Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Allan

      Forum Rules   04/13/2018

      Hello folks! As some things are being fixed, we'll keep you updated. Per hour the Forum Rules don't have a dedicated "Tab", so here is the place that we have our Rules back. New Users Lounge > [READ] - InsanelyMac Forum Rules - The InsanelyMac Staff Team. 
Sign in to follow this  
khe91

2D performance HD4000 double to GTX670 ?

22 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I don't do any games, 3D modeling or CUDA. So I don't care about 3D performance.

 

What I'm looking for is the fastest 2D card. Basically I want all my window changes drawn as fast as possible, same with moving windows.

Still I got a GTX670 because I thought with it's PCIe 3.0 and 256bit GDDR5 memory interface it should be very fast at 2D too.

 

Didn't find any OSX 2D benchmark software.

 

For Windows there is 2Dbench.exe from TomsHardware.com.

So I run it under Fusion 5 and got really surprised.

 

The HD4000 got more then double the 2D performance to the expensive GTX670.

Also tested a GT640, it's close to the GTX670 and but also half the 2D performance of the HD4000.

All test run fullscreen 2560x1600, OSX 10.8.2., Fusion 5.0.1, on a Dell 3011, 30" screen connected with DP.

 

HD4000 - 1030

GT640 - 510

GTX670 - 473

(yes higher numbers are faster ...)

 

This results say that any PCIe graphic card is much slower then the integrated HD4000 in 2D.

And all the normal daily stuff, like browsing the web, email, movies etc. is 2D.

 

Is there any OSX 2D benchmark software to confirm this ?

GTX670-2560x1600.tiff

GT640-2560x1600.tiff

HD4000-2560x1600.tiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can try my 2D Window Benchmark which is OS X native (Intel only).

It produces 333 windows (with 2D text content) - the more 2D speed the less time it needs.

 

My 9600GT needs 17.5 seconds. CPU speed doesnt matter much.

 

In general: doing some low end OpenGL tasks (OS X uses OpenGL for window/text= 2D) an good cpu internal gpu like 4000 can handle that very fast. It has very fast access to cpu / cpu cache for small/less complex tasks like 2D. That can be an advantagte over high end gpus which must use "longer way" over PCI-E slot.

 

EDIT: updates 2D Benchmark with an more nice window content. Result/Time should be same as first version.

2D Benchmark.zip

Bildschirmfoto 2012-10-03 um 18.15.51.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can try my 2D Window Benchmark which is OS X native (Intel only).

It produces 333 windows (with 2D text content) - the more 2D speed the less time it needs.

 

My 9600GT needs 17.5 seconds. CPU speed doesnt matter much.

 

In general: doing some low end OpenGL tasks (OS X uses OpenGL for window/text= 2D) an good cpu internal gpu like 4000 can handle that very fast. It has very fast access to cpu / cpu cache for small/less complex tasks like 2D. That can be an advantagte over high end gpus which must use "longer way" over PCI-E slot.

 

Thanks for the app.

 

HD4000 12.6 seconds

GT640 21.7 seconds

GTX670 21.4 seconds

 

Same result, so no need for any PCIe card.

Now I just need to find a way to use 3 screens on the HD4000 in OSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for results!

As i said, because the tasks of 2D (by OS X, OpenGL) are very less complex AND use very less memory, internal new+fast gpu can do that also very fast or even faster than any pci-e gpu card.

Only if some more gpu memory (for textures) needed or more comples tasks are needed, such internal gpu getting weaker than even lowend pci-e gpu cards with own VRAM >=512 MB).

 

EDIT: updated the 2D Benchmark with more nice window content. Results should be same as before (less than 3% diff).

I also checked gpu load when the 2D benchmark is running. Has very low gpu % load - so speed of gpu doesnt matter.

Most speed diff comes by cpugpu data/memory transfer speed , which is on newest on-cpu gpus very fast.

If that window would have an added OpenGL task running the results Intel HD 4000 vs real gpu card would be different = real gpu faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i made an new version which does 2D (OS X uses OpenGL for QE) as before together with some small 3D task showing an textured OpenGL cube within the window.

For me time is same = gpu can handle that without lost of time.

Please report your results compared to the 2D only bench.

Bildschirmfoto 2012-10-04 um 10.40.19.jpg

2D_small3D Benchmark.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i made an new version which does 2D (OS X uses OpenGL for QE) as before together with some small 3D task showing an textured OpenGL cube within the window.

For me time is same = gpu can handle that without lost of time.

Please report your results compared to the 2D only bench.

 

Same results.

But the app always jumps to the main screen, that makes it a little complicated to test the different screens connected to different graphic cards.

Can you please make it run on the screen it's open and not move it to the main screen if "Start Bench" is pressed.

Thanks und viele Gruesse aus dem Erzgebirge nach Stuttgart ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, try that new version (should stay on the display were it was started and not use main/standard display)

 

Edit: If it also didnt work (windows generated not on the display where the app was started) please run + report

Test_screen results. (Tell me if result main screen size is really main screen and not the other one - for that it would be helpfull if both screens have different size (pixels).

2D_small3D Benchmark2.zip

Test_screens.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, try that new version (should stay on the display were it was started and not use main/standard display)

 

Edit: If it also didnt work (windows generated not on the display where the app was started) please run + report

Test_screen results. (Tell me if result main screen size is really main screen and not the other one - for that it would be helpfull if both screens have different size (pixels).

 

Don't works, always jumps back to main display.

Test_screens says: You got 4 screens ! (thats correct) Your main screen is 2560x1600. Your second screen is 1600x1200. (what about 3rd and 4th ?)

I have two 2560x1600 and two 1600x1200 screens at the moment connected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - i only showed first 2 displays. I will make another build soon.

 

PS: Have you started the bench from the desktop of the display/gpu you want to test?

Perhaps it cant work if you start the bench from other desktop/gpu and move only window to the test screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: Have you started the bench from the desktop of the display/gpu you want to test?

Perhaps it cant work if you start the bench from other desktop/gpu and move only window to the test screen.

 

I moved the app to the screen I want to test.

If I press "Start bench" then the app window jumps to the main screen and the benchmark runs always there.

So I have to move the main screen, the menu in the Displays Preferences to the screen I wanna test to start the app there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, try next one - be sure to put/move Bench on the desktop of the screen you want to check.

PS: I removed OpenGL part - doesnt matter in speed.

 

No changes.

I open the app and move the app window to the screen I wanna test.

Press "Start Bench" and it jumps back to main screen.

Also on the main screen it always jumps to the same pixel position close to upper left corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, i made an new test app which let you select screen on which the window should open.

Starts up on main screen and has radio buttons to select up to 4 screens , listed with each sizes. Press start to open the window in the middle of the selected screen.

PLease check if all displays are listed as radio buttons and after start if the window really opens on the selected screen.

Test_screens.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLease check if all displays are listed as radio buttons and after start if the window really opens on the selected screen.

 

Yes works, just the screen sizes of the 2nd and 3rd are cut (see attached pic).

screens.tiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made new 2D Benchmark (based on the radio button display results).

 

 

 

Yes, works now on the different screens.

 

It now uses more bigger window sizes (if display is > 1440 width).

 

They are to big, some of the windows are visible on two screens, so the result depends on different graphic cards if the two screens come from different cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Gt640 22 seconds using PCIE-4 slot. :worried_anim: as card uses 2 slots and pcie-1 slot for Airport card is under PCIE-16

Will test hd4000, at least that will run at native speed :thumbsup_anim:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I will reduce window sizes back.

 

With the bigger windows the GTX670 (24 sec) wins over the HD4000 (29 sec).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THanks. As i said i will reduce the window size a bit so that some windows will not get to big, but stay bigger than in first version. Doenst matter for smaller sized dispays, but >= 1600x1080 ist better to have some more space used (randomly).

I will put new version soon in the first posting for DL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Up for https://sourceforge.net/p/cloverefiboot/wiki,
    • Has anyone had success/failure with using UPnP working with this Intel Network? I have a onboard Intel I219V2, that is working quite well, except I can't make UPnP work.  It works fine for other devices on my network, and my previous mac Mini.   In fact, I've not been able to get forwarded ports working even if I do them manually.   Any help or pointers towards where to look would be greatly appreciated.     (High Sierra, i7-8700K, ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-G)
    • Hi,  the resoldering complete socket would kill the board totally in couple month (as the guys from super-duper repair shop told me). It's all because of gygabite layered silicon grade. The layers are so thin, that they give 90% chance, that board would work correctly only a couple month until it would die. Even with IR equipment they have, gygabite silicon starting to get micro-bubbly 10-20 C before target desoldering temperature. So they not recommending to do it with this particular z97 lineup.   About pins - they are corrected with a microscope and skilled technician. As they broke right near the start, I won't be able to do it with looking glass I have). He did it quite good, visible that they were repaired, but esthetically looking super good.    As for build and Oz in it.  Current configuration is: Xeon e3 1245v3 CPU Z97hd3 Mobo Msi gtx 1050ti gaming X GF 1) Before pins problem, after I flash anything infused with Oz - it won't work with the graphics card installed. If I pull it out, flash, get bios setting right, boot and reset NVRAM (or clear CMOS, bios setting, NVRAM) than install graphics card - it freezes every boot.   2) If I press the CPU cooler a little bid, just give it a solid push - it kinda boots without a freeze, but not correctly. Bios go flickery.  3) After I pushed CPU couple times, I started to get random BSODS on windows, so I tested RAM. One dim would give me errors. I don't know, is this went after pushed a bid CPU cooler, or it was like that, but using totally different ram would give same freezes with OZ.  4) Tomorrow I would go again to this repair shop, they would try to perform another round of magic tricks. As this mobo work correctly (fully) with windows 10 - they not recommending it for full socket resolder. damaged pins were reserved. Maybe OZ uses them after all, but they were repaired. It's all looking magic, but there is no magic. If swapping not XEON CPU won't help it (but I saw builds with OZ and XEON), then I would search for another board or platform.       
    • You can try this one here 2.9.0 let me know if its better for you ?   VoodooHDA.kext.zip
    •   Boot option name retrieval 1) Locate the booter image as explained blow. 2) Locate ".contentDetails" in the parent folder 2.1) if unsuccessful, locate ".disk_label.contentDetails" in the parent folder 2.2) if unsuccessful, retrieve the volume's name   HFS Boot 1) Retrieve blessed file via https://github.com/CupertinoNet/EfiPkg/blob/development/Include/Guid/AppleBless.h#L41 1.1) if unsuccessful, retrieve blessed folder via https://github.com/CupertinoNet/EfiPkg/blob/development/Include/Guid/AppleBless.h#L45, append "\\boot.efi". NOTE: This is broken in the latest binary I checked. 1.2) if unsuccessful, use the following hard-coded paths: "\System\Library\CoreServices\boot.efi", "\EFI\APPLE\{ARCH}\BOOT.EFI", <StandardEfiPath>, "\\boot.efi" in this order 2) FV2 Recovery does not follow the usual practice because it is not shown by BootPicker anyway. Determine it via https://github.com/CupertinoNet/EfiPkg/blob/development/Include/Guid/AppleBless.h#L49, verify it does not match 1).   APFS Boot 1) Determine the APFS Volume Info (and hencefor detect whether it is APFS in the first place) via https://github.com/CupertinoNet/EfiPkg/blob/development/Include/Guid/AppleApfsInfo.h#L54 1.1) Determine the APFS Container Info via https://github.com/CupertinoNet/EfiPkg/blob/development/Include/Guid/AppleApfsInfo.h#L36 1.2) Verify the Volume Role via https://github.com/CupertinoNet/EfiPkg/blob/development/Include/Guid/AppleApfsInfo.h#L51 1.3) Retrieve blessed file analoguous to HFS 1). NOTE: This step and 1.3.1) are broken in the binary I checked, hencefor it does not happen, but is probably supposed to. 1.3.1) if unsuccessful, retrieve blessed folder and append the booter name the same way as in HFS 1.2) 1.4) (if unsuccessful,) locate all Volumes that are part of the same container, check whether the current Preboot partition has folders named by the just located Volumes' GUIDs and append the hard-coded paths from HFS 1.2) if existant 2) Recovery detection works the same way as 1.4), just for a Recovery instead of a Preboot volume


×