Spring Mark

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 14 Aug 2007, 01:14

Actually, the AMD processor numbers reflect equivalent power to a Pentium of that MHz, but the processors themselves run at a lower speed with a different architecture.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 14 Aug 2007, 01:28

REVENGE wrote:I think overall, Springmark is a great idea, but the current implementation is shiit. [No offense jj ]

When I first ran Springmark, I half expected it to be a benchmark that runs a demo with increasingly more units in Spring itself, then use a scoring algorithm based on the resulting performance to give a result.

That was not the case, but that doesn't make sense. Shouldn't real ingame performance be used as a benchmark for real ingame performance?

Ideally, there should be separate tests scoring three elements: CPU, GPU, and network performance. CPU and GPU should be Spring engine based, while network should request a speedtest from online providers.

The program should then give a detailed report with seperate scores per category, and finally an overall combined Springmark. Suggestions to improve performance would be ideal.

EXACTLY. Springmark isn't a spring benchmark. It's not doing it's job!

Instead of bitching about how current Springmark sucks, we should be discussing ways to make future Springmark better.

You outlined EXACTLY what needs to be done with springmark if it's to ever be taken seriously. It's not that complicated a solution, it just has to acctually benchmark with spring, rather than randomly guessing at hardware figures. We've been saying this for quite a while. The problem is not where springmark needs to go, it's resistance to going there for some reason. The concept seems to be that springmark, the way it is, is good enough. And the reality of that, is that it's just horribly and utterly wrong. Springmark isn't good right now, it's horrible.

Satirik · Post by **Satirik** » 14 Aug 2007, 01:46

you don't read ... we never said springmark was perfect ... we said ... help JJ to improve it and don't say springmark is shit

you still don't read ... springmark is not made to know how good spring will run on you computer, but how much your computer will slow down the games you will play, it is help for hosters who want a decent game, so you just need a cpu benchmark

some people don't want a springmark with a demo file (the same for everybody) with a lot of units but they want to make statistics for all the games you play and make a global score ...

REVENGE · Post by **REVENGE** » 14 Aug 2007, 01:52

Satirik wrote:you don't read ... we never said springmark was perfect ... we said ... help JJ to improve it and don't say springmark is shit

Hey, I was kidding!

Satirik wrote:you still don't read ... springmark is not made to know how good spring will run on you computer, but how much your computer will slow down the games you will play, it is help for hosters who want a decent game, so you just need a cpu benchmark

I disagree with that statement. Sure, we don't want people who drop game speed due to cpu failure, but we sure as hell don't want people who DROP OUT OF GAME due to ping/bandwidth failure and/or GPU failure when too many units start appearing onscreen.

Satirik wrote:some people don't want a springmark with a demo file (the same for everybody) with a lot of units but they want to make statistics for all the games you play and make a global score ...

What the hell does that mean?

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 14 Aug 2007, 01:54

Satirik wrote:you don't read ... we never said springmark was perfect ... we said ... help JJ to improve it and don't say springmark is shit

you still don't read ... springmark is not made to know how good spring will run on you computer, but how much your computer will slow down the games you will play, it is help for hosters who want a decent game, so you just need a cpu benchmark

some people don't want a springmark with a demo file (the same for everybody) with a lot of units but they want to make statistics for all the games you play and make a global score ...

Springmark isn't good enough to serve as a platform to decide weather or not people should be kicked from games. That's a MASSIVE misuse of the software. THAT is what people are complaining about.

It can't help hosts because it isn't accurate.

Some people don't want game hosts reading their system specs and guessing wildly at weather or not they will be good enough to run the game lag free.

REVENGE · Post by **REVENGE** » 14 Aug 2007, 02:11

SwiftSpear wrote:
Satirik wrote:you don't read ... we never said springmark was perfect ... we said ... help JJ to improve it and don't say springmark is shit

you still don't read ... springmark is not made to know how good spring will run on you computer, but how much your computer will slow down the games you will play, it is help for hosters who want a decent game, so you just need a cpu benchmark

some people don't want a springmark with a demo file (the same for everybody) with a lot of units but they want to make statistics for all the games you play and make a global score ...
Springmark isn't good enough to serve as a platform to decide weather or not people should be kicked from games. That's a MASSIVE misuse of the software. THAT is what people are complaining about.

It can't help hosts because it isn't accurate.

Some people don't want game hosts reading their system specs and guessing wildly at weather or not they will be good enough to run the game lag free.

OH right, I forgot to write a point in my previous post, thanks for reminding me.

Instead of the Springmark autokick idea, why not implement something similar to the "Experience Requirement" system we have that warns people who don't have the rank? We can have predefined Springmark guidelines regarding what level of Springmark you need for how large a game size with how many units. Then, when people join and they have too few Springmarks, warn them. The host can decide to kick for themselves.

Also, any idea relating to autokick/autowarn hinges upon the fact that you have a decent benchmarking system. As you currently lack that system, I suggest you remove the autokick feature as it would be quite misleading.

Masure · Post by **Masure** » 14 Aug 2007, 09:55

I agree with replacing the autokick feature by a warning (like rank warning).

Making the warning as demonsrative as possible. eg :

"Host has set a cpu power requirement for this game. Spring automatically slow down the global game speed when a player can't compute game needs fast enough in order to keep the sync.

Being below the requirement, you could slow down the global game speed for all the players. Are you sure you want to stay in this game ?"

When I read some posts here where players are supposed to be aware (it's scary), I can understand that auto kicked players can't truely understand why host auto kicked them.

hunterw · Post by **hunterw** » 14 Aug 2007, 10:10

why not benchmark the same way all other games benchmark...by running themselves?

seriously, just write something that will start up spring on some default map, spawn 500 kbots and tell them all to move somewhere, record what the cpu% use was, then use that number for the benchmark.

this might have already been suggested i udno i dint read thread, but its seriously ftw

Satirik · Post by **Satirik** » 14 Aug 2007, 13:46

the lobby is already flooding the chat with purple messages ... i can't make a warning msg dialog on the basic lobby neither on mine ... because the server doesn't support a "springmark minimum rank"

Satirik · Post by **Satirik** » 14 Aug 2007, 13:46

REVENGE wrote:
Satirik wrote:you don't read ... we never said springmark was perfect ... we said ... help JJ to improve it and don't say springmark is shit
Hey, I was kidding!

i was not talking to you :)

AF · Post by AF » 14 Aug 2007, 16:06

Satirik wrote:
AF wrote:
you don't read (or you have a goldfish memory) or you are stupid or you don't understand anything to cpu core2duo 1.8 = good cpu, athlon xp 1800 = bad cpu !!!! but you will get 1.8 for both of them ... nobody is thinking on this topic or what ?
Youll get 1.81Ghz for the core 2 duo and 1.4 or 1.2Ghz for the athlon 1800. 1800 just means its equivilant to a 1.8Ghz intel pentium 4 cpu of that era.

In the mean time swiftspears has shown that someone here has tried to manipulate the situation. Isnt it about time this thread was locked?
... WRONNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG you'll get 1.8 with an AMD Atlhon XP 1800 !

once again ... i say the truth ! IM SO GOOOD!

That processor is actually 1533Mhz, the 1800 just means its equivilant to a 1.8Ghz pentium 4.

Satirik · Post by **Satirik** » 14 Aug 2007, 16:45

AF wrote:
Satirik wrote:
AF wrote: Youll get 1.81Ghz for the core 2 duo and 1.4 or 1.2Ghz for the athlon 1800. 1800 just means its equivilant to a 1.8Ghz intel pentium 4 cpu of that era.

In the mean time swiftspears has shown that someone here has tried to manipulate the situation. Isnt it about time this thread was locked?
... WRONNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG you'll get 1.8 with an AMD Atlhon XP 1800 !

once again ... i say the truth ! IM SO GOOOD!
That processor is actually 1533Mhz, the 1800 just means its equivilant to a 1.8Ghz pentium 4.

TASClient, the default lobby, will display 1.8Ghz ... you want to teach me something else ?

AF · Post by AF » 14 Aug 2007, 17:26

TASClient cpu stats are notoriously unreliable. If however it is indeed 1.8Ghz then thats not because AMD set it, thatll be someone overclocking and fiddling the bios.

Oh btw you do know SpringMark artificially deflates AMD cpu scores?

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=888

AMD PR Rating Actual Speed
AthlonXP 1500+ 1.33 GHz
AthlonXP 1600+ 1.40 GHz
AthlonXP 1700+ 1.46 GHz
AthlonXP 1800+ 1.53 GHz
AthlonXP 1900+ 1.60 GHz

Satirik · Post by **Satirik** » 14 Aug 2007, 17:37

AF wrote:TASClient cpu stats are notoriously unreliable. If however it is indeed 1.8Ghz then thats not because AMD set it, thatll be someone overclocking and fiddling the bios.

Oh btw you do know SpringMark artificially deflates AMD cpu scores?

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=888

AMD PR Rating Actual Speed
AthlonXP 1500+ 1.33 GHz
AthlonXP 1600+ 1.40 GHz
AthlonXP 1700+ 1.46 GHz
AthlonXP 1800+ 1.53 GHz
AthlonXP 1900+ 1.60 GHz

OH MY GOD I had a k6-3 a duron an athlon xp a barton and an a64 but I didn't know all that !! THANK YOU SO MUCH AF !!!

and yes I know how springmark works ! thank you again !

Peet · Post by **Peet** » 14 Aug 2007, 18:34

THIS MAN HAS SUPER CREDIBILITY HES OWNED MANY PROCESSORS WE SHALL WORSHIP HIM AS OUR CPU-GOD
</cruisecontrol="cool">

Satirik · Post by **Satirik** » 14 Aug 2007, 19:37

Peet wrote:THIS MAN HAS SUPER CREDIBILITY HES OWNED MANY PROCESSORS WE SHALL WORSHIP HIM AS OUR CPU-GOD
</cruisecontrol="cool">

YOU GOT IT !!! HERE I AM YOUR CPU GOD !!

Sleksa · Post by **Sleksa** » 14 Aug 2007, 19:39

and thus the true motive for springmark was revealed

Peet · Post by **Peet** » 14 Aug 2007, 19:49

And thus the true inability for satirik to comprehend epic sarcasm was revealed

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 14 Aug 2007, 19:55

He did comprehend it, Peet. He just rolled with it.

REVENGE · Post by **REVENGE** » 14 Aug 2007, 22:50

hunterw wrote:why not benchmark the same way all other games benchmark...by running themselves?

seriously, just write something that will start up spring on some default map, spawn 500 kbots and tell them all to move somewhere, record what the cpu% use was, then use that number for the benchmark.

this might have already been suggested i udno i dint read thread, but its seriously ftw

Lol.

You realize that this point has been repeated many times, all the while in the eyes of Satirik and jj there've been [ignore][/ignore] around it all the time?

Spring RTS Engine

Spring Mark