Intel Multi-CPU Game Benchmark

[Major_A]

http://www.intelcapabilitiesforum.net/ISF_demo?s=a

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/ssb2121/isf1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/ssb2121/ISF2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/ssb2121/key-commandtable.jpg

[DAK1640]

That doesn't look like 3DMark07 to me...

[Major_A]

I tried it on my Opteron, it was a no-go. I guess it is made for Intel guys only.

[Timmay]

Oh god, it's just another Agera (sp) Physics benchmark type program.

[LagunaX]

Looks like you only get FPS, not a score. On default high setting, I get 10-20fps with 20 hovercrafts.

[cupra]

try it, its more like Benchmark - Demo.

my rig: on high details: 40-50fps ~

[NickS]

That's stupid. Won't run on my X2. What, is Intel still afraid of K8? :rolleyes:

[nn_step]

will not run on any AMD.

[madcho]

hate intel...

[Qkjhfhaiguihfma]

you guys are geniuses, really. i never would have guessed an intel benchmark wouldn't run on an amd cpu. thanks for this.

[SF3D]

It's amazing what todays CPUs can do :clap:

Game version:
54829
54830

[Jodiuh]

you're being sarcastic, right?

[noobzed]

link not working good

[[XC] hipno650]

anyone tried it out on a p4 ht? cuz im going to:D lets see how many frames it can pull on high mode:D

[STEvil]

Someone get the Intel check remover and run it on an AMD setup.

[Major_A]

Someone get the Intel check remover and run it on an AMD setup.
I'm all for it, but how?

[STEvil]

Had to google it, couldnt find the thread that was hanging around on the forums here forever.

New versions and info anyways, so its all good.

http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html

[fx57]

Where can i download Intel Multi-CPU Game Benchmark ? Original download link did not work. who can upload for me?

[Major_A]

http://www.intelcapabilitiesforum.net/IceStormFighters.zip

*EDIT*
Says it's down, but there's the direct link.

[Syn.]

Futuremark » Download » IceStormFighters.zip

Download Temporarily Unavailable

I download the Intel-Decrapifier for exe files, but now i cant get my hands on the crapified Intel exe file lol.

Anyone willing to share the benchmark so that we can run the test on AMD chips using

http://www.swallowtail.org/intel_check_executable_patch.gz

[fx57]

http://www.intelcapabilitiesforum.net/IceStormFighters.zip

*EDIT*
Says it's down, but there's the direct link.

Yes it's down, Who can upload ?

[spdycpu]

I was finally able to download it, so I guess they fixed the link. When trying to run it on my x800 gto@xt I got this message:

http://chess.homelinux.com/isf.png

I tried looking through the isf_demo.exe for any instances of the Intel only check but didn't find anything with the hex values I have here. If I could actually attempt to run the thing it would be much more helpful in finding a way around this sort of thing. Can someone with an AMD system with a PS3.0 card redownload this and see if it works? I did notice some AMD strings while looking through isf_demo.exe, perhaps they changed it and re-released it to work on AMD platforms.

[[XC] Aerosupra]

x800 cards support only up to shader 2.0+

[grimREEFER]

unless u have quad fx, wouldnt it be a slide show on non-intel cpu's anyway?

[Syn.]

err... can someone tell me how to run Intel decraphier scrip on this benchmarks exe

[spdycpu]

x800 cards support only up to shader 2.0+

Of course, but I didn't know what the game supported until I actually tried to run it. I'm just letting everyone know you absolutely need PS 3.0 or it won't run at all.

Has anyone with an AMD cpu tried to redownload and run this yet to see if the Intel check has been disabled?

[-Acid-]

downloading now to test on my p4 2.4 c northy at 3.5 (yes it has HT)

in low settings i get




wait for it

























1 fps

[b0bd0le]

downloading now to test on my p4 2.4 c northy at 3.5 (yes it has HT)

in low settings i get




wait for it

























1 fps

haha that was great

damn, only 1 fps though

[lukija]

OK, there you go. Extract files in folder where ISF resides and run 'em (one for demo one for game).

[Major_A]

Thanks it works. My Opteron 170 @ 2.8 however doesn't like it. I let it run 10 minutes and got bored with it, it showed 1 FPS the entire time.

[lukija]

Choose low version for dual cores.

[-Acid-]

Trying to get Dave and his 8 core monster to run this

watch this space

[BRiT]

Tried running it on an AMD X2 2.5Ghz system. The Demo Low setting mostly around 25 fps, with stints around 30-35 fps depending on what was shown on the screen. The Demo High setting ran 1-2 fps. Running Demo Low with one core disabled also ran 1-2 fps.

I had to use imagecfg on the exe's to allow affinity for both cores before it would run over 5fps on Demo Low.

[madcho]

My opty 165 @ 2.7ghz show 30fps most of the time. I'm gonna use fraps to get the real value.

What about a core 2 duo 6600 @ default clock and overclocked ?
what about a core 2 quad ?

Please use fraps 10 minutes to get a value usable. thx guy's

[John600rr]

E6600 @ 3400mhz:

20 Hovercrafts in Demo for probably 8-12 minutes, using FRAPS:

Hi = 9 FPS
Low = 32

[Karak]

I guess there is something fishy with the benchmark - all older procs like P4 HT give dramatically low results - I tried on my prescott - low details standard settings 1 fps, when i set hovercrafts to 5 then I maxed out about 8 fps... I know Core 2 Duo is much faster, but not so many times, and difference betwen Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad in high detail - it should be max 2 times faster, but somehow the difference is bigger ??

[Lightman]

I agree with you Karak! Something is fishy! :slapass:

[madcho]

Low detail

2.7ghz opty (http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=158750)

Frames Time (ms)
18206 681796
Min Max Avg
0 - 63 - 26,703

[Lightman]

Low detail

2.7ghz opty (http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=158750)

Not bad compared to e6600@3400!
Someone with Conroe willing to test Low @2700mhz??

[madcho]

Not bad compared to e6600@3400!
Someone with Conroe willing to test Low @2700mhz??

i belive that conroe would be slower.

26.703/32=0.8344

=> 3400*0.8344=2837

=> 2837/2700=1.0508

if that's corect, K8 in that game is 5.1% faster than conroe at same clock :toast:

[Lightman]

i belive that conroe would be slower.

26.703/32=0.8344

=> 3400*0.8344=2837

=> 2837/2700=1.0508

if that's corect, K8 in that game is 5.1% faster than conroe at same clock :toast:

That is the reason why original file was locked from execution on AMD based CPUs! Silly Intel!! Having overlay faster CPU on market still is afraid to admit one little defeat;) .

[7he ]-[0rr0r]

It's a benchmark provided by a hardware vendor who obviously wants to sell you something. It's bound to be objective... errr not so much. fishy-ness is hard coded in there.

[Drunner611]

So, whats teh point of this program if you can't get a score or compair it to rival components again?

[onewingedangel]

That is the reason why original file was locked from execution on AMD based CPUs! Silly Intel!! Having overlay faster CPU on market still is afraid to admit one little defeat;) .

the calculation used to compare like for like clock is flawed, as the program is designed to run many threads not just two. In such a case there is a greater increase when you increase cores than when you increase clockspeed. In the performance doesn't increase linearly with clockspeed, using a linear metric to calculate the equivilent clock performance isn't applicable. Compare a 2.8 ghz core2 chip against a 2.8ghz x2 chip and then we'll see. Of course we can't compare them at 3.4ghz because amd can't clock that high(generally speaking).

Also if you look when details are high intel is far ahead.

In addition there are graphic card and system variations etc.

There are no valid comparisons yet.

[madcho]

Damm i want see the Barcelona in that benchmark against the kentsfield ...:stick:

[deathman20]

Not bad I was just messing with it at 3.0Ghz on my system (usually use this speed for non gaming or for long periods of on time).

High: (Low 8FPS) (High 40FPS) (Average 15-25FPS)
Low: (low 25FPS) (High 42FPS) (Average 25-30FPS)

Not bad. Anyone know what res this is running at? My desktops set for 1920x1200 but I doubt its running at that res.