen doesn't work sometimes on other settings

What are the specs of your computer? We need to know this.

#47 User is offline steveswede 

Posted 06 June 2009 - 11:30 PM

  • Posts: 4975
  • Joined: 13-April 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ask my hand
  • Project:Fighting against the Unitary State of Europe
  • Wiki edits:6
R1 is the best all rounder. R2, R3, R4 on my pc the waterfall kept on disappearing, reappearing. R5 was the full resolution. the best but no good for people with smaller monitors.

#48 User is offline Dethbryte 

Posted 07 June 2009 - 02:23 PM

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 07-June 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
I may be a little late to the party, but here's my results so far, if they help any.

Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 2.10 GHz
1GB DDR2 Ram
NVIDIA GeForce 6150 LE
1024x768
Windowed Mode
Multi-Bridge

R1: FPS 56 ~ 60/60 CPU 7% RAM 502,356K
Seems to be working perfect. Loaded very fast.
R2: FPS 58 ~ 60/60 CPU 9% RAM 597,652K
Longer load. Ran smoothly, but had blinking waterfall.
R3: FPS 33 ~ 46/60 CPU 13% RAM 636,836K
MUCH longer load. Very choppy frame rate, blinking waterfall.
R4: FPS 58 ~ 60/60 CPU 11% RAM 614,448K
Shorter load than R2, still longer than R1. Pretty smooth, but again, blinking waterfall.
R5: FPS 58 ~ 60/60 CPU 6% RAM 243,776K
Ran PERFECTLY, aside from not scaling to screen size. Fast loading as well.

They all did really look the same, aside from the waterfall blinking in the ones I noted.

#49 User is offline Antinitan 

Posted 13 June 2009 - 10:22 PM

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 07-June 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US, New York
Windows vista Home Prenium 32 bit
AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.0 Ghz dual-core processor
4 GB SDRAM
ATI Radeon x1250

R1:
18 CPU
225,476K RAM
Open:
The moving object slows it down. 36 average FPS.
Multi-Bridge
Works well, looks great. 43 steady FPS, great audio. Actually, this is the best looking one while playing.


Renderer 1 crashes upon entering fullscreen mode.

R2:
15 CPU
171,196K RAM
Open:
Doesn't work quite as well. Jumpy framerate, anywhere between 25 and 40.
Multi-Bridge:
Works better than the other Multi-bridge, a solid 48 FPS.

Renderer 2 turns screen black upon entering fullscreen, noise continues in background.

R3:
16% CPU
79,592K ram
Open:
36 frames per second. Never once moved.
Multi-Bridge:
44 FPS. Once again, never once moved. Odd.
Fullscreen goes black.

R4:
18%CPU
117,856K RAM
Open:
38 Solid FPS, wavering from 34-42, but generally staying at 38.
Multi:
43 FPS, flickering anywhere between 41 and 45.
Once again, fullscreen blacks out.

R5:
SCALING ISSUE ALERT. This helps with framrate. A LOT.
Oddly, more CPU than the others, 48%.
RAM: 137,232K

I'm not even gonna bother splitting this one. 60 FPS, solid, on both. Similar to R4, but much scaled up.

Fullscreen-SURPRISE-Actually works on this one! Looks quite good, might I add. It might be my resolution, it's at 1280x800.

All look EXTREMELY SIMILAR, but R1 seems to look best while moving about. Renderer 1 also has the best loading times, so that's what gets my vote.

#50 User is offline CyberKitsune 

Posted 18 June 2009 - 09:03 PM

  • Never enough time.
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 29-May 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Project:aaaaaaaaa
  • Wiki edits:52
System: MacBook (Late 08`)
OS: Windows 7 RC (Via Bootcamp, no emulation)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.20Ghz, 2.20Ghz
RAM 1GB
VIDEO CARD: Mobile Intel® 965 Express Chipset Family (Microsoft Corporation - Prerelease WDDM 1.1 Driver)
Windowed Mode
(Tested on Open Stage 4x)

R1: 57/60fps CPU Max: 50 Cpu Min: 08 RAM 224,644K
R2: 55-7/60fps CPU 38-40 RAM 206,552K
R3: 57/60fps CPU 15-27 RAM 202,372K
R4: 57-8/60fps CPU 18-39 RAM 202,456K
R5: OpenGL Error (Win7 prerelease driver doesn't have OpenGL at the moment.)

As far as I can see, all of the renders didn't have BIG diffeneces however, I think R3 looks best.
I'd think the OpenGL render would run fastest, but the current prerelease driver for my GPU doesn't support OpenGL.
R1 ran the quickest, but took up the most CPU and RAM.

#51 User is offline LOst 

Posted 19 June 2009 - 06:38 PM

  • Posts: 4886
  • Joined: 10-January 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Wiki edits:2
QUOTE (CyberKitsune @ Jun 19 2009, 06:03 AM)
OS: Windows 7 RC (Via Bootcamp, no emulation)
VIDEO CARD: Mobile Intel® 965 Express Chipset Family (Microsoft Corporation - Prerelease WDDM 1.1 Driver)

That is an interesting graphics card! I didn't know Intel had caught up with the 3D performance. Would you be able to provide a screenshot of, the open stage? Also try to have the window maximized when you do so it won't be scaled. It might only work if your desktop resolution is greater than the maximized window size.

I am just interested in the looks of things now when I know that Intel card is giving you about 60 fps.

MacBook huh? Looks promising!

#52 User is offline Conan Kudo 

Posted 19 June 2009 - 10:32 PM

  • 「真実はいつも一つ!」工藤新一
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 12-January 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Wiki edits:14
QUOTE (LOst @ Jun 19 2009, 06:38 PM)
QUOTE (CyberKitsune @ Jun 19 2009, 06:03 AM)
OS: Windows 7 RC (Via Bootcamp, no emulation)
VIDEO CARD: Mobile Intel® 965 Express Chipset Family (Microsoft Corporation - Prerelease WDDM 1.1 Driver)

That is an interesting graphics card! I didn't know Intel had caught up with the 3D performance. Would you be able to provide a screenshot of, the open stage? Also try to have the window maximized when you do so it won't be scaled. It might only work if your desktop resolution is greater than the maximized window size.

I am just interested in the looks of things now when I know that Intel card is giving you about 60 fps.

MacBook huh? Looks promising!


Intel's been able to do it for awhile now. Beginning with the X3000, Intel's 3D performance is rather good.

#53 User is offline CyberKitsune 

Posted 19 June 2009 - 11:33 PM

  • Never enough time.
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 29-May 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Project:aaaaaaaaa
  • Wiki edits:52
QUOTE (LOst @ Jun 19 2009, 04:38 PM)
QUOTE (CyberKitsune @ Jun 19 2009, 06:03 AM)
OS: Windows 7 RC (Via Bootcamp, no emulation)
VIDEO CARD: Mobile Intel® 965 Express Chipset Family (Microsoft Corporation - Prerelease WDDM 1.1 Driver)

That is an interesting graphics card! I didn't know Intel had caught up with the 3D performance. Would you be able to provide a screenshot of, the open stage? Also try to have the window maximized when you do so it won't be scaled. It might only work if your desktop resolution is greater than the maximized window size.

I am just interested in the looks of things now when I know that Intel card is giving you about 60 fps.

MacBook huh? Looks promising!


Here are the screens, I'm at 1280x800, my displays max (Widescreen laptop)
and, Photobucket limits the images to 1meg, so quality and size might not look as good as the actual thing. (If anyone knows of another good free image host that won't limit quality or size, let me know.)

R1:

R2:

R3:

R4:

R5:
(My card DOES support OpenGL, but the Win7 Drivers don't have it in.)

I run all 2D games just fine, HD and normal quality. Standard 3D games also run fine (except badly coded games *coughPSOBBcough*) and I can get some lag on HD 3D games, otherwise, my card is pretty nice.
I'd also like to mention that I'm running Windows 7 RC x64, which officially needs 2 Gigs of RAM, but I only have 1 Gig so, I'm somewhat underpowered.
Lastly, even know the drives states it's a GMA 965, It's really the X3100 Media Accelerator. (As far as the box says.)

Glad to help,
<CyberKitsune>

EDIT: I also printed my system specs printout from Win7's System Performance Center; http://www.sendspace.com/file/z93zye
This post has been edited by CyberKitsune: 19 June 2009 - 11:47 PM

#54 User is offline Blast Processing 

Posted 20 June 2009 - 06:38 AM

  • Posts: 1024
  • Joined: 20-April 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Wiki edits:5
er...every single PC game with an adjustable resolution can be called "HD" if it goes up to whatever the latest buzzword for HD is today.

#55 User is offline Axel Letterman 

Posted 22 June 2009 - 03:49 AM

  • The Saiyan Hedgehog
  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
PC Specs:
AMD Athlon X2 64 Live! 4200+ at 2.2Ghz
2 GB of RAM
nVidia GeForce 6200 TurboCache with 256MB of vRAM
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 SP3


R1:
Open Stage : Used 472,356KB of memory and FPS is between 28 to 30
Multi Bridge Stage : Used 449,556KB of memory and FPS is between 31 to 38
R2:
Open Stage : Used 471,328KB of memory and FPS is between 28 to 30
Multi Bridge Stage : Used 448,532KB of memory and FPS is between 33 to 40
R3:
Open Stage : Used 471,228KB of memory and FPS is between 28 to 31
Multi Bridge Stage : Used 448,440KB of memory and FPS is between 31 to 39
R4:
Open Stage : Same as R3
Multi Bridge Stage : Used 418,128KB of memory and FPS is between 31 to 39
R5:
Open Stage : Used 118,664KB of memory and FPS is at 60
Multi Bridge Stage : Used 113,592KB of memory and FPS is at 60

#56 User is offline Mad Echidna 

Posted 05 July 2009 - 04:14 PM

  • Gone
  • Posts: 5219
  • Joined: 13-January 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Wiki edits:4
R1-R4 all run pretty slow for me, I'm on an Eee PC 904HA with stock hardware (Intel Atom, GMA 9500 graphics card). R1 was the most playable, but still dropped a lot of frames. R5 wouldn't even start, said something about I must have Open GL 1.2 or better. Also, I"m running Windows 7 RC1.

#57 User is offline CyberKitsune 

Posted 06 July 2009 - 03:53 PM

  • Never enough time.
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 29-May 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Project:aaaaaaaaa
  • Wiki edits:52
QUOTE (Mad Echidna @ Jul 5 2009, 02:14 PM)
R1-R4 all run pretty slow for me, I'm on an Eee PC 904HA with stock hardware (Intel Atom, GMA 9500 graphics card). R1 was the most playable, but still dropped a lot of frames. R5 wouldn't even start, said something about I must have Open GL 1.2 or better. Also, I"m running Windows 7 RC1.


R5 won't work because the Win7 RC drivers for Intel Cards don't have OpenGL in them, hopefully they will update the drivers soon.

#58 User is offline subsubstantive 

Posted 08 July 2009 - 12:09 AM

  • Posts: 237
  • Joined: 04-June 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Wiki edits:2
Can anyone offer some insight into why when I run "S2HD_TechDemo..." I get a Fatal Error, "Failed to initialize object heap", and how I can solve this problem?

sad.png

#59 User is offline LOst 

Posted 08 July 2009 - 11:23 AM

  • Posts: 4886
  • Joined: 10-January 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Wiki edits:2
QUOTE (subsubstantive @ Jul 8 2009, 09:09 AM)
Can anyone offer some insight into why when I run "S2HD_TechDemo..." I get a Fatal Error, "Failed to initialize object heap", and how I can solve this problem?

sad.png

You need more RAM. Windows might not let you get the memory for some reason, or you have simply too little system RAM. The only fix is to install more RAM if you have less than the RAM needed specified in the "system requirements". Or hope that the next release uses less RAM, which it might actually do wink.png

#60 User is offline Conan Kudo 

Posted 10 July 2009 - 11:00 PM

  • 「真実はいつも一つ!」工藤新一
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 12-January 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Wiki edits:14
It is now July, and it seems that R5 has the clear win here.

By the way, for people who want to enable OpenGL on Windows 7 RC, you must run the Intel Vista drivers installer in Vista compatibility mode to install them. This will automatically enable OpenGL support.

Windows Update revisions of drivers do not contain OpenGL, mainly because Microsoft is pushing DirectX very very hard.

  • 5 Pages +
  • ◄ First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
    Locked
    Locked Forum

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users