bzar
A Commando
Derek said:I think some people read to much into my post. I meant a generalized comparison.
Example: ( please forgive me as I have never used glxgears and am unfamilar with it so I don't what exactly it outputs when you run it. )
Lets say you run glxgears on the minimum spec PC running linux
so P3 1Ghz, 256MB Ram, and a Geforce 3 and you got 100fps (reminder I am just throwing numbers up for my example)
then on the Pandora you ran it and the output was only 20fps.
At that point you would have to assume that Doom 3 isn't going to run very well.
That's what I was talking about when referring to benchmarking a min spec P3 vs Pandora. Just a ball park comparison.
I mean if the Panora's CPU can't do this and can't do that, but the P3 can, then it would take one hell of a port to make it run comparable. Unless it was built from the ground up based off of the source...then we wouldn't have the same game would we.![]()
No, people were right. You can't even have a ballpark comparison. It's oversimplifying the subject. A good analogy is say a 100-integer vector, which is the gpu's performance on different areas and a 100-float (ranging 0.0...1.0) vector showing a specific application's needs. The overall performance would be something like the dot product of these two. Using glxgears for testing is like having a vector with one 1.0 while the rest are 0.0. As you can see, you are then dismissing 99% of the gpu's performance.
And no this is not accurate, but it should give you a picture of what you're asking for.
Last edited by a moderator: