F5 Debug display - render process %

[Armchair_Engo]

I have been comparing how ORTS V1 (nice!) runs on my different systems. One system is Win 7 Pro 32-bit, the other is XP Pro 32 bit. Both have 4G ram installed, Core2Duo E8500 CPUs, and the same video card.

The Win7 box seems to run at higher FPS compared to XP. No doubt differences in main board will have an effect, as will how the display driver works with each OS.

In Win7, with the F5 HUD cycled through to the debug info, it seems that the render process run at 100% most of the time while in XP the render process runs at a much lower percentage.

What I wonder is what that percentage is? In Win 7 the debug display's "Total process" goes over 100%.

Watching Task Manager in both systems, the distribution of CPU time across the two cores seems fairly equal in Win7.
In XP, one core is usually at about 100% and the other is about 15-20%.

A couple of screengrabs:

Win 7 Pro 32bit:



XP Pro 32bit

[Vince]

The Win7 box seems to run at higher FPS compared to XP.
No doubt differences in main board will have an effect, as will how the display driver works with each OS.

In this case I would expect the Win7 machine to have better performance as it is not rendering shadows.

An excellent example of how shadow rendering take a lot of GPU power, but for a valid test of this it would have to be run on a single machine.

How about you turn shadows on for the Win7 machine and test?
best,

[Armchair_Engo]

How about you turn shadows on for the Win7 machine and test?

Indeed dynamic shadows bring down the frame rates, but in these examples the Render process % seems unaffected.
I still wonder what that percentage is. "Total process" still goes over 100%.

Win7 Pro


XP Pro

[Vince]

21 & 23 fps. That seems pretty equal to me.
So it looks like there is not much difference, between the two operating systems, all thing being equal. It may be the XP machine is a tad faster when I look at the numbers of primitaves being rendered. That figures, less bloatware in the XP OS, right? .

These HUD's are a fantastic tool. I hope the devlprs leave them in there forever. Can't have enuf tools!
best,

[Armchair_Engo]

21 & 23 fps. That seems pretty equal to me.

The difference is usually between 2 and 4 FPS in favour of the Win7 box.

So it looks like there is not much difference, between the two operating systems, all thing being equal.

And they are not equal. It would take too long to list the differences between the systems, but it is nice to able to reasonably quatify the various factors that make up the perceived performance.

It may be the XP machine is a tad faster when I look at the numbers of primitaves being rendered. That figures, less bloatware in the XP OS, right?.

Well, no. The XP system has piles more software of all kinds installed. However, the Task Managers shows fairly similar numbers of running processes. This is not supposed to be a head-to-head OS performance comparison.

These HUD's are a fantastic tool. I hope the devlprs leave them in there forever. Can't have enuf tools!

Indeed. Tools like this will certainly keep tinkerers like me occupied.

I see that there is an update already. The inbuilt updater subtly notified me of a new version and I allowed to install version 1.0.1.3095. No mess, no fuss.