I've ran some performance benches between this & the previous 2.3 release. Some will be very happy & others will be slightly disappointed.

These results are from an E6300 @ 3.15GHz paired with a 7950GT @ 700/1680MHz:

1024x768, normal quality:
* 2.3: 1910 frames 9.9498260 seconds 191.9631559 fps
* 2.4: 1910 frames 9.5607200 seconds 199.7757498 fps
1024x768, ultimate quality:
* 2.3: 1910 frames 25.5537291 seconds 74.7444725 fps
* 2.4: 1910 frames 19.8623669 seconds 96.1617519 fps
1440x900, normal quality:
* 2.3: 1910 frames 10.3004189 seconds 185.4293526 fps
* 2.4: 1910 frames 12.4173491 seconds 153.8170494 fps
1440x900, ultimate quality:
* 2.3: 1910 frames 30.4542651 seconds 62.7169952 fps
* 2.4: 1910 frames 34.6376250 seconds 55.1423489 fps

^ That's not good news for those of us with LCD screens that look poor under their native resolutions.

Feel free to post your benchmarks & comparisons

Tony.

Strange thing happening there with the 1440x900 resolution. Can you try a third resolution (1152x864, 1280x800) and see what that comes out as?

1152x864, normal quality:
* 2.3: 1910 frames 10.0287750 seconds 190.4519749 fps
* 2.4: 1910 frames 9.6969891 seconds 196.9683567 fps

^ Not much difference from the 1024x768 results, maybe the wall's at 1440x900 or equivalent? Could someone run a comparison of higher resolutions?

Normal and Ultimate are different settings in the two versions, what are you trying to compare? 2.4 introduces reflections (slightly slower). Are you trying to compare with everything graphically the same or not?

Is normal a different setting also? Even if so, what's with the huge difference @ 1440?

I think even normal settings got adjusted a bit.. But one would have to compare the config files to be sure.
Well it could be a driver issue that 1440 runs that 'bad'.

I think I was simply too eager to put them through their paces.

Settings:

OpenGL Shaders: on
Vertex Buffer Objects: on
Show FPS: on
Bits/Pixel: 32
Fullscreen: on
Vertical Sync: off
Anistropic Filtering: 16x
Texture Quality: Best
Particle Quality: 1.0
Texture Compression: off
4x Multisampling: off
Decals: on
Bloom: off
HDR: off
Coronas: on
Deluxemapping: on
Offset Mapping: on
R/T lightbumpmaps: off
R/T World Lights: off
R/T World Shadows: off
R/T Dyn Lights: on
R/T Dyn Shadows: on
Reflections: off

Best of 3 runs @ 1024x768, 2.3 & 2.4 respectively:

Code: Select all

date 2008-03-02 07:02:01 | enginedate 16:39:22 May 30 2007 | demo demos/demo1.dem | commandline ./nexuiz-linux-x86_64-glx  | result 1910 frames 13.5327880 seconds 141.1386918 fps, one-second min/avg/max: 95 142 185
date 2008-03-02 07:04:51 | enginedate 11:33:17 Feb 29 2008 | demo demos/demo1.dem | commandline ./nexuiz-linux-x86_64-glx  | result 1910 frames 13.6389658 seconds 140.0399430 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 73 156 442

Best of 3 runs @ 1440x900, 2.3 & 2.4 respectively:

Code: Select all

date 2008-03-02 07:00:16 | enginedate 16:39:22 May 30 2007 | demo demos/demo1.dem | commandline ./nexuiz-linux-x86_64-glx  | result 1910 frames 16.4150732 seconds 116.3564720 fps, one-second min/avg/max: 70 116 151
date 2008-03-02 07:03:56 | enginedate 11:33:17 Feb 29 2008 | demo demos/demo1.dem | commandline ./nexuiz-linux-x86_64-glx  | result 1910 frames 15.5801110 seconds 122.5921944 fps, one-second fps min/avg/max: 61 135 318

With the settings manually set to sane levels there's little difference at 1024x768, though gains are actually noticeable at my native resolution of 1440x900. The presets must be quite different and whatever the difference may be, it certainly causes slowdowns at higher resolutions.