The Legend of Zelda: The Wind waker CPU Benchmark

[Garteal]

If you downloaded the build Starscream provides in the OP then it should be like that since he turned off the framelimit in the configuration.
That's necessary to see how fast the CPU is for the benchmark.

Because console games tend to have the game speed tied to the frame-rate, anything above that will just speed up the game and anything below that will slow it down.

Edit: Awesome, a lot of contributions have been made. I'll be busy editing the chart then.

[Scootaloo]

(04-15-2013, 07:37 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: 30 fps is fullspeed for this game. Any faster than that is above fullspeed. Since most systems can run this game above fullspeed this benchmark was set to turn off framelimit so that we could record the speed that the system was actually capable of.

OH. So is that why Link and all the little animations are going so fast? makes much more sense now.

There is one thing that doesn't make sense: why doesn't he go to sleep when you don't move him for a while.

For example:

Super Mario 64: if you don't move Mario for a few moments he'll go to sleep
Super Mario Galaxy: same type of thing as SM64
Zelda Ocarina of Time: I *think* he goes to sleep too (when you don't move him for a while)

So why doesn't this Link do it?

[NaturalViolence]

Kidnap Takashi Tezuka or Eiji Aonuma and ask them.

[Venomx1]

(04-15-2013, 07:38 AM)Garteal Wrote: If you downloaded the build Starscream provides in the OP then it should be like that since he turned off the framelimit in the configuration.
That's necessary to see how fast the CPU is for the benchmark.

Because console games tend to have the game speed tied to the frame-rate, anything above that will just speed up the game and anything below that will slow it down.

Edit: Awesome, a lot of contributions have been made. I'll be busy editing the chart then.

cant wait to see the updated graphs. let us know when you finish

[Garteal]

I've got all results now, but there are multiple results for popular CPU's such as the 2500K.
Ultimately we'll only have one result per CPU, but for now, what should I do with the rest of the results?

Keep them (for now) or pick the lowest, or average of the results?

[Starscream]

Personally I think it's a good thing to have a few of the same processors clocked differently to compare to other processors, but it's up to you.

[Garteal]

I wasn't referring to the clocks, but rather to having multiple results for a 2500K @ 4.5GHz for example.
Having multiple clocks of the same processor is fine by me too.

[dEnigma]

I would just average them, unless you have reason to doubt some of the results.

[Starscream]

(04-16-2013, 04:09 AM)Garteal Wrote: I wasn't referring to the clocks, but rather to having multiple results for a 2500K @ 4.5GHz for example.

I think that's fine too. That can tell us if one result is invalid or not. If we only have one test to go on, there could have been an issue somewhere that we might not know about if we didn't have something to compare it to. It also shows some consistency to anyone looking at the results. Again, though, you're the one creating the results pages, so you can decide that. Basically, everyone who took part in the benchmark got their results listed. That's alright.

[Venomx1]

(04-16-2013, 05:06 AM)dEnigma Wrote: I would just average them, unless you have reason to doubt some of the results.

i think this guy has the right idea.