S2HD Render Engine Test

Discussion in 'Sonic 2 HD (Archive)' started by LOst, Apr 5, 2009.

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

  1. R1

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. R2

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. R3

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. R4

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. R5

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. siditious

    siditious

    Member
    11
    0
    0
    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.
     
  2. Elratauru

    Elratauru

    Little Shiny Emurralds Member
    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.
     
  3. 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
     
  4. <!--quoteo(post=309466:date=May 16 2009, 02:20 AM:name=Wolf Rogers)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wolf Rogers @ May 16 2009, 02:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=309466"><img src="public/style_images/retro/snapback.png"></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

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

    wangle

    Member
    22
    0
    0
    only R3 worked flawlessly on my computer, full screen doesn't work sometimes on other setting.

    <!--fonto:Lucida Console--><span style="font-family:Lucida Console"><!--/fonto--><!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->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<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--><!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->
    <!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
     
  6. <!--quoteo(post=311592:date=May 23 2009, 09:13 AM:name=wangle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wangle @ May 23 2009, 09:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=311592"><img src="public/style_images/retro/snapback.png"></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->only R3 worked flawlessly on my computer, full screen doesn't work sometimes on other settings<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    What are the specs of your computer? We need to know this.
     
  7. steveswede

    steveswede

    Member
    5,032
    1
    16
    Ask my hand
    Fighting against the Unitary State of Europe
    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.
     
  8. Dethbryte

    Dethbryte

    Member
    1
    0
    0
    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.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. CyberKitsune

    CyberKitsune

    Never enough time. Member
    83
    0
    0
    aaaaaaaaa
    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&reg; 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.
     
  11. LOst

    LOst

    Tech Member
    4,889
    1
    16
    <!--quoteo(post=321117:date=Jun 19 2009, 06:03 AM:name=CyberKitsune)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberKitsune @ Jun 19 2009, 06:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321117"><img src="public/style_images/retro/snapback.png"></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OS: Windows 7 RC (Via Bootcamp, no emulation)
    VIDEO CARD: Mobile Intel® 965 Express Chipset Family (Microsoft Corporation - Prerelease WDDM 1.1 Driver)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    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!
     
  12. Conan Kudo

    Conan Kudo

    「真実はいつも一つ!」工藤新一 Member
    477
    0
    16
    <!--quoteo(post=321384:date=Jun 19 2009, 06:38 PM:name=LOst)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LOst @ Jun 19 2009, 06:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321384"><img src="public/style_images/retro/snapback.png"></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=321117:date=Jun 19 2009, 06:03 AM:name=CyberKitsune)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberKitsune @ Jun 19 2009, 06:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321117"><img src="public/style_images/retro/snapback.png"></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OS: Windows 7 RC (Via Bootcamp, no emulation)
    VIDEO CARD: Mobile Intel® 965 Express Chipset Family (Microsoft Corporation - Prerelease WDDM 1.1 Driver)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    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!
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

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

    CyberKitsune

    Never enough time. Member
    83
    0
    0
    aaaaaaaaa
    <!--quoteo(post=321384:date=Jun 19 2009, 04:38 PM:name=LOst)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LOst @ Jun 19 2009, 04:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321384"><img src="public/style_images/retro/snapback.png"></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=321117:date=Jun 19 2009, 06:03 AM:name=CyberKitsune)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberKitsune @ Jun 19 2009, 06:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=321117"><img src="public/style_images/retro/snapback.png"></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OS: Windows 7 RC (Via Bootcamp, no emulation)
    VIDEO CARD: Mobile Intel® 965 Express Chipset Family (Microsoft Corporation - Prerelease WDDM 1.1 Driver)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    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!
    <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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: <img src="http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv19/CyberKitsune09/R1.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />

    R2: <img src="http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv19/CyberKitsune09/R2.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />

    R3: <img src="http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv19/CyberKitsune09/R3.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />

    R4: <img src="http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv19/CyberKitsune09/R4.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />

    R5: <img src="http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv19/CyberKitsune09/R5.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
    (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; <a href="http://www.sendspace.com/file/z93zye" target="_blank">http://www.sendspace.com/file/z93zye</a>
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. Axel Letterman

    Axel Letterman

    The Saiyan Hedgehog Member
    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
     
  16. Mad Echidna

    Mad Echidna

    Gone Oldbie
    5,219
    0
    0
    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.
     
  17. CyberKitsune

    CyberKitsune

    Never enough time. Member
    83
    0
    0
    aaaaaaaaa
    <!--quoteo(post=327037:date=Jul 5 2009, 02:14 PM:name=Mad Echidna)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mad Echidna @ Jul 5 2009, 02:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327037"><img src="public/style_images/retro/snapback.png"></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    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.
     
  18. 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?

    :(
     
  19. LOst

    LOst

    Tech Member
    4,889
    1
    16
    <!--quoteo(post=327821:date=Jul 8 2009, 09:09 AM:name=subsubstantive)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (subsubstantive @ Jul 8 2009, 09:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327821"><img src="public/style_images/retro/snapback.png"></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?

    :(<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    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 ;)
     
  20. Conan Kudo

    Conan Kudo

    「真実はいつも一つ!」工藤新一 Member
    477
    0
    16
    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 <I>Vista</I> 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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.