The Daishi

6th May 2003 19:32 UTC

What FPS do you get?
Hi!

OK, first off. I KNOW that AVS is all CPU based and very VERY resource hungry.

But I've just come back to it after a number of years and a few upgrades and it is STILL slow!

433MHz Celery --> P4 1.6A@2.13GHz over 533MHz FSB w/ 256Mb PC2700 CAS2.5

And I still can't run it at 640x480x32 in fullscreen about 5 FPS.

Is that right? Is that still all our Ultra Quick Super Hyper CPUs can do? Or are people throwing more and more FX into the presets?

Does this "experimental overlay mode" help? Is is meant to increase the speed?

Are there any benchmarks about? This preset at these setting = this framerate on this CPU etc, etc, etc.

Ta,

D. :D :D :D

dirkdeftly

6th May 2003 20:24 UTC

And I still can't run it at 640x480x32 in fullscreen about 5 FPS.

The Daishi

6th May 2003 20:34 UTC

Ya know, I coulda sworn I said I already knew all about what the FAQ sais. But thankyou for stating the obvious anyway.

Anybody fancy actually answering my question?

Anybody have any refernce benches for comparison?

No AVS is not too slow for me, I get 40-60FPS is 320x480. I'm just curious to see a list of what people get at what res's on what hardware. Darned if I can find a current list.

Ta,

D.

Raz

6th May 2003 21:18 UTC

Listen to Atero when he says that AVS is not a fullscreen plugin. Go download something hat is or maybe, just maybe you don't need the damned thing on fullscreen whenever you use it. Put up with it like everyone else or go code your own AVS plugin that's faster. You're not getting much better than a P4 and if it's still not satisfactory then tough.

The Daishi

6th May 2003 21:33 UTC

"No AVS is not too slow for me"

I'm very happy with AVS, ~50fps at 320x240 is nice enough, I'm not a res-freak like most people. I'm just looking for some empirical data to make comparisons to.

I just wanted to know if my PC is running at the right speed and check that nothing is schitzing. Which you have answered.

Ta,

D.

dirkdeftly

6th May 2003 22:17 UTC

maybe it's just me, but i'm thinking that if my browser opens in less than one minute and my avs is running just fine, i don't think i care about exact numbers :weird:

UnConeD

6th May 2003 22:47 UTC

640x480 is 4 times more pixels than 320x240. Add to that the fact that larger drawing area means more memory usage and that means less efficient caching, and it's still a huge slowdown.

It's not really about CPU's now, but mostly about RAM.

The Daishi

6th May 2003 22:55 UTC

Atero: I enjoy twiddling and making sure I'm getting all the performance I can get. 's kinda fun, sometimes.

So the poor lil L1 cache and minimal increases in RAM tech over CPU cycles is more a contributing factor?

Heh, this is why we used AVS as a synthetic overall system benchmark that didn't rely on a GPU, back in the day. Really shows what your PC can do as a whole without the GPU.

I must run these new AVS presets on my celery in the other room and see what it gets up to now. See what the straight FPS ratio is.

So NOBODY has compiled a list of Preset X at Settings Y = Z FPS for lots of different setups on the forum? I'm surprised.

D.

dirkdeftly

6th May 2003 23:01 UTC

i'm not. do you realize how much work that would take even for a few presets? yeah, sure, i'll do it...if you pay me $15 an hour :rolleyes:

The Daishi

6th May 2003 23:05 UTC

Dunno, I don't create presets. I do code and yeah, I suppose they do pay me to optimise it. But thats fun too :D

I'm off, cheers.

PS Mr. UnCloneD, much respect. *tips hat* Have you done any other work on things apart from AVS? Milkdrop perhaps?

Nighty,

Dee.

Nic01

6th May 2003 23:39 UTC

Daishi : No, he's not cloned. I'm UnCloneD too.

He had done some presets in Mocha, he did a few 3D renders (Well, ones I know), and at his 1337ness, I believe he did quite a few other things...

UnConeD

7th May 2003 00:45 UTC

Note however that there is a problem with AVS on modern computers that causes it to snap to certain FPS values (on my pc it snaps to integer divisions of 100, but some have reported 32/64 as well).
There was a thread recently about it, you should be able to locate it easily.

To check if it was just the counter, or the real rendering, I hacked up a quick independent FPS counter, which results in the same values as AVS (it measures the amount of frames per second that AVS asks from an APE file). I guess it has something to do with the display drivers artificially slowing AVS down.

Over here it only happens in Windowed mode, but you should be aware of this when comparing AVS performance.

Wiser87

7th May 2003 03:26 UTC

I've noticed that while running presets at the default window size, I sometimes get FPS's in the 50s (normally 64) even though there's less than 10% CPU usage!

P4 2.41 GHz, 512 MB ram, 64MB GeForce4 MX 440 (does AVS even take advantage of good graphics cards?)

Nic01

7th May 2003 05:07 UTC

AVS only need the graphics card to display... all the other things are worked by the processor.
(I thought you said that you know AVS is CPU-based... o_O)

Until we get to P7, I don't think 640x480 resolution can be a good choice...
...One problem is, as the lower bound for processors rise, presets will also get heavier - So unless there's a huge jump in processor power, you'll be constrained to presets of the past. (Even then, there are some goddamned heavy presets there)

For now constrain yourself to uberfast presets for such big resolutions...
(Well, not uberfast, but fast enough)

Tuggummi

7th May 2003 10:30 UTC

Vsync! Vsync! I still can't believe the fps "snapping" would have anything else to do than the refresh rate of your monitor and using "wait for retrace" :igor:

But anyway, i get nice fps's with my Athlon XP +2100 and it doesn't snap the fps since i don't use "wait for retrace" , when i first got my new computer i did use "wait for retrace" and it snapped normally to 25,30,35,40 and so on, but didn't ever go over 60fps since my refresh rate was 60hz.

Usually i can watch AVS at 320x240 with good framerates, even with the more complex presets, but for example i still get around 25-40 fps with Whacko VI in 400x300 :D

Magic.X

7th May 2003 11:01 UTC

Thanx, for the values.

Seems i gotta buy a new CPU, XP2600+ or higher (because of 166mhz fsb) :D

Wiser87

9th May 2003 07:11 UTC

Heh... just for kicks I tried loading a fairly simple preset and got around 140-160 fps in the default window size. When docked in the editor it was around 340! <Wonders if people try using supercomputers to display AVS's at full screen when they're taking a break from a project> :D

<edit> It seems that the AVS editor window displays the correct fps only right after I did hell-knows-what and caused WinAmp to crash... lol

UnConeD

9th May 2003 09:36 UTC

Tuggummi: Wait for retrace is definitely OFF ... besides, if that were on it still wouldn't mean that it would always snap to integer framecounts, and even if it did, my refreshrate is not 100Hz, so it doesn't make sense to snap at 25, 33, 50 and 99.9.

I even did a simple test to verify that by some weird Voodoo Magic, wait for retrace was still kicking in despite it being off: make a preset with nothing but trans/invert. If retrace is off, you'll see a clear horizontal line in the flashing, if it is on then the flashing will be solid.

Magic.X

9th May 2003 09:43 UTC

Originally posted by Wiser87
<Wonders if people try using supercomputers to display AVS's at full screen when they're taking a break from a project>[/i]

The Daishi

9th May 2003 16:00 UTC

Hey, I wonder if our clients server would do... Quad top end PIII Xeons with 4GeeBees of Ram...

Simple math would suggest that it could run 640x480 at the most 80fps

Which is nice...

Just FYI, my old Celery 433 manages 320x240 @ 5-15 fps running various from Whacko6.

My P4 2.13 hits ~50fps. Once we can continually hit 60+fps then turning on lock to refresh should hit 60 bang on.

Wiser87

10th May 2003 23:15 UTC

Originally posted by Magic.X
Lets buy a huuuuuge Server like Computer with 4 x 3.1 Ghz :D

Then i would'nt even mind if the framerate would snap to 35 fps @ 800x600 :p

The Daishi

11th May 2003 10:43 UTC

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatal...l_CPUs_15.html

Intel Pentium 4 'Northwood' 2.4C GHz (800FSB) with HT Technology

Must have... overclock... mmmm.... cheap HT..

*drools*

Wiser87

12th May 2003 03:17 UTC

Oh, if it's overclocked you want...

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/s...336245,00.html

:D :p :D :p

Yathosho

12th May 2003 12:49 UTC

Daishi: you should've posted a preset as preference, i'd be interested in what resolutions people here use, what cpu's, and what frame-rates. would make a nice benchmark-table

sidd

14th May 2003 06:55 UTC

crazy crazy crazy.. this is alot of talk about god knows what..
..

in responce to orig. post., i get sad when it drops below 20fps. but other than that it depends on the preset, nome presets need spped to look swell, others dont.

<edit>
i use 640*480 ish res, depending on which computer im using (i have three), always pixel doubling, except when testing presets. Never wait for retrace.

Magic.X

14th May 2003 12:00 UTC

killahbite, you forgot about the OS! For example, XP sucks if you want to play multiple AVI's. This is a bit harder than you think.

If we want to get a good benchmark we need a Preset that contains all the standard components.

ravergator420

1st April 2004 21:39 UTC

I'm personally very dissapointed at the extremely poor perfomance of AVS. I have an Atlon XP 3200+ (512KB L2 cache) 400Mhz FSB, 2x512 cas 2.0 DDR400 PC3200 ram (1GB total) on an Abit NF7 motherboard, and fullscreen avs performs a lot worse than any of my videogames at the highest resolution and quality settings. Now, i know that the video card has nothing to do with avs, that's whay i didn't even bother to list it. but you are saying that my CPU/ram are not good enough to display avs fullscreen?-- should i get a $700 Athlon 64 FX and like 10GB of ram to see some vis? -- I mean, this is ridiculous! and the worse thing is that i can't find winamp 1 anywhere (now, that had some good vis!)

TomyLobo

1st April 2004 22:32 UTC

it's not really how much ram you have
it's how fast your ram is (transfer rates matter)

say we use 1600x1200 with 32bit color depth
and we have 20 effect lists(of which each has it's own frame buffer) and 8 buffers + 1 main frame buffer
makes (20+8+1)*1600*1200*32/8=222,720,000 bytes=212 MB RAM for this (quite excessive) setup. If you add windows, winamp and the like you'll not get more than 768 MB (my current RAM size ;) ), meaning that you will surely not need 10 GB RAM

for a normal setup like 320x240 with the same preset you'll need
(20+8+1)*320*240*32/8=8,908,800 bytes=8,5 MB RAM which would fit in the RAM of an average 486 :)

UnConeD

2nd April 2004 00:02 UTC

Locking this old and dead thread. Nothing useful can be added here.

Rovastar

2nd April 2004 11:42 UTC

Nullsoft though do support trying to get AVS running at high reses maybe on April 3rd they may have a mchine capable of running it 1024x768x32 at 60fps. :)

http://www.winamp.com/about/article.php?aid=10562

Opps sorry to posting in a closed thread.