The DronezMark scores from a couple days back are incorrect!
I had VSync set in XP and that was the reason for Wine having such a huge
% increase over XP. I re-ran the test on XP and Wine with sound set to
Performance and VSync turned off. XP 1024x768x32 Wine 1024x768x24
Tom
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 21:48 -0400, Tom Wickline wrote:
> Does this look presentable?
Looks very good. It's way more useful this way.
--
Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lattica, Inc.
Anssi Hannula wrote:
Tom Wickline wrote:
Any more recommendations?
The % are apparently calculated wrong.
You should use:
(Wine score / XP score) - 1
For example in the first CPU Marks you say XP 650, Wine 786, +18%
However, (786 / 650) - 1 = 0.2092307692307692 ~ +21%
I don't know if you
On 7/30/05, Anssi Hannula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if you already read my post, but I see now some very
> strange numbers, like -326%. That would mean Wine had negative 3D marks :S
:-)
>
> Just use the above formula (e.g. Wine's score always first), no matter
> if wine has a be
Tom Wickline wrote:
Does this look presentable?
Much better now.
Any more recommendations?
The % are apparently calculated wrong.
You should use:
(Wine score / XP score) - 1
For example in the first CPU Marks you say XP 650, Wine 786, +18%
However, (786 / 650) - 1 = 0.2092307692307692 ~
On 7/28/05, Holger Dell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> has anyone ever tried to use grpof or any other profiling tool to
> analyze, which code eats most cpu time (=bottlenecks).
> normally, if you develop something, you first go for functionality and
> after that for speed. it's not good for wine to
On 7/30/05, Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Looks great! I must admit that having XP on the left side may be
> preferable, if it's not too much work.
Does this look presentable?
Any more recommendations? Anyone other than Mitchell think I should
change "Wine vs. XP" to "Wine Difference
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 05:43 -0400, Tom Wickline wrote:
> I'm not finished, but I thought I would ask if this going in the right
> direction?
> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
Looks great! I must admit that having XP on the left side may be
preferable, if it's not too much work.
--
Dimi Paun <[E
Tom Wickline wrote:
On 7/30/05, Felix Nawothnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Wickline wrote:
I'm not finished, but I thought I would ask if this going in the right
direction?
http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
Much better, although Windows should rea
Tom Wickline wrote:
I'm not finished, but I thought I would ask if this going in the right
direction?
http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
Much better, although Windows should really be on the left side.
Why? its Wine against XP ... not XP against Wine.
Maybe it's just me (no it's not, someone el
On 7/30/05, Felix Nawothnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Wickline wrote:
> > I'm not finished, but I thought I would ask if this going in the right
> > direction?
> > http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
>
> Much better, although Windows should really be on the left side.
Why? its Wine against XP
Tom Wickline wrote:
I'm not finished, but I thought I would ask if this going in the right
direction?
http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
Much better, although Windows should really be on the left side.
Felix
On 7/28/05, Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Wine XP Wine vs. Win
> 3DMark Result (marks): 14,606 13,332 +10%
> CPU Speed (CPU Marks): 786650 +21%
> ...
>
> I personally like the last one the best.
I'm not finishe
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:34:08PM +0200, Holger Dell wrote:
> >or is there a way to not only test "functionality" with tests but
> >also "speed"? i guess this would be nice to find bottlenecks.
> has anyone ever tried to use grpof or any other profiling tool to
> analyze, which code eats most cpu
hi,
Christoph Frick wrote on 07/28/2005 11:55 AM:
or is there a way to not only test "functionality" with tests but also "speed"?
i guess this
would be nice to find bottlenecks.
(maybe this is already done - if so excuse my ignorance ;))
has anyone ever tried to use grpof or any other profil
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:29:53AM -0400, Tom Wickline wrote:
> And just add a third column with +/- %'s
can the test runs be automated like the winetests? and so have them
updated automatically with different machines? or is there a way to not
only test "functionality" with tests but also "speed
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Dimi Paun wrote:
[...]
Wine XP Wine vs. Win
3DMark Result (marks): 14,606 13,332 +10%
CPU Speed (CPU Marks): 786650 +21%
...
I would exchange the Wine and XP columns. That would make the percentage
c
On 7/28/05, Holger Dell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hm, ok.
> what about native-linux ut2004 and q3, do they have benchmarks on linux,
> too? would be interesting to have the native version vs. wine version as
> well, wouldn't it?
GentooDemo 1 Demo2
388.3fp
On 7/28/05, Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wine XP Wine vs.
> Win
> 3DMark Result (marks): 14,606 13,332 +10%
> CPU Speed (CPU Marks): 786650 +21%
> ...
>
> I personally like the last one the
From: "Tom Wickline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is this what you guys had in mind?
> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
>
> And just add a third column with +/- %'s
>
> Any other Recommendations?
Why repeat the measurements? Something like this
would be more desirable:
Wine
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Anssi Hannula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So Codeweavers' email/list server delayed my email for 11 hours so that
Paul would beat me to it and propose the same idea before me? unfair :P
Are you a subscriber of the mailing list with the address you were writing
from?
hi,
Michael Stefaniuc wrote on 07/28/2005 12:37 PM:
I do not think that MacOS X runs on his hardware. Using an other box for
that would be like comparing apples with oranges.
hm, ok.
what about native-linux ut2004 and q3, do they have benchmarks on linux,
too? would be interesting to have the
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 00:35 -0400, Tom Wickline wrote:
>
> What I would like to do in the end is have two benchmark pages. Wine
> against XP and Wine old-version against wine current and show our
> progression/regression each six months or so. And have the diff
> column with +/- %'s for both page
On 7/28/05, Michael Stefaniuc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mac OS X benchmarking results (where available) would be cool.
> I do not think that MacOS X runs on his hardware. Using an other box for
> that would be like comparing apples with oranges.
That's one reason why I don't list Win2k or Win
Holger Dell wrote:
Tom Wickline wrote on 07/28/2005 10:29 AM:
Is this what you guys had in mind? http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
I don't think so. The table format I had expected is:
$(benchmark name) | $(wine result) | $(XP result) | $([any other
interesting OS] result)
Any other Reco
hi,
Tom Wickline wrote on 07/28/2005 10:29 AM:
Is this what you guys had in mind?
http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
I don't think so. The table format I had expected is:
$(benchmark name) | $(wine result) | $(XP result) | $([any other
interesting OS] result)
Any other Recommendations?
Ma
On 7/27/05, Anssi Hannula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anssi Hannula wrote:
> So Codeweavers' email/list server delayed my email for 11 hours so that
> Paul would beat me to it and propose the same idea before me? unfair :P
:-)
Hello Anssi,
Is this what you guys had in mind?
http://wiki.winehq.
"Anssi Hannula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So Codeweavers' email/list server delayed my email for 11 hours so that
> Paul would beat me to it and propose the same idea before me? unfair :P
Are you a subscriber of the mailing list with the address you were writing
from?
--
Dmitry.
Anssi Hannula wrote:
Tom Wickline wrote:
I put the Benchmark results that I posted to wine-devel back in April
on the Wiki.
http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
I would appreciate any constitutive criticism to improve this page.
I think it would be easier to read if the wine and xp results were
On 7/27/05, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
Hello Paul,
>
> maybe it's an idea to put the WinXP and Wine results next to each other,
> to have some immediate idea of the differences.
Okay, I'll try to do this by Saturday.
> Maybe even add a diff column showing how well/bad we
Tom Wickline wrote:
Hello,
I put the Benchmark results that I posted to wine-devel back in April
on the Wiki.
http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
I would appreciate any constitutive criticism to improve this page.
I think it would be easier to read if the wine and xp results were
side-to-side i
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 00:49, Tom Wickline wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I put the Benchmark results that I posted to wine-devel back in April
> on the Wiki.
> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
>
> I would appreciate any constitutive criticism to improve this page.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
Hi Tom,
maybe it's an id
--- Tom Wickline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/26/05, Mitchell Mebane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd be interested to see how 3DMark05 runs. Do Oliver's patches support it
> > yet?
>
> Back in April 3DMark05 would install and load but there was a lack of
> Pixel Shader 2.0
> support, s
On 7/26/05, Mitchell Mebane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be interested to see how 3DMark05 runs. Do Oliver's patches support it
> yet?
Back in April 3DMark05 would install and load but there was a lack of
Pixel Shader 2.0
support, so none of the test would run.
http://www.futuremark.com/pro
Tom Wickline wrote:
Hello,
I put the Benchmark results that I posted to wine-devel back in April
on the Wiki.
http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
I would appreciate any constitutive criticism to improve this page.
Tom
.
I'd be interested to see how 3DMark05 runs. Do Oliver's
patches
Hello,
I put the Benchmark results that I posted to wine-devel back in April
on the Wiki.
http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark
I would appreciate any constitutive criticism to improve this page.
Tom
36 matches
Mail list logo
