jordillussa

28th December 2005 22:16 UTC

Slow Slow Slow
Oh god! I have just bought an Athlon 64 4000+ and this fucking AVS is so slooooowwww at 800*600 (20 fps) fullscreen.

It's a shame. Why don't you try to recode it with assembler???? Is coded in Visual Basic maybe? Ja ja ja ja :P

Maybe at year 2010 I will be able to run it fullscreen at 1024*768 at 60 FPs...... with an athlon 15.000+ 512Bits and 128 GB RAM

PAK-9

29th December 2005 00:39 UTC

Its probably your graphics card

Tuggummi

29th December 2005 03:52 UTC

No, AVS needs a highspeed cable, because clearly it uses the internet.

JaVS_v2.5

29th December 2005 04:49 UTC

Nope, it's depend on your skill.

ASD5A

29th December 2005 08:26 UTC

You are all wrong...
it depends on the penis-size of the user.
Thats why we all get 60+ fps at 1024x768.

JaVS_v2.5

29th December 2005 08:30 UTC

Ur right, you deserved it :)

blaz

29th December 2005 15:20 UTC

Em, I think it's the weather. We should all blame the weather for making AVS slow :S

JFASI

29th December 2005 15:24 UTC

Bah, weather! It's undoubtably global warming!

blaz

29th December 2005 15:27 UTC

Nop, definitly aliens. they have posesed his comp :)

^..^

29th December 2005 15:58 UTC

Hmm, i see that you haven't been informed yet. It's just the usual government conspiracy. So, no reason to worry.

JFASI

29th December 2005 16:42 UTC

Are you kidding me? the gov't can't crack open a 64 bit system! It's probably the earth's magnetic field flipping that's causing his problem.

jordillussa

29th December 2005 19:06 UTC

Use this! :P
Procedure Putpixel (X,Y : Integer; Col : Byte; where:word);
{ This puts a pixel on the screen by writing directly to memory. }
BEGIN
Asm
push ds {; Make sure these two go out the }
push es {; same they went in }
mov ax,[where]
mov es,ax {; Point to segment of screen }
mov bx,[X]
mov dx,[Y]
push bx {; and this again for later}
mov bx, dx {; bx = dx}
mov dh, dl {; dx = dx * 256}
xor dl, dl
shl bx, 1
shl bx, 1
shl bx, 1
shl bx, 1
shl bx, 1
shl bx, 1 {; bx = bx * 64}
add dx, bx {; dx = dx + bx (ie y*320)}
pop bx {; get back our x}
add bx, dx {; finalise location}
mov di, bx {; di = offset }
{; es:di = where to go}
xor al,al
mov ah, [Col]
mov es:[di],ah {; move the value in ah to screen
point es:[di] }
pop es
pop ds
End;
END;

Tuggummi

29th December 2005 19:32 UTC

Originally posted by ASD5A
You are all wrong...
it depends on the penis-size of the user.
Thats why we all get 60+ fps at 1024x768.

StevenRoy

29th December 2005 22:10 UTC

Are you sure you've got an Athlon 64 4000+ and not an Athlon 64 400+? That's an easy mistake to make because they've got so many zeros close to each other, so it's easy to accidentally see an extra one, especially when you cross your eyes.

Try uncrossing your eyes.

Also, when was the last time you had your computer exorcised? These days, especially with Windows DS, it's good to have a professional exorcism at least once a month; otherwise the demons build up and your monitor eventually starts spinning around and spewing vomit. A simple firewall won't help you then. You need Microsoft Update and holy water.

Pity the Winter Solstice was about a week ago; that could've helped if you were a virgin and had a large calf that you could sacrifice. Oh well, the next one's less than a year away!

Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to make sure your video drivers and DirectX are up-to-date, just in case.

Wait a minute... since when can AVS go up to 800x600?

jordillussa

29th December 2005 23:21 UTC

Say whatever you want....
but don't say AVS is a fast program because it isn't. Running fullscreen at 1024*768 with a simple processor (not dual) is impossible to achieve good framerate.

Sorry boy but this is the truth.

JFASI

30th December 2005 02:06 UTC

Are you stupid? (Rhetorical question)
AVS is blazingly fast! Unless...

Let's see... 1024 times 768 is 776192,

6 Legions of demons times 66 cohorts times 666 members of a cohort is 263736

That times the unholy trinity, 3, is 791208

Ratio between that and number of pixels is 1.0193457

Only two digits that don't appear there are 2, 6, and 8

Multiply those together and get 96!

Aha! 96 is the number of dead in hell in billions!!!

1024x768 is a cursed pixelrate!!! StevenRoy was right! You have too many demons on your system!

StevenRoy

30th December 2005 02:40 UTC

No, 69 is the sign of the yin-yang, meaning balance, and 96 is that backwards, meaning chaos. That's why 1024x768 is evil.

Or, in other words, AVS is simply not designed to run at such high resolutions, at least not quickly. If you simply must run at 800x600 or bigger (you big macho man you), at least turn on "pixel doubling" so AVS will only have to process 1/4 the number of pixels each frame. You should also make sure you have a 32-bit mode selected, since that's AVS's native pixel format. That should improve your frame rate drastically, and you won't even need to castrate yourself (although I'd still recommend it for compatibility reasons).

JaVS_v2.5

30th December 2005 04:15 UTC

1024x768 not as evil as I though, I'm using that resolution and it's still my fav resolution.

Nic01

30th December 2005 05:05 UTC

I got 76 FPS on 1024x768.

I love empty presets.

JaVS_v2.5

30th December 2005 06:00 UTC

Pixel doubling (half resolution) mode could solve the problem of "Slow Slow Slow"

Tuggummi

30th December 2005 09:14 UTC

Originally posted by jordillussa
but don't say AVS is a fast program because it isn't. Running fullscreen at 1024*768 with a simple processor (not dual) is impossible to achieve good framerate.

Sorry boy but this is the truth.

JaVS_v2.5

30th December 2005 09:56 UTC

Originally posted by Tuggummi
Jerk. :cry:

blaz

30th December 2005 09:58 UTC

Originally posted by Tuggummi
Realizing that what makes AVS attractive isn't the speed would help very much too.

Jerk. :cry:

Warrior of the Light

30th December 2005 10:33 UTC

Re: Say whatever you want....

Originally posted by jordillussa
but don't say AVS is a fast program because it isn't.

JFASI

30th December 2005 15:55 UTC

Well, I did, but that's just cuz I have a fast computer.
Another question: Fullscreen overlay mode or not?

MaTTFURY

31st December 2005 06:56 UTC

err you need a larger cache [e.g. 1mb (L2) ]
this way it will store a lot more data into the processor, and erase it if it's not needed, this is what makes a quick computer, but you also alot more things, and SSE3/4 support would be nice :)

Warrior of the Light

31st December 2005 13:36 UTC

something I never got was the difference between 800x600 with pixel doubling and 400x300

JFASI

31st December 2005 14:34 UTC

Mwaha! I have 2 megs AND support!