Actually that's not quite correct, if you are referring to exactly 60FPS as in VSYNC is enabled in the driver. The actual FPS if VSYNC is enabled should be exactly whatever the display frequency is, as the idea is to have the GPU have a new frame ready to go when the display refreshes it screen.
Originally Posted by Ant P.
Anyways, yeah glxgears and fgl_glxgears are pretty useless as benchmarks, but they are a q&d way to see if the driver is behaving mostly normally, i.e. you get better relative *gears performance with the driver properly installed and loading, and if you peg display freq, lets you know that VSYNC has been enabled. (I just disabled VSYNC and let apps decide, as a video player would want to VSYNC whereas a game you may not want VSYNC...)
Anyways, with a 512MB GDDR3 Radeon Mobility 4850 (500/550) I get about 8000 FPS glxgears, and c. 2200 FPS fgl_glxgears w/catalyst 9.9
As to with a fast CPU == high glxgears, I seem to remember always having <<1000 FPS with various 2.4GHz multi-core CPUs(P8600, 4800+ X2)
I always like games as benchmark tools as recent games will tend to stress the system more than ANY other app will as a whole. The problem is that only some games will, either really cutting edge designed for the futures games or really badly written/poorly optimized ones. (I'm entirely unimpressed by synthetic benchmark scores, e.g. Vantage, SiSoft, etc. [EDIT] as raw scores, but they can be helpful when doing a high level comparison of say various CPU models & architectures, but in the end the games are what are rely on for the bottom line. [/EDIT])
Last edited by cutterjohn; 09-12-2009 at 02:04 PM.
Sager NP8250-S Core i7-4800MQ/780m/32GB/128GB SSD/750GB Scorpio Black/1TB WD Blue(7mm) (win7 x64 pro)
Acer Chromebook C720(i3-4005U/4GB) 128GB SSD(stable/crouton xfce)
DIY ASUS P9X79/i7-3930k/64GB/multiple multiple terabyte HDDs(mostly WD 10k)/780 Ti SC (win7 x64 pro/Ubuntu 14.10)
DIY ASROCK 990FX Extreme9/FX-9590/32GB/multiple multi-TB hdds/R9 280X