[Whoever]

So I got that GPU speed testing proggie Darkmans or something. And I thought it'd be cool since it'd give me a numerical value on how fast the various plugins are... anyway I ran some benchmarks but I don't know how to interperet the results. There isn't any such documentation in the readme.. sooo someone wanna tell me what this means?

http://64.26.33.165/huh.jpg

I know this much: the blue bar is opengl, the red is D3D and the green is software... but thats about all I can figgure.

 

[Dark Watcher]

Hmmm

The results are fairly simple to interpret...Darkmans tool runs a series of graphic tests (runs sprites, triangles,etc) to determine which plugins work best with your graphics card....based on the results you can gather that Pete's OpenGL is perfect for your card playing 3D games..and Pete's Soft is great for 2D....
Let us know if you are looking for specifics...

 

[Whoever]

Basically I just didn't know what a M O or a G O ect. triangle was. Or the difference between an NS O or a NS T textured triangle. And in some of the measurements it looks like D3D is clearly ahead. And others OpenGL is ahead.

Edit: Tried the test under Windows 98 and got much better results. approx 460,000 triangles under OGL @ lowest settings. D3D is clearly behind with only about 380K Soft about 260K. But I always get single digit numbers when running under W2K (The test doesn't really run, just flickers for half a second).

 

[Prafull]

Hmmm,
Actually I use this test to compare between two plugins(recently i tested pete's 1.55 against 1.54). Even if I dont know for sure what mo or go have to do the higher scores means better plugin.I hope it was designed to be used like that only.

 

[Whoever]

Yeah but then you get into a sticky situation where two setups trade blows in different areas. Like on my system Petes w/Dynamic chaching is superior to Pallettized in some areas of the tests but inferior in others. But it definately does do a good job of comparing entirely different plugins.