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 +
  • 1
  • 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...

#31 User is offline Meph 

Posted 08 April 2009 - 02:36 PM

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: 08-April 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Wiki edits:4

View PostMush Man, on Apr 6 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

This is my first test.

Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition 32-Bit (Version 2002) Service Pack 2
CPU: Intel Pentium Duel CPU (so I presume it means Duel Core) E2140 - 1.6Ghz
RAM: 2GB DDR2 (I think it's DDR2)
Graphics Card: Intel 82945G Express Chipset Family (Onboard I reckon) 128 MB
Screen Resolution: 1440 by 900 Desktop LCD

Result: "Fatal Error!" "Failed to Initialise Object Heap"

I'm not voting yet, 'cause this computer isn't the one I use most (in fact, I barely use this comp).

As for what graphic quality you should implement, I reckon that, if it's possible, you should offer an option to configure the level of graphical quality so the player can optimise their experience for both speed and have it looking nice.

I'm also getting that error and I use the same graphics chipset as you. I assume the problem is related to the fact that our built in GPUs are unnoticeable?

#32 User is offline GerbilSoft 

Posted 08 April 2009 - 02:39 PM

  • RickRotate'd.
  • Posts: 2669
  • Joined: 11-January 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Project:Gens/GS
  • Wiki edits:5,000 + one spin

View PostLOst, on Apr 7 2009, 07:52 AM, said:

Sonic 2 HD will be cross platform in the end.

Will the Linux version be open-source? That would make it easier for various distro maintainers to package it for their respective distributions.

#33 User is offline TmEE 

Posted 08 April 2009 - 03:18 PM

  • SG-1000 !
  • Posts: 1720
  • Joined: 06-January 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Estonia, Rapla City
  • Project:Bug Blaster SG-1000
  • Wiki edits:11
Test machine is a Socket370 Tualatin Celeron @ 1400MHz, with 640MBytes of PC133 and ATI Radeon 9200se with 128MB of DDR running windows 98SE 4.10.2222A with KernelEx 0.3.61 installed.
Using a machine thats lower than recommended is best way to determine something as any improvement will show up immediately.

R1:
http://www.fileden.c.../1876835/R1.png
Runs quite okay, makes nice use of CPU, starts up immediately, uses RAM nicely.

R2:
http://www.fileden.c.../1876835/R2.png
Frame rate is poorer, CPU is nicely used, starts up immediately. RAM use is nice.

R3:
http://www.fileden.c.../1876835/R3.png
Frame rate is still poor, RAM is used less, still starts up fast, CPU use is nice.

R4:
http://www.fileden.c.../1876835/R4.png
very very long loading times, but very good performance, uses CPU rather lightly, loks good enough but not as good as previous 3. RAM is nicely put into use.

R5:
http://www.fileden.c.../1876835/R5.png
very very very long loading times, but slightly better performance than R4, uses CPU rather more lightly, looks good enough, though not as good as R1, R2 and R3. RAM is nicely put into use.


R4 or R5 would be my pick if it weren't for the loading times, R1 stands out from the rest for the high performance to loading time ratio.... R1 that looks "bad" like R4 or R5 would be ideal IMO.

#34 User is offline Conan Kudo 

Posted 09 April 2009 - 03:15 PM

  • 「真実はいつも一つ!」工藤新一
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 12-January 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Wiki edits:14

View PostGerbilSoft, on Apr 8 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

View PostLOst, on Apr 7 2009, 07:52 AM, said:

Sonic 2 HD will be cross platform in the end.

Will the Linux version be open-source? That would make it easier for various distro maintainers to package it for their respective distributions.


I actually hadn't thought of asking that. Thanks GerbilSoft :)

If it is, I will be willing to package RPMs and generic Linux installers for it. :(

#35 User is offline Conan Kudo 

Posted 12 April 2009 - 03:48 PM

  • 「真実はいつも一つ!」工藤新一
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 12-January 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Wiki edits:14
This Demo freezes up Xorg in all of the renders...

Computer: Skuld (Laptop - Sony VAIO)

Intel X3000 IGP 192MB RAM shared

System RAM: 2GB

Fedora 10

Wine version: 1.1.18
This post has been edited by King InuYasha: 15 April 2009 - 06:05 AM

#36 User is offline blueblur87 

Posted 13 April 2009 - 09:14 PM

  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 13-April 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Midlands, United Kingdom
  • Wiki edits:1
Hi all.
I did the CPU and Ram test, here is my verdict:

R1
Ram usage ~200mb above resting
CPU - 79%
Looks - very good but occasional frame drop, disclaimer refused to budge until I moved the window (only happened the 1st time)

R2
Ram - same
CPU - spikes when complex interactions with swinging platform are made, as high as 98% usage
Looks - same except the disclaimer screen problem seems fixed now

R3
Ram - higher amount used
CPU - stays higher for longer
Looks - more frames dropped than 1 & 2

R4
Ram - same
CPU - high when interacting with swinging platform (97%)
Looks - regular frame skipping

R5
Ram - not much more ram usage than R4
CPU - 100% usage
Looks - still drops frames regularly, resolution did not fit in my window

I voted R1 for best performance, lowest ram and CPU usage.

My setup:

AMD 1.6GHz Turion Mobile, Windows XP Pro x64 Edition, ATI x700 64MB VRam, 1GB System Ram

I used the "open 4x size" level for all tests.

#37 User is offline RingoKoi 

Posted 18 April 2009 - 10:37 AM

  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 17-April 09
  • Project:getting to know palette and music hacking
R5, It was the fastest that ran for me, I didn't notice any graphical differences

CPU:2.93 GHZ

Ram: 512 MB

Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce 8400 GS

OS: Windows XP

Direct X: 9

#38 User is offline Hodgy 

Posted 21 April 2009 - 11:30 AM

  • Posts: 795
  • Joined: 25-July 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Project:Games programming :)
PC Specs:
Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz
4GB DDR2 PC6400
ATI HD4850
vista home premium
screen: 1360x768

Due to my screen resolution I cant comment on the graphics (they all look the same at this resolution)

R1: FPS 60/60 CPU 24% RAM 528,688 K
R2: FPS 60/60 CPU 25% RAM 171,924 K
R3: FPS 60/60 CPU 24% RAM 172,322 K (crashed graphics driver)
R4: FPS 60/60 CPU 25% RAM 173,012 K (crashed graphics driver)
R5: FPS 60/60 CPU 25% RAM 172,496 K

R3 and R4 both crashed the ATI graphics driver but vist recovered from it and continues to play the game.

I would recommend R2 Because it didnt have any issues it also still supported scaling and used the least amount of RAM. I wont vote in the pole as I cant see the graphics so I cant make a valid point.

I REALLY don't want R5 to be used, because it limits it's userbase, peopel that don't have a high resolution monitor wont be able to play it properly :/ It might look the best but it isnt the most suitable.
This post has been edited by Hodgy: 21 April 2009 - 03:14 PM

#39 User is offline Lurker 

Posted 25 April 2009 - 02:46 PM

  • no
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 28-February 08
  • Gender:Male
Same computer running Win XP / Vista/ Win 7 beta 7000

Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz (2 CPU)
4GB RAM (3.4GB on XP and Win 7 because of 32bit)
Ati Radeon HD 3800 512 MB
and Realtek HD Audio(everything sounded fine)
50% means that CPU 1 ran at 100%

R1 XP
R2 XP
R3 XP
R4 XP
R5 XP

r1 Winxp 441,8 mb around 20% CPU
r2 Winxp 108,5 mb around 20% CPU
r3 Winxp 108,5 mb around 20% CPU
r4 Winxp 103,4 mb around 20% CPU
r5 Winxp 175,8 mb 50% CPU (started lagging every time it ran in the background and that's annoying because S2HD wants to run in front of Task Manager even when I have it as "Always On Top")

R1 Vista
R2 Vista
R3 Vista
R4 Vista
R5 Vista

r1 Vista 528,5 mb around 50% CPU
r2 Vista 175,5 mb around 50% CPU
r3 Vista 175,5 mb around 50% CPU
r4 Vista 175,9 mb around 40% CPU
r5 Vista 187,2 mb around 50% CPU

R1 Win 7
R2 Win 7
R3 Win 7
R4 Win 7
R5 Win 7

Win 7 looks slightly different, dunno why
r1 Win 7 463,4 mb around 50% CPU
r2 Win 7 178,9 mb around 50% CPU
r3 Win 7 178,8 mb around 50% CPU
r4 Win 7 179,3 mb around 50% CPU
r5 Win 7 173,7 mb around 50% CPU

Hope this will be of any help.

EDIT: Everything ran at 60fps
This post has been edited by Lurker: 25 April 2009 - 03:13 PM

#40 User is offline Sintendo 

Posted 26 April 2009 - 10:19 AM

  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 15-June 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Wiki edits:2
Specs:
Intel Pentium 4 2.66GHz (Northwood)
1GB RAM DDR
nVidia GeForce 7800 GS 256MB (AGP8x)
Microsoft Windows XP SP3

All tests were run in Window Mode (1280x1024) and checked during the bridge 16 character demo
R1 - MEM: 446.612K
FPS: 56-60
CPU: Usually 18-26%, occasionally rises to 30-45%
R2 - MEM: 445.488K
FPS: Usually 48-52, occasional ups (54-59, never reached 60) and downs (40-46)
CPU: Usually 61-73%, occasional ups (74-81%) and downs (45-59%)
R3 - MEM: 445.348K
FPS: Changes constantly (47-56)
CPU: Usually 61-73%, occasional ups (75-80%) and downs (48-54%)
R4 - MEM: 445.396K
FPS: Usually 48-54, occasional ups (56-60) and downs (36-46)
CPU: Usually 48-56%, occasional highs of 58-66% (doesn't seem to fluctuate nearly as much as the others?)
R5 - MEM: 110.724K
FPS: 60, dropped once to 59
CPU: Usually 93-100%, dropped once to 83%

Based on these results, I'd go with R5. It uses a lot of CPU (I guess it does the scaling on the CPU in R5?), but very stable and smooth speeds and low memory utilization make up for that.

#41 User is offline siditious 

Posted 29 April 2009 - 03:14 PM

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-April 09
Hi I tested RC1 and RC3 on a Gateway notebook with 2.0 Ghz CPU and 2 GB RAM, they both ran excellent as did the initial test version, this is an extremely impressive engine.

#42 User is offline Elratauru 

Posted 15 May 2009 - 11:17 AM

  • Oooh Shiny stuff! don't touch it >:(
  • Posts: 960
  • Joined: 13-April 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montevideo, Uruguay
  • Project:Web Developer
  • Wiki edits:132
Well here are my stats, Im using a Dual Core E2140, overclocked at 2.4ghz, Geforce 8400gs, and 2gb ddr2 ram.

Using xp sp3 right now...

R1 - 60/60 fps, cpu usage 27 % aprox, 470.4 ram.
R2 - 60/60 fps, cpu usage 30 % aprox, 113.3 ram.
R3 - 60/60 fps, cpu usage 34 % aprox, 114.4 ram.
R4 - 60/60 fps, cpu usage 30 % aprox, 120.1 ram.
R5 - 60/60 fps, cpu usage 50 % aprox, it uses all my first core to 100%, second core just stays low. 125.7 ram used.
This post has been edited by Elratauru: 15 May 2009 - 11:18 AM

#43 User is offline Wolf Rogers 

Posted 15 May 2009 - 08:20 PM

  • Posts: 605
  • Joined: 27-April 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester, UK
Render 1: 160MB/60fps/Good GPU handling
Render 2: 113MB/60fps, few drops/Good GPU handling
Render 3: 113MB/60fps/Decent, looks worse than 1 and 2 just slightly to me
Render 4: 113MB/60fps/same as 3 just loaded a little quicker
Render 5: DID NOT RUN! Says OpenGL files are different and that OpenGL has been disabled on the system

Render 1 and 2 look best to me, so either of those is good.

Stats
Geforce 8600GT 256MB
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
1GB PC6400 Ram
This post has been edited by Wolf Rogers: 15 May 2009 - 08:21 PM

#44 User is offline Wolf Rogers 

Posted 19 May 2009 - 03:55 PM

  • Posts: 605
  • Joined: 27-April 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester, UK
QUOTE (Wolf Rogers @ May 16 2009, 02:20 AM)
Render 1: 160MB/60fps/Good GPU handling
Render 2: 113MB/60fps, few drops/Good GPU handling
Render 3: 113MB/60fps/Decent, looks worse than 1 and 2 just slightly to me
Render 4: 113MB/60fps/same as 3 just loaded a little quicker
Render 5: DID NOT RUN! Says OpenGL files are different and that OpenGL has been disabled on the system

Render 1 and 2 look best to me, so either of those is good.

Stats
Geforce 8600GT 256MB
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+
1GB PC6400 Ram


Since updated my Graphics Drivers and Render 5 works best, very fast to load.

#45 User is offline wangle 

Posted 23 May 2009 - 03:13 AM

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 19-May 09
only R3 worked flawlessly on my computer, full screen doesn't work sometimes on other setting.

Gigabyte GA-8I945GMF
Pentium D 805 2.66GHZ Dual Core 533Mhz FSB
2x512MB PC4300 DDR2 533Mhz FSB
Gigabyte GV-N95TOC-512I Nvidia 9500GT 512MB GDDR2 PCI-E 2.0 128bit
ForceWare 185.85
DX9
XP SP3


This post has been edited by wangle: 25 May 2009 - 12:28 AM

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
    Locked
    Locked Forum

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users