Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Kenneth Prugh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> <large snip> >> Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my >> copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have >> anything else that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab it >> and try. >> >> The only problem is I don't know what 2 kernels I should be using to >> test the schedulers. I assume 2.6.23-rc1 for CFS, but what about SD? > > .22-ck1 includes it, so that should be fine: > > http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0707.1/0318.html > > Ingo > Alright, Just got done with some testing of UT2004 between 2.6.23-rc1 CFS and 2.6.22-ck1 SD. This series of tests was run by spawning in a map while not moving at all and always facing the same direction, while slowing increasing the number of loops. CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while SD broke down to a highly unstable fps count that fluctuated massively around the third loop. Seems like I will stick to CFS for gaming now. Below you will find the results of my test with the average number of FPS. CFS | SD UT2004 + 0 loops | 200 FPS UT2004 + 0 loops | 190 FPS UT2004 + 1 loops | 195 FPS UT2004 + 1 loops | 190 FPS UT2004 + 2 loops | 190 FPS UT2004 + 2 loops | 190 FPS UT2004 + 3 loops | 189 FPS UT2004 + 3 loops | 136 FPS UT2004 + 4 loops | 150 FPS UT2004 + 4 loops | 137 FPS UT2004 + 5 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 5 loops | 136 FPS UT2004 + 6 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 6 loops | 105 FPS UT2004 + 7 loops | 118 FPS UT2004 + 7 loops | 104 FPS UT2004 + 8 loops | 97 FPS UT2004 + 8 loops | 104 FPS UT2004 + 9 loops | 94 FPS UT2004 + 9 loops | 89 FPS UT2004 + 10 loops | 92 FPS UT2004 + 10 loops | 91 FPS -- Kenneth Prugh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Miguel Figueiredo <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- References:
- Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- SD still better than CFS for 3d (was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Kasper Sandberg <[email protected]>
- Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Kenneth Prugh <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- Prev by Date: [git patches] net driver fixes
- Next by Date: Re: Can't unload uhci_hcd module with 2.6.22 -- also oops
- Previous by thread: Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- Next by thread: Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
- Index(es):
 |