djkeef2004
18th November 2006 18:15 UTC
AVS Performance
First off, to escape any flaming, I'd like to say that I read the FAQ. I understood the explanations, but there is still things that seem kind of odd.
What I do not get, is what kind of system do you have to have in order to get a decent FPS at a resolution that gives a box bigger than a 4"x4"?
I know that AVS's performance is based on CPU capabilities alone. However, last time I checked, the 4800+ X2 from AMD was pretty adaquate for most CPU intensive applications. Maybe since I got this thing several months ago standards for CPU perf. have completely changed.
I tried almost all combinations of settings and the best resolution I can get for a smooth framerate is like 320xWhatever. This is after I used the tips in the QSG.
So, what CPUs are you guys using? and what frame-rates are you getting at which resolution? Also, any helpful configuration tips would be much appreciated.
My other question was about the statement in the Wishlist FAQ about multithreading. What exactly does "making AVS more multithreaded" mean? And how multithreaded is it now? Meaning, is it possible to enable SMP for fullscreen applications?
djkeef2004
18th November 2006 18:42 UTC
Wow. Switching to the classic skin tripled my FPS!!!
I guess re-reading the QSG for a second time is worth it.
Either way, I would still like to know what you guys run and what FPS @ what resolution you are able to get; and what the best setting for render thread priority is?
Also, does size of monitor matter? and how do I "rate" the presets to change the frequency of their occurance?
Yathosho
18th November 2006 21:40 UTC
p4 2.4ghz, 1gb ram, running avs at 800x600 (double-pixeling).. usually getting 25-35fps
djkeef2004
19th November 2006 01:58 UTC
I'll summarize mine so it's not necessary to read the whole post to figure it out:
athlon x2 4800+, 2gb of pc3200 ram, fullscreen 1152x648 (double pixeled)
12.5-60fps range.
avg fps = 35.
Mr_Nudge
21st November 2006 07:06 UTC
p4 2.8 running at 500x350 gets about 20-30fps. it also depends heavily on the preset running.
there should be a benchmark preset that everyone uses.
hey.. i think thats a really good idea
Warrior of the Light
21st November 2006 07:41 UTC
PC stats:
P4 HT dualcore 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM ;)
AVS stats:
windowed 400x300.
Performance slider set to 100% Pixel doubling off.
SMP support is off since it doesn't do a thing even on this machine (not a tenth of a FPS).
Zamuz's Big Bang runs at a steady 29.9 FPS with wait for retrace on, and at ~54 with wfr switched off.
can we take big bang as benchmark preset since everybody has it?
jheriko
21st November 2006 15:00 UTC
I think the existing AVS multithreading support is just a stub.
Some AVS components use embarassingly parallel algorithms too... but most don't because of evallib
Rocker
21st November 2006 17:00 UTC
i have a x2 3800+ overclocked to 2.6ghz(more or less a 4800+ with half cache and cl2 memory)
big bang at 408x314 sits at around 38fps with retrace, 62fps without retrace.
no pixel doubling.
ASD5A
21st November 2006 19:35 UTC
Laptop stats: 3.06 P4 HT, 1GB RAM
AVS stats: avs run through baconwrapper and foobar (since winamp crashes way too often on this machine)
400x300
preset: zamuz big bang
performance slider two ticks below max
no pixel doubling
wfr: 40fps
no wfr: 64 fps (limited by display)
Nanakiwurkz
21st November 2006 22:09 UTC
To be honest
Ok pity me if you want but this is the only comp i have at the moment :cry: :down: :cry: :down:
HP brio 2401b
Intel Celeron 566 with 128k first lvl cache
Intel 801 8 meg graphics "chip"
10 gig and 16 gig HDs
conexant 56k internal modem
basic 100\10 network card
emprex 52x dvd-rom/cd-RW/7 in one memory card reader with usb port.
toshiba 25x cd-rom
392 megs of crappy mother (&*&**& sdram
er ahem sorry for the vulgarity, its just that this thing i operate on is yes and i admit it a piece of crap.
*takes out sledge hammer and destroys a piece of the computer* ahh much better.
yeah anyway with those stats alone i have to remain in 320x240x16 in fulscreen and 256x256x16 for windowed if i want a decent framerate.
max i've ever hit was prolly 90fps with a one effect and with UnConeDs Zero-G-MazeIII i get at least 15fps fullscreen and windowed. -_-'
gahh!!! *picks up hammer and starts to destroy computer again*
Warrior of the Light
21st November 2006 22:36 UTC
The stats above are from the pc at my work by the way.
my own stats:
Intel Celeron 1.7GHz, 384MB SDRAM (with a OS that gives me 5 to 8 crash warnings while booting because I haven't done a full re-format in over 5 years)
400x300 windowed, no pixel doubling, max performance (just for testing).
wfr on: ~15.2 FPS
wfr off: ~18.8 FPS
Rocker, to get a real 4:3 ratio, you can turn smooth window resizing off if you care about it: [link to image]
djkeef2004
22nd November 2006 01:33 UTC
i get 35.6 on bigbang. stats are above.
Rocker
22nd November 2006 04:57 UTC
Quote:
i was just being lazy and it doesn't make that much of a difference anyway, I have to reinstall winamp a few times a week.:D
Originally posted by Warrior of the Light
Rocker, to get a real 4:3 ratio, you can turn smooth window resizing off if you care about it:
|
J.Melo
24th November 2006 19:52 UTC
I've got a P4 HT 3.00 GHz and a gig of ram.
800x600 (pixel doubling, so really 400x300)
wait for retrace: off; Windowed preformance: 100%;
simple preset: 64+/-10 fps; presets with dm's and alpha: 32+/-3 fps; intense 3d presets: 28+/-5 fps
also does anybody know if there is much of an avs preformance difference between AMD and P4?
PAK-9
25th November 2006 13:41 UTC
Intel historically has stronger FPU's (they usually perform better in Whetstone benchmarks for example) and AVS code is pretty dependant on floating point operations since all user code uses doubles for variables.
It has been my experience generally that Intel processors perform better with AVS than their AMD counterparts.
jheriko
27th November 2006 12:40 UTC
AMD CPUs generally have inferior hardware to an "equivalent" Intel, and AVS is one of those few applications which is almost totally dependant on the CPU only. There are a couple of things in particular that are very important for AVS performance: the clock speed and the FSB speed.
The clock speed effectively limits the maximum number of equivalent instructions the CPU can call per second. Higher is better for AVS, period.
The FSB speed has an effect on memory access speed and memory copying speed. Since AVS has to copy a reasonably large framebuffer around in RAM, more is better here too.
AMD CPUs don't compare very well to Intel's if we use these two things as our main criteria. Of course AMDs will still outperform Intel when it comes to Microsoft Office or your latest 3D game... but just not for AVS where almost all of the load is on the CPU.
The video memory bus is also important here, but these days it is usually so fast (AGP, PCI-E etc...) that it makes only a token difference for AVS. (As a sidenote even the best PCI-E slot isn't fast enough to maximise performance on graphics cards from 3 or 4 years ago, such as the GeForce 4 MX, and is something which I expect to see improved in the future, especially when given the number of graphics techniques (radiosity) and preexisting games (insert any game with dynamic loading here) that would benefit from a fast copying speed into video memory.)
Hope this helps.
c-here
26th March 2007 00:42 UTC
dunno if this thread is considered RIP yet, so plz don't flame me if it is:
Spec:
Laptop AMD Turion 1.8GHz
1/2 Gig of Ram
preset: Big Bang
performance slider 2 ticks off highest, wfr on, pixel doubling off 400x300@32BPP gives me 32fps fullscreen
out of interest, can anyone tell me what the performance slider is doing to increase performance?
Mr_Nudge
26th March 2007 06:22 UTC
the performance slider doesn't increase performance, it caps it to lower cpu use, or so i imagine
Nanakiwurkz
26th March 2007 23:24 UTC
the slider deemed windowed performance is just a framerate limiter. the lower the value the slower the preset. thats all it does.