Nvidia's Treemark Observations

[cputnam]

I admit - I got curious and downloaded and ran Nvidia's TreeMark. Nvidia's site says both the simple and complex BAT files should run at least at 30 fps. On my system (G400 SH, 400mz PII, 128mb RAM, Intel Tabor Mobo w/ onboard AudioPCI) simple ran at around 17 fps and complex at less than 1 fps.

I'm a skeptic, pure plain and simple. Why do I have the feeling that this little "benchmark" is rigged to show Nvidia's chip to be the winner?

[Rags]

Ummmm....let's see.....Because it's nVidia, the King of Hype. Hype is the key to nVidia. Wow, the world really has changed!

Rags

[NoClue]

first of all, if the treemark (even simple.bat) runs at 17fps on your system then you can call that fast!
I've got about the same system (pII-400, 128mb, AsusP2B) but an old G200 instead of your G400 ans simple.bat runs at around 5fps!!! (not to mention complex!)

And this Demo isnt just about hype (of course its hype as well), but it shows the GeForces ability to do T&L hardware acceleration, cause exactly thats the point with treemark: It's not the fill-rate of your G400 thats holding down the fps, but your PII-400!!
Thats why I wonder how you get 17fps out of it, cause I ran it on the same cpu...

anyway, I gonna buy a GeForce as soon as the 64mb RRD-RAM version is out in europe

[franksch3]

This demo is surely not a hype. It simply shows off how much faster dedicated T&L is in comparison with a CPU. I tested it on my PII-450 and got 5 fps in normal and 1 fps at high. I find it very curious that your system does 17 fps.

Frank

[Buuri]

If it's all about geometry, I wonder how NoClue and cputnam get so different results with same CPU.. The graphics adapter is different but if the demo is about T&L it really shouldn't matter.

_
B

[tuco]

i would dearly like to know how you got 17fps, i get 6.4 in simple and 2 in complex sys specs below

pll 400 o/c 500(124fsb)
128mb ram
8gb hd
g400max running standard apart from o/c agp

[NoClue]

ok, so the maximum REALISTIC fps achieved in TreeMark (simple.bat) with a G400Max seem to be around 7fps (I dont think the 17fps posted from cputnam are realistic)

here's the results of the GeForce:
nVidia Tree Demo
simple.bat: 49.0918fps
complex.bat: 14.2025fps

quite impressive I think
(tested on a PENTIUM III 558 128MB GeForce256 32MB SDRAM system)

check it out at: http://www.hardware-one.com/reviews/....shtml#updated

[Kx30]

17 fps in simple is BS !
I have a PIII at 540Mhz and i got 8 fps !
(video card is not important ...)

[NoClue]

the video card IS important...as you can see, the GeForce with its T&L get almost 50fps where the G400MAX gets 8fps

[Mark F]

FPS heck I get the following:

TREEMARK caused an invalid page fault in
module G400ICD.DLL at 0187:6901717c.

Maybe 5.3 will help?

Mark F.


------------------
OH NO, my retractable cup holder swallowed a CD

[Boom]

Mark F, I also get a page fault (actually 4 consecutive PFs) in g400icd.dll after TreeMark has been run. I wonder what's causing it?

[Bohrn]

Yeah, I got really crappy (like 4 or 5 in simple) bench results with the treemark. I thought I had a bad video card. G400reg. But I am glad(?) to see you all got similar scores as well. I only have a 337mhz cpu, so I guess the thing really wants a "special" video card.

------------------
AssuP2B ,300a at 337, 128megs PC100, G40032megSH, Yamaha PCI sound,2 small HD's, 42X Sony CDrom and 98SE w/shutdown patch, PD 5.25 w/beta ICD

[Xizor]

Just for reference, I get 6.25fps on my P3-500 using the simple demo. I then run the demo in 32bit colour and still get 6.25fps.

This seems to imply that the processor is the bottleneck not the G400, so the demo really only shows that the geForce256 will take a lot of workload off of the processor.

I'll run the demo on some of my other machines and see what results I get.

Note: The Reamdme file that came with the demo explains the GPF's with the G400.

-Xizor.