HackJack

11th August 2006 15:42 UTC

AVS Beast
I've been trying to use AVS but the very low fps in fullscreen mode (11.3 FPS on 1280x1024@32BPP) is discouraging. I've been reading around the forum and I understand that the video card doesn't do a thing in the AVS rendering.

The CPU is the one that does everything. I tried to lower the resolution and got 30 FPS on 800x600@32 BPP.

My PC's specs are:

1024 DDRAM (PC3200 Corsair)
3.4 GHz Intel CPU
XFX GeForce 7900GT 256MB
7200 HDD with 8MB buffer size

I thought that by comparing some systems I might understand what PC I might need for a nice 60 FPS (because I don't really think the CPU speed is the only influencing factor in the rendering) on 1280x1024 so feel free to post your PC specs along with FPS on various resolutions you might have tested or any other ideas or comments.

fastingaciu

11th August 2006 17:25 UTC

It dependes on the preset too. Acataly it dependes on the preset more then on anything. You can have the best computer ever but if the preset itself is slow anywhere you try it it's gonna be slow.

HackJack

11th August 2006 18:07 UTC

Oh... >.>

It's reliefing and preocupating at the same time to hear that...

Reliefing because that means my PC is not crap (or built from pirated hardware) and preocupating because that means AVS isn't a very well coded piece of software (no offense programmers).

Oh well...

Tuggummi

12th August 2006 03:54 UTC

I tried to keep the framerate reasonably high in my Functions pack.

I would like to blaim preset makers more than the makers of the program, but that's just my opinion. Just so you know, it is possible to make fast & cool AVS presets. All depends on the artist and his/her skills.

HackJack

13th August 2006 12:36 UTC

Like a well coded program that weights less and does the same stuff as its larger "siblings". Yes, it makes sense. Thanx for the replies.

Edit: I tried your pack and I can say it's the best stuff I've ever seen. Personally I like it better than any other pack available for download here on winamp.com. Outstanding work!:up:

P.S. I just looove Biomechanica!!!

Tuggummi

14th August 2006 10:55 UTC

Thank you, always nice to hear someone enjoys my work :)

Grandchild

16th August 2006 18:05 UTC

if you watch the average [in terms of speed/fps] preset, you own a really fast cpu when you get more than 20fps on 800x600.
in fact that's a really high resolution AVS-wise. the most-used resolution is 400x300 i guess. and i, having an old computer, 'enjoy' AVS at half the screen size...

AVS has some annoying bugs and as far as i heard messy code, but it's not really a badly built program. in fact it's most likely the fastest software-based realtime rendering program you can find. most other graphic-/visualization-/vj-programs don't offer [or offer only a tiny bit] of the dynamic [or 'freeframe-'] effects which are the reason AVS' great variety in the look of presets.

but 1280x1024 is well off limits for nowadays. [and many presets will look shitty in this resolution anyway, because they were made for far lower resolutions].

GC

Warrior of the Light

16th August 2006 18:54 UTC

offtopic:
1284x1024 isn't even a 4:3 ratio by the way.