Here is a score from another laptop in the office.
Hi @Holo, It was really bugging me to have sub 20k scores on my new Dell so I’ve tried a few things and found that Autodesk Shape Modeling seemed to be choking the UDT scores as the score was much better with it disabled (over 25k). ASM is uninstalled for the attached score. I’ll load it back up when I need a multi-surface blend…
I updated the driver to the one @John_Brock recommended and it made very little difference, in fact a touch slower than the newest one, but stability is more important in this case, thanks John.
Great find @BrianM. Now your UDT scores are right up there.
Does ASM add extra manipulators or otherwise change stuff that makes it logical that it slows down the UDT process?
I hope you once again will be as happy with your system as you once were! I guess this is the downside of testing; ignorance is bliss as they say 
@panhao4812 do you also have the “Autodesk Shape Modeling” plugin?
I never install “Autodesk Shape Modeling” .Is it helpful for Holomark2?
No, not at all.
But many Xeon users got about the same CPU_02 (UDT) score as you did, and BrianM got a better score by disabling that plugin. So I just wondered.
Do you have Rhino 5 sr 8 (or later) installed?
Sorry Holo, still on Sr7… will sort it now. Thank you for getting back
When the boolean difference of Holomark begins.Rhino application sleep for about 5-6 seconds before it really starts do that.But when I do this manipulation manually Rhino application response as quick as usual.
Ok, thanks for the feedback, good to know that it is only happening with scripts.
I saw this similar script issue with a dual Xeon Mac Pro, on Holomark1 as well.
Is there anyone have R9 290?
I’ve just ran holomark on r9 260x and it got really good score.
I’m really curious how much the 290 will get.
260x even get good score on gpu-09 and gpu-16
====================================================
Holomark 2 v2,0,36 Beta - Expires: 2014-5-1
Total Score: 35339
Total Runtime: 195.8 sec
GPU scores: 19380
GPU_01 - 139.90 fps - Cube 4 tests
GPU_02 - 37.60 fps - UDT Shape
GPU_03 - 57.80 fps - Wireframe
GPU_04 - 42.70 fps - Shaded
GPU_05 - 25.40 fps - Rendered
GPU_06 - 25.20 fps - Block Rendered
GPU_07 - 19 units Nurbs @ 5 fps in Wireframe
GPU_08 - 11 units Nurbs @ 5 fps in Shaded
GPU_09 - 38 units Nurbs @ 5 fps in RenderSpeed
GPU_10 - 39.80 fps - RenderMesh Render
GPU_11 - 156.30 fps - RenderMesh RenderSpeed
GPU_12 - 25.30 fps - JoinedMesh Render
GPU_13 - 208.30 fps - JoinedMesh RenderSpeed
GPU_14 - 5 units mesh @ 15 fps in Shaded
GPU_15 - 4 units mesh @ 15 fps in Render
GPU_16 - 164 units mesh @ 15 fps in RenderSpeed
GPU_17 - 32.60 fps - mesh in Rendered Studio
GPU_18 - 11.10 fps - Nurbs in Rendered Studio
GPU_19 - 25.60 fps - Block Illustration
GPU_20 - 76.30 fps - 2D single
GPU_21 - 8.20 fps - 2D massive (20x)
CPU scores: 15959
CPU_01 - 8.96 sec - Booleans and Contours
CPU_02 - 1.14 sec - Twist and Taper (UDT)
CPU_03 - 4.35 sec - Meshing Mini
CPU_04 - 0.07 sec - Extract Render Mesh
CPU_05 - 0.06 sec - Join Render Mesh
CPU_06 - 12.00 sec - Reduce Mesh
CPU_07 - 1.62 sec - Calculating Technical display
CPU_08 - 3.13 sec - Making Silhouettes
Rhino 5 sr 8 64 bit
Intel Corporation - Intel® HD Graphics Family - 2112.0 MB
driver: 9.18.10.3186
Intel® Core™ i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz
NumberOfCores: 4
NumberOfLogicalProcessors: 8
MaxClockSpeed: 3.4
TotalPhysicalMemory: 8.0 GB
Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
Model: H81-D3
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate K
- Service Pack 1 - 64-bit
1 Like
hmm… i get a lower score with Dell Precision M6800 (with slightly better specs) compared to Dell Precision M6700 from DiaZ… why?
thanks for the benchmark Jorgen,
-raja
I see that you have the issue with the UDT as well.
I just turned on SmartTrack, Gumball AND Allways record History, and that didn’t affect my scores at all. So it should not be any of those.
What plugins do you have installed with Rhino?
@stevebaer Can you please update the installer engine so it tells the user what Version of Rhino and what Service Release it requires? The message “This packgage is not compatible with the Rhino Installer Engine” is not enough information for the average user.
Thanks
The driver recommendation is one for stability, not performance. The driver listed in that support page is the only one that we could get to work for 64-bit Win7. There was no stable driver recommendation for Win8/8.1.
Just last week, some Nvidia developers contacted us and Jeff (developer) took over with them. I really hope they can figure this out and get good drivers going again.
It wouldn’t make a difference in this case. The installer engine ships with Rhino and therefore nothing I add will help someone who is still using SR7.
I took Holo’s request to be a forward-looking one. Presumably the error message is a permanent feature of the installer, not just for the SR7->SR8 transition. If that’s true, I think that Holo is right that there is insufficient actual usable information in the error message to allow a user of any level of expertise to understand the nature of the problem and infer how to correct it. Improving the verbiage can only contribute to your ongoing goal of reducing support activity at McNeel.
@rajaa do you recall adding extra information to error messages when the Rhino Installer Engine fails in SR8?