navek

7th July 2001 08:05 UTC

I am interested in knowing what kind of performance people are getting from systems that include AMD 1+ GHz or P4 processors and GeForce3 cards when using AVS. My system includes a P3 733 and a GeForce 256, but I cannot view the more complex presets without turning down the resolution and doubling the pixels. So, how many frames per second can the fastest systems with DDR system and video memory produce when displaying the more complex presets at higher resolutions? I am interested in knowing how much a person would have to spend on a system to get AVS humming.

Tonic

7th July 2001 11:22 UTC

FPS of AVS did not depend of your VIDEO car only from CPU. And I think that AVS look perfect and in low res like 320/240 on PII450 so for you CPU 400/300 is perfect resolution. You do not need higer.

Regards Tonic

Nostej

8th July 2001 14:21 UTC

I have a dual pIII 800 running under win 2k. I can get away with 800x600 resolution and 15-25 FPS depending on the plug-in, and no pixel doubling.

I would really enjoy running at full screen(1024x768 for me) and see FPS as high as 30 or 40... It does make a huge diffrence..

On the contrary.. Tonic, it makes a huge diffrence on resolution.. low res is a joke. I want liquid animation of my AVS.. and low res looks horrible.. almost reminds me of MS's and Real Audio's attempts at visualization.

Could someone offer some hardware guidelines to follow? Eventually, I'd like to purchase a digital projector for even better vieweing.. 480x320 resolution just won't do.

Thanks in advance.

Nostej

8th July 2001 14:22 UTC

Sorry.. forgot to mention I have 256 MB RAM

Tonic

8th July 2001 14:59 UTC

Thsi that you have Dual CPU did not help you so much onluy that 10% of CPU needed for MP3 encoding is used from second CPU. Only one of your CPU are used by AVS. Second things I want to say is that I use Digital Projector at 320/200 and it look perfect I project this to 5,0m/3,0m wall and it look cool enought.

Regards Tonic

Nostej

8th July 2001 16:52 UTC

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble.. but settling for low res graphics is like settling for low low bit rate sound.

What's the point of wasting your time if you aren't enjoying it? Everyone knows that the more detail a song has or a picture has, the more enjoyable it is to that sense.

The point of AVS is to add eye candy to the already very well developed ear candy which we all enjoy through winamp. Now, I don't know where your tastes lie, but wouldn't it make sense that a higher, more detailed image would heighten one's enjoyment of a peticular piece of music?

Now, we've heard your opinions on the subject. What can we do to make these AVS files run faster? It is entirely your right to run them at low res.. ;) But how do the rest of us, who won't settle for second rate resolutions, go about getting the cutting edge?

It's ok if you don't know..

Adasha

9th July 2001 00:52 UTC

I'm running a 1GHz Athlon with 256Mb RAM, but even in 640x480x16 fullscreen mode I need pixel doubling on to get things going really smoothly on a preset of average complexity.

AVS has to convert each effect in realtime, instead of being hard-coded like a standard vis plugin, which would slow it down, but I'm sure there must be room for optimisation here.

Oh, and support for 3D as well.

Oh, and programmable hotkeys to control effects.

Oh, and AVI timestretching.

Oh, and random change preset on n beats as well as n seconds.

Ta.

navek

11th July 2001 05:52 UTC

$#!+
Well, I was hoping that someone would tell me that they were getting better performance out of the sytems I described, but it is just as I feared. I am afraid that we are stuck with low resolution AVS presets until somebody finds a better way to code this thing. As far as Tonic's comments... Well, I don't want to be rude, but do you think that 640X480 @ 256 colors looks good? Resolution and the number of colors are the only things that matter when it comes to video. Pixel doubling looks terrible! I can run Q3 at 800X600 32-bit color and get 125 fps(and that is OpenGL accelerated). There is definitely room for improvement with AVS.

transfrmr

18th July 2001 06:39 UTC

Athlon 850
Ok,

Avs ran pretty bad on my old pentium 166, But when I bought my new Athlon 850, I figured I'd be able to milk it. Ok, it runs better (hey, it runs point!), but The best I can do in fullscreen is 320x240 at 32bpp. This gives me 20 frames a second on average, but the resolution leaves to be desired. I want it to look like it does in the window when it's docked in the config. I have 320 megs of ram, yet somehow I get the impression this thing really only eats up raw, brute, processing power taking no notice whatsoever of my 3D prophet II (it works just as well on my ati rage II Mach 64 Tv-out, which I just swapped in to check out the results) this seems a damn shame, run kata fx and you get some really nice 3d fullscreen action.

I don't know, I guess I could just wait for those 200Ghz IBM just announced to run AVS better.

For now it'll do, but I really do wish they come out with a 3daccelerator-friendly upgrade, or any way to get more bang for the Mhz.

?WHy?

ParaNoya

18th July 2001 23:53 UTC

Yes, AVS only uses processor power
Mmmm, 320x240 seems a bit low to me I run AVS full-screen, at my P-III 500, at 320x200. I guess more could be get out of AVS with a 850 Mhz processor. Maybe you haven't unchecked the wait for retrace option in your full screen settings. This speeds up AVS significantly so have a look at that. also try to use pixel doubling it give you AVS at much higher resolutions.

transfrmr

19th July 2001 21:05 UTC

well
I formatted my HD and re-installled windows (lot of crap) to see If I could speed it up and it's running faster already (25-40 fps in 640x480 32bpp wait for retrace and pixel doubling on)

I'll probably tweak it t'ill I think I'm getting the max out of it....

What exactly does the fast software bpp button do? I don't notice a significant difference whether on or off..

ParaNoya - Like your pack.. ;)

Tonic

19th July 2001 23:57 UTC

Turning OFF wait for retrace will speed up AVS with at least 15%

ParaNoya

19th July 2001 23:58 UTC

NO NO wait for retrace must be OFF, but I think you already did that seeing your FPS.
Thanks, I think I'll UL my latest pack this weekend. :)

transfrmr

20th July 2001 04:46 UTC

Cool, looking forward to seeing it.. I uploaded some presets that are just the beginning. I'm having some problems with the login to upload though.. is this a glitch or just me?

Um, I can't seem to get AVS to respond to my cd music... any special configs I'd need to get it to respond to a line in?

these may seem stupid questions, but I'm just re-configuring and can't quite remember how I had it working last time... heheh

Thanks!

DarwinD

24th July 2001 00:09 UTC

Hey transfrmr, it's very simple. In the sound properties, recording properties, select CD audio as your recording source instead of mic or other thing. If it works, drop me a line to djdatto@tutopia.com.;)

AmpliDex

28th July 2001 15:09 UTC

I don't usually test the Fullscreen mode! I usually use the 176 × 176 windowed resolution when I make my presets or view presets made from other authors such as Tonic! But for my upcoming collection, I'll do a Fullscreen test, even though I have a shitty video card (8 MB SiS 620 AGP) ! But I might consider getting a GeForce 2 GTS in the near future! :)

AmpliDex

28th July 2001 15:13 UTC

But despite that, I also got a 500 MHz Pentium 3, a 30.7 GB Hard Drive, and 192 MB PC133 SDRAM, which greatly increased my PC's performance! Here's my FPS status on 176 × 176 windowed resolution :

For very complex presets (Most AVSociety presets), I usually get 10 - 15 FPS!
For somewhat complex presets, I usually get 20 - 30 FPS!
For simple presets (those that don't have a lot of rendering options), I would get at least 40 FPS!

transfrmr

28th July 2001 19:26 UTC

ummm...
you seem to know what you're doing, but if you think that buying a new graphics card will speed up your AVS, you are wrong. It doesn't use any 3d acceleration. You could use the cheapest, most bare-bones graphics card in the world and it wouldn't make any difference in the performance of AVS.

Don't waste your money if all you want is better AVS framerates, the only way to get these is to get a bigger processor, I don't even think ram makes a diff,cause whether I have 64megs of 320megs it performs the same....

AmpliDex

29th July 2001 16:28 UTC

Unless if one were to add an APE which would require 3D Accelleration, of course! :) And thanks for the comment! I might not have the fastest, but I got one that would do me the trick! :)

transfrmr

8th August 2001 19:25 UTC

OOoooooo, interesting!
Ok,

You have me very intersted in this whole "APE that requires 3d acceleration" Could you fill me in a bit, other than using the APE's I have, I haven't bothered with them too much, but f i can use them to get AVS to take advantage of the graphics card, that's definitely worth looking into...

AmpliDex

10th August 2001 14:43 UTC

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about C++ yet, but when I do, then I'd experiment with such material! Also, the APE's I got are FyrewurX, 3D, VisFrac, and TV! But I'm wondering if there are other APE's out there! But if I knew C++, I probably would have made at least ten APE's by now! :)

Scarface2k1

10th August 2001 15:17 UTC

uh i wonder how meny times we have to go through with this?

transfrmr

10th August 2001 20:15 UTC

yeah yeah yeah...
scarface, I'm guerssing you're all peeved because "AVS doesn't use the graphics card".. Well, I thought that maybe they had deeper knowledge that APE's could be made to take advantage of it.

Since you know more than all of us, are they right or wrong? I'm gessing by your reply that they are wrong, so, I will forget about it..

peter

11th August 2001 17:16 UTC

APEs using 3D acceleration are not a good idea, unless you have an evil video card which can use system memory as output (or at least output to off-screen surfaces which can be copied to AVS's framebuffer with tolerable speed). i think that none of currently available video cards can do that, 'cuz that would be expensive and hardly useful (wish: create pure-AGP video card, w/o onboard memory).

AmpliDex

12th August 2001 03:59 UTC

Hmm ... I'd have to agree unless they could create some sort of optimization for the low-end video cards (2 - 4 MB)! Mind ya, my 8 MB SiS 620 AGP is great for most apps, but it won't work in Quake 3 Arena! I might swap that for a GeForce 2 GTS or a GeForce 3 since I know my motherboard can support such video cards!

Scarface2k1

12th August 2001 17:40 UTC

heh i got a suck ass sis 530 :D

AmpliDex

12th August 2001 20:36 UTC

SiS 530? Is that 4 MB VRAM?

Scarface2k1

13th August 2001 02:25 UTC

yeah. its runs its engine clock at 40mhz ;)

Scarface2k1

13th August 2001 02:27 UTC

BUT!!
i can always screw the hell out of it with powerstrip to make it run at 43mhz anything more itll burn out :D

transfrmr

13th August 2001 02:53 UTC

2
I have a 3d Prophet 32mb MX, and an ATI MACH 64 4mb TV-Out.

heheheh..

AmpliDex

13th August 2001 03:55 UTC

Man! GeForce 3's are too fucking expensive ($700 CDN) !

Adasha

23rd August 2001 11:10 UTC

Har! I'll shortly be getting a 1.2GHz Athlon with DDR memory and a GeForce3! And I'm not paying for it!!:D :D

transfrmr

23rd August 2001 20:44 UTC

HEY...
Send me one too :) And, just like you, I choose not to pay !

AmpliDex

23rd August 2001 23:59 UTC

Hey! Mind if ya could forward me a GeForce 3 as well? :D

Adasha

29th August 2001 21:01 UTC

What you need to do is this:

Get employed as the head lighting/visual manager at a big nightclub and persuade them that you need a budget to improve the visuals, then explain that the setup you've just bought yourself is merely so you can create and test visuals in your own time at home :D

Druid1977

17th September 2001 21:55 UTC

HAHAHA
I hate to really tell you all this but .....

I have a 700Mhz Celeron with 64Mb or RAM(PC133)and Intel integrated video chipset set to 4MB of RAM ...I create my own AVS with WA3 Alpha L8r ...I really make 'em complex and I can get anywhere from 25-60 FPS depending on the preset I'm looking at

I think this thread ought to get closed

But that's only my opinion .. I might be wrong

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Nostej

17th April 2009 01:17 UTC

holy crap... this thread is still alive??

Well I finaly got my answer.. core 2 duo 2.4 ghz and a nice video card and my avs is SLAMMIN!!.. haha.. such a cheater

Yathosho

17th April 2009 08:59 UTC

people should agree on a benchmark preset to use as reference, rather bragging with their hardware setups. posting your videocard is as relevant as the brand of the car you drive, even if it's a bugatti!

Nostej

17th April 2009 12:06 UTC

Originally posted by Yathosho
people should agree on a benchmark preset to use as reference, rather bragging with their hardware setups. posting your videocard is as relevant as the brand of the car you drive, even if it's a bugatti!

Warrior of the Light

17th April 2009 15:57 UTC

Namecalling is not the way to be taken seriously...

No matter the date, bragging about your setup is useless - let figures speak.

I've always believed we should have a benchmark preset, but I'm uncertain of what that would specifically be. Long code with a lot of dividers? hi-res DM's? Making a balanced benchmark is difficult with a versatile program like AVS.

Mr_Nudge

30th April 2009 07:28 UTC

how about some sort of framerate dependant counter?

it starts about a second or so after the preset is opened, starts ticking, and while it's doing that, have avs draw something that gets increasingly more cpu demanding.
after about 10 seconds the counter and the preset stops, and there's your score.
so the higher your score, the better your performance.

Yathosho

6th May 2009 15:43 UTC

sounds reasonable to me

Mr_Nudge

8th May 2009 04:20 UTC

here's a quick one.
instead of a higher score = better performance, here we're trying to get a smaller number as possible.
my avs likes to get stuck at 64fps at 500x350, so i get a pretty constant score of 119ish.

fullscreen at 1680x1050 i get a whopping score of 843!

of course this is just a very simple sort of thing. if this idea goes further it wont be hard to just strip the effects out of this and use something more advanced.
anyway, take a look, post your score.

maybe we should set a standard resolution?
say 320x240 or something? i get 118, but that's cause avs likes to stick on 64fps.

Yathosho

8th May 2009 07:51 UTC

could you add a reset button, so i can easily run this test again?

Warrior of the Light

8th May 2009 08:11 UTC

Originally posted by Mr_Nudge
my avs likes to get stuck at 64fps

Yathosho

8th May 2009 08:13 UTC

i'm most amazed, that the results are usually the same or near the same. here are my scores:

Winamp 5.55, Windows XP SP3 (32-bit) - 267
Winamp 5.55, Ubuntu 9.04 (32-bit) - 322
foobar2000 0.9.6.4, Windows XP SP3 (32-bit) - 252

i tested all these in the odd resolution of 320x239 (don't ask!) and in window-mode (wait for retrace enabled, highest render priority, no overlay).

been wondering, if it made more sense to add a couple of effect-lists that play sequentially for a couple of seconds, each containing different effects.

will do another test next week, i'm expecting a new computer :)

Mr_Nudge

8th May 2009 13:56 UTC

Originally posted by Warrior of the Light
Do you have wait for retrace on? it should be off to be able to do any testing

---

jheriko

8th May 2009 18:32 UTC

Quote: