HardwareOC Prey Benchmark

[catphone]

it's a popular utility for everyone,u can use it test your computer's performance in Prey,post your result when you finish benchmark,let people see your score, the download link:
http://www.hocbench.com/prey.html

Features

Fixed resolution from 640×480 up to 2048×1536 (in 9 steps)
HD WideScreen resolutions (1280×768, 1920×1080, 1920×1200) support
Custom resolution feature.
Two built-in demo, custom demo function
Change aspect ratio
4 shader level (Low, Medium, High, Ultra)
Comments
Change filters (Antialiasing and Anisotropic filtering)
Boost graphics option (20 % performance impact)
Support command line parameters (batch benchmarking)

[d3ad connection]

I have the worst computer of everyone on this forum.

The benchmark started at 7/21/2006 4:56:11 PM

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 502.07 MB
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
CPU speed: 2780 MHz
Sound system: : SigmaTel Audio



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution: 640×480
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Low
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: None
Anisotropic filtering: From System
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 12.1 FPS

Resolution: 800×600
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Low
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: None
Anisotropic filtering: From System
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 9.3 FPS

[catphone]

not bad
hey d3ad,what video care do you use?

Guru3D demo 1

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 1.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) XP
CPU speed: 1920 MHz
Sound system: : SB Live! Audio [C400]
VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT
Memory: 128.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 540 MHz
Current memory speed: 1000 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.9131 (English)

Resolution: 1024?68
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Medium
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: None
Anisotropic filtering: None
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 54.5 FPS

Guru3D demo 2

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 1.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) XP
CPU speed: 1920 MHz
Sound system: : SB Live! Audio [C400]
VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT
Memory: 128.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 540 MHz
Current memory speed: 1000 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.9131 (English)

Resolution: 1024?68
Demo: guru3d-5.demo
Shader Detail: Medium
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: None
Anisotropic filtering: None
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 47.6 FPS

[d3ad connection]

Crappy Intel graphics.

[catphone]

a good video card does not so expensive,buy a new card you can play smooth in game
how do you playing with a lower fps

[d3ad connection]

I thought a newer video card would only make better visuals, not faster FPS.
I guess I've just gotten used to Prey being slow....

[Zogger]

fps is all about the video card. Your cpu will easily be able to process the information your video card needs, but to actually render the graphics takes a lot of processing power, which all gets transferred to the gfx card's own processor. So in almost all cases it's the video card that can't keep up with the cpu, meaning low framerates.

It would mean better visuals as well, since you will get a more acceptable framerate at a higher setting. The chances are you can set your graphics to full now, but you'd probably have to measure in seconds per frame as opposed to frames per second.

[Nessus]

Dead, part of your problem is also the 512 memory. With 1 gig of Ram and a 6600GT your computer would be playing high detail with no slowdowns.

[Jigsaw]

Ran it with my standard gaming settings (Gurudemo1 only):

he benchmark started at 22.07.2006 02:02:27

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 1,5 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2600+
CPU speed: 1920 MHz
Sound system: : SB Live! Audio [D000]
VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GS
Memory: 256.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 375 MHz
Current memory speed: 1200 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.8443 (English)

Resolution: 1152 × 864 (Custom)
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Highest
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: None
Anisotropic filtering: None
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 60.7 FPS

Maybe I should run it without the 60fps cap.

[Quason]

Okay, quick question. How many fps should I be shooting for? Is there some sort of magic number where your eye just doesn't notice any higher?

I have everything turned up full blast and I'm getting 45ish FPS (I have the triton version of prey so the benchmark won't run). Is that alright, or should I turn something down a bit to bump my fps up a bit?

[rck]

Originally Posted by Quason

Okay, quick question. How many fps should I be shooting for? Is there some sort of magic number where your eye just doesn't notice any higher?

I have everything turned up full blast and I'm getting 45ish FPS (I have the triton version of prey so the benchmark won't run). Is that alright, or should I turn something down a bit to bump my fps up a bit?

DOOM3 engine is capped at 60FPS.

[d3ad connection]

Oh really?
+seta com_fixedTic 1
That will remove the cap.

[rck]

Originally Posted by d3ad connection

Oh really?
+seta com_fixedTic 1
That will remove the cap.

...and make the game run faster than it should causing all sorts of problems.

[d3ad connection]

I know... but he wanted it

[catphone]

secondly test

demo 1

reading a v100 render demo
Map: uses deathwalk map: maps/game/deathwalk1
idRenderWorldLocal::InitFromMap: retaining existing map
7 total game portals ++++++++++++++++++++++
GamePortal: area 32 -> 19 (object_glowportal_ftaextra_1b)
GamePortal: area 21 -> 24 (ftaExitPortal2)
GamePortal: area 24 -> 21 (ftaExitPortal1)
GamePortal: area 78 -> 79 (func_skybox_portal_1)
GamePortal: area 19 -> 32 (object_glowportal_ftaextra_1a)
GamePortal: area 42 -> 33 (object_glowportal_ftaextra_2a)
GamePortal: area 33 -> 42 (object_glowportal_ftaextra_2b)
stopped playing .
2864 frames rendered in 37.3 seconds = 76.8 fps

demo 2

reading a v100 render demo
Map: uses deathwalk map: maps/game/deathwalk1
idRenderWorldLocal::InitFromMap: retaining existing map
7 total game portals ++++++++++++++++++++++
GamePortal: area 32 -> 19 (object_glowportal_ftaextra_1b)
GamePortal: area 21 -> 24 (ftaExitPortal2)
GamePortal: area 24 -> 21 (ftaExitPortal1)
GamePortal: area 78 -> 79 (func_skybox_portal_1)
GamePortal: area 19 -> 32 (object_glowportal_ftaextra_1a)
GamePortal: area 42 -> 33 (object_glowportal_ftaextra_2a)
GamePortal: area 33 -> 42 (object_glowportal_ftaextra_2b)
stopped playing .
1787 frames rendered in 18.3 seconds = 97.7 fps

[mathesar]

Here's my results using the settings I played the game with:


The benchmark started at 7/22/2006 7:23:05 AM

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 2.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4800+
CPU speed: 2420 MHz
Sound system: : SB X-Fi Audio [A000]
VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
Memory: 512.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 550 MHz
Current memory speed: 1700 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.8421 (English)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution: 1600 × 1024 (Custom)
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Highest

Antialiasing: 2×
Anisotropic filtering: 4×
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 74.5 FPS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution: 1600 × 1024 (Custom)
Demo: guru3d-5.demo
Shader Detail: Highest

Antialiasing: 2×
Anisotropic filtering: 4×
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 66.1 FPS

[mathesar]

Originally Posted by Jigsaw

Ran it with my standard gaming settings (Gurudemo1 only):

he benchmark started at 22.07.2006 02:02:27

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 1,5 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2600+
CPU speed: 1920 MHz
Sound system: : SB Live! Audio [D000]
VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GS
Memory: 256.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 375 MHz
Current memory speed: 1200 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.8443 (English)

Resolution: 1152 × 864 (Custom)
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Highest
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: None
Anisotropic filtering: None
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 60.7 FPS

Maybe I should run it without the 60fps cap.

The benchmark ignores the 60fps cap by default.

[Jigsaw]

Originally Posted by mathesar

The benchmark ignores the 60fps cap by default.

Okay, then the result is just a funny coincedence. Anyway: I'm happy with my results, considering that my CPU is pretty old and lower midrange. Thanks to the 7800 GS.

d3ad connection: you really need a better vidoecard. You would get significant perfomance boost. It's not just better visuals.

[Jigsaw]

A little warning: the Benchmark seems to delete the autoexec.cfg. At least mine is gone after I ran it. I recommend backing up the autoexec.cfg before running the benchmark.

[rfisher983]

The benchmark started at 7/22/2006 12:46:08 PM

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 1.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+
CPU speed: 2790 MHz
Sound system: : SB X-Fi Audio [A000]
VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT
Memory: 256.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 580 MHz
Current memory speed: 790 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.8421 (English)

Resolution: 1024×768
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Low
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: None
Anisotropic filtering: None
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 162.2 FPS

[Quason]

How come everyone is running the benchmark with such low options? I'd like to see what you guys are getting at 1900x1200 at high shader detail, 4x AA and 16x AF.

[Adabiviak]

I run it at 1920x1200 - give me a sec. to download and run.

edit - Here's my stats. I notice that it didn't recognize that I'm using 64-bit Windows nor the sound card (X-Mystique). Before anyone asks, the CPU speed is stock, not overclocked.

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 1.0 GB
CPU: Genuine Intel(R) CPU 3.80GHz
CPU speed: 3820 MHz
Sound system: : HDA Digital PCI Audio Device

VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
Memory: 256.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 460 MHz
Current memory speed: 1300 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.9131 (English)
Resolution: 1920×1200 (HD WideScreen)
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Highest
Aspect Ratio: [16:9]
Antialiasing: 4×
Anisotropic filtering: 16×
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 34.6 FPS

[smattbac]

This is using the settings I play the game with:

The benchmark started at 23.7.2006 11:22:47

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 1,0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+
CPU speed: 2000 MHz
Sound system: : NVIDIA(R) nForce(TM) Audio

VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
Memory: 256.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 400 MHz
Current memory speed: 1000 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.9131 (English)

Resolution: 1024×768
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Highest
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: None
Anisotropic filtering: 4×
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 91.2 FPS

And this is 1900x1200, high shader detail, 4x AA and 16x AF:

The benchmark started at 23.7.2006 11:30:18

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 1,0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+
CPU speed: 2000 MHz
Sound system: : NVIDIA(R) nForce(TM) Audio

VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
Memory: 256.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 400 MHz
Current memory speed: 1000 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.9131 (English)

Resolution: 1920×1200 (HD WideScreen)
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Highest
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: 4×
Anisotropic filtering: 16×
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 35.8 FPS

[Jeron Moore]

The benchmark started at 7/23/2006 5:10:52 AM

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 2.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
CPU speed: 2020 MHz
Sound system: : Sound Blaster Live! 24-bit
VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX
Memory: 512.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 650 MHz
Current memory speed: 800 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.9131 (English)

Resolution: 1024×768
Demo: guru3d-6.demo
Shader Detail: Highest

Antialiasing: From System
Anisotropic filtering: From System
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 89.2 FPS

[Antipestilence]

This is everything all the way up ... never play cranked like this though ...guess I could though :-)

The benchmark started at 7/23/2006 7:22:50 AM

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 2.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 4000+
CPU speed: 2680 MHz
Sound system: : NVIDIA(R) nForce(TM) Audio
VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
Memory: 256.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 463 MHz
Current memory speed: 1311 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.9131 (English)
Comment: first run

Resolution: 1280×1024
Demo: guru3d-5.demo
Shader Detail: Highest
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: 4×
Anisotropic filtering: 16×
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 57.9 FPS

[Antipestilence]

here's the settings I really play with ...
The new drivers stink the place up ...lost like 12fps when I changed.

System Information
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP
System memory: 2.0 GB
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 4000+
CPU speed: 2680 MHz
Sound system: : NVIDIA(R) nForce(TM) Audio
VGA Information
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
Memory: 256.0 MB
Current GPU speed: 463 MHz
Current memory speed: 1311 MHz
Driver version: 6.14.0010.9131 (English)

Resolution: 1280×1024
Demo: guru3d-5.demo
Shader Detail: Highest
Aspect Ratio: [4:3]
Antialiasing: From System
Anisotropic filtering: From System
Graphics BOOST: disabled
Score = 84.1 FPS

[Jigsaw]

Originally Posted by Quason

How come everyone is running the benchmark with such low options? I'd like to see what you guys are getting at 1900x1200 at high shader detail, 4x AA and 16x AF.

If I would select that resolution, my monitor would explode!

[Antipestilence]

yeah 1900x1200 isn't supported on my monitor so I run everything at native 1280x1024 looks best that way anyhoot. what is 1900x1200 native to if my 19" is that much lower?

[rfisher983]

Originally Posted by Quason

How come everyone is running the benchmark with such low options? I'd like to see what you guys are getting at 1900x1200 at high shader detail, 4x AA and 16x AF.

Because if you are comparing systems everyone should just use defaults (1024x768)

[Quason]

Right, but certain cards actually work better under more stress. For example, if you look at the benchmarks for the eVGA e-geforce 7950 vs the 7900 GTX, you see that the GTX actually has a better FPS output at lower resolution than the 7950, but once you jack up the resolution and introduce AA and AF, the 7950 pulls ahead quite a bit.

So it's a bit unfair to some of those higher end cards that are specifically designed to work under tougher conditions when everyone is benchmarking at low settings.

JMHO.

Will I be able to optimise my settings after knowing the results?

[Jigsaw]

Originally Posted by DestroyerX61

Will I be able to optimise my settings after knowing the results?

The benchmark doesn't give recommendations, if that's what you mean. It only tells you how fast it runs. What you need to change in order to get the best balance between visual quality and perfomance is solely up to you.

That's what I hate about those so called "Tweaking Guides". They tell you what each option does, but other than saying "less detail is faster, more detail is slower" they give you zero info or recommendations what to do with it. My understanding of a "tweaking guide" is quite different.

[mathesar]

Originally Posted by Quason

How come everyone is running the benchmark with such low options? I'd like to see what you guys are getting at 1900x1200 at high shader detail, 4x AA and 16x AF.

Here ya go, its playable at least, for some reason it shows 4:3 aspect even tho I selected 16:10 (tried twice).

[Adabiviak]

Originally Posted by Antipestilence

yeah 1900x1200 isn't supported on my monitor so I run everything at native 1280x1024 looks best that way anyhoot. what is 1900x1200 native to if my 19" is that much lower?

I'm using an Apple 23" (16x9) HD, and this is my native resolution.

[rfisher983]

Originally Posted by Quason

Right, but certain cards actually work better under more stress. For example, if you look at the benchmarks for the eVGA e-geforce 7950 vs the 7900 GTX, you see that the GTX actually has a better FPS output at lower resolution than the 7950, but once you jack up the resolution and introduce AA and AF, the 7950 pulls ahead quite a bit.

So it's a bit unfair to some of those higher end cards that are specifically designed to work under tougher conditions when everyone is benchmarking at low settings.

JMHO.

Thats because it is the memory speed of the ram.

[mathesar]

Originally Posted by Adabiviak

I'm using an Apple 23" (16x9) HD, and this is my native resolution.

Just wanted to clarify something.. 1920x1200 is 16:10 aspect ratio , 1920x1080 (1080i) would be 16:9.

[Antipestilence]

Holy crapola !! 23" ..... and I thought I was a technaholic. Do you realise that people are drivin cars that cast less than your monitor ....SHEEEEESH!!