Hey all, My problem baisically is that i get really low framerates in AVS when running fullscreen (about 13 or below). I have a Dual-Core Athlon 64 4400+ and 4GB of OCZ Platinum 3200 DDR memory running in Dual-Channal and a Geforce 7800GTX using DirectX 9.0c(i am aware the graphics card does very little to improve performance). I have tried using the multiprocessor support but that makes no difference and when I look at the performance graph in task manager both cpu's are only getting about 60% usage. I have tried loads of different resolutions and they all stick at roughly the same framerate.
Ive had quite a few high performance pcs and allways had this problem with AVS am i doign something wrong?
Also the Alpha Blending option is greyed out yet my system supports it?
AVS Performace Confusing
27 posts
No matter how state of the art system you have, AVS will never run at resolutions beyond 640x480 it's safe to say i think. (unless the preset is a very specific one designed for high-resolutions)
AVS I call "the great equaliser" for the reasons Tuggummi just mentioned. I like AVS relatively low-tech approach, if for nothing else than its elegant simplicity. Kinda makes ya think twice about the motivations that made ya step on the technology merry-go-round in the first place, huh. The rest is left as a philosophical exercise for those inclined to do so.
Huh? Me just like pretty colours
4 GB of memory? I'm not even sure Windows (prior to the new 64-bit version) correctly supports that much yet. I think 2 GB is the limit. (I've got 1 GB and even that's more than plenty.)
Perhaps it may be a good idea to check some of the Fullscreen settings in AVS. I've got two computers with WinAmp on them, and, on both of them, I've had pretty good results with the 640x480@32BPP mode with pixel doubling enabled.
I usually leave "Wait for retrace" and "page flipping" turned on for smoother animation, but you can turn them off for a slight performance gain. "Fast software bpp conversion" should probably be turned on, but I'm not sure if it even makes any difference when you have a 32-bit screen mode selected.
Note the "Rendering performance" slider. You probably want that all the way to the left.
Slightly less obvious is the options in WinAmp itself that can affect AVS performance. For example, in "General Preferences", you'll find an option called "Priority class". If you changed that to something other than "Normal", consider changing it back. Also, click on the "Plug-ins" category and look at the "Visualization plug-in priority" option. I have that set to "Normal" too, but you can try adjusting that to see if it makes any difference.
Hope this helps.
Perhaps it may be a good idea to check some of the Fullscreen settings in AVS. I've got two computers with WinAmp on them, and, on both of them, I've had pretty good results with the 640x480@32BPP mode with pixel doubling enabled.
I usually leave "Wait for retrace" and "page flipping" turned on for smoother animation, but you can turn them off for a slight performance gain. "Fast software bpp conversion" should probably be turned on, but I'm not sure if it even makes any difference when you have a 32-bit screen mode selected.
Note the "Rendering performance" slider. You probably want that all the way to the left.
Slightly less obvious is the options in WinAmp itself that can affect AVS performance. For example, in "General Preferences", you'll find an option called "Priority class". If you changed that to something other than "Normal", consider changing it back. Also, click on the "Plug-ins" category and look at the "Visualization plug-in priority" option. I have that set to "Normal" too, but you can try adjusting that to see if it makes any difference.
Hope this helps.
I use the fullscreen overlay mode, on account of how the alternative just crashes for me. It is faster, and it loads quicker. It's great at 800x600 32 bit with pixel doubling, but why doesn't the other one want to work.
Coz ur either not living right, or not holding your mouth right.
What is this, some Feng-Shui? (Runs to look up speeling of Feng Shui) Should I be more holistic? (Runs to look up spelling of holistic)
no, its called humor
Ah, sarcasm, my old arch-nemesis, we meet again.
...Or were video driver problems my old arch-nemesis?
I've got too many arch-nemesi, that's the problem. It's easy to get them confused.
Ah, confusion, my old-- See?
...Or were video driver problems my old arch-nemesis?
I've got too many arch-nemesi, that's the problem. It's easy to get them confused.
Ah, confusion, my old-- See?
cool avatar tho :-)
Originally posted by hornet777what bout my avatar? 😛
cool avatar tho :-)
Its...good...I guess...
Originally posted by JFASIreally? 😁
Its...good...I guess...
In a strange, bene gesserit way, I suppose...
Originally posted by StevenRoy4GB is the limit for winxp since its the largest amount of unique addresses which can fit into 32-bits
4 GB of memory?
And I thought 1GB was impressive...
Maybe it is, FOR A DELL!!!
MWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Seriously, though, I have a dell with 1GB and it's super.
Maybe it is, FOR A DELL!!!
MWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Seriously, though, I have a dell with 1GB and it's super.
Okay, here's one for you...
I boot up...
I start WinAmp and AVS, and watch one of my presets for a while. I check, and I'm getting around 30 FPS, which isn't that bad.
Then I start up my instant-messaging program. (Trillian.)
Suddenly I'm getting 50 FPS instead, for no apparent reason. Go figure.
As much as I'd like to think that there is some deep technical reason for this, it's probably more accurate to simply say: Windows is weird sometimes!
I boot up...
I start WinAmp and AVS, and watch one of my presets for a while. I check, and I'm getting around 30 FPS, which isn't that bad.
Then I start up my instant-messaging program. (Trillian.)
Suddenly I'm getting 50 FPS instead, for no apparent reason. Go figure.
As much as I'd like to think that there is some deep technical reason for this, it's probably more accurate to simply say: Windows is weird sometimes!
Here's mine:
I boot up, I watch some presets of mine, about 74 fps, which is really good. I can't figure it out... It always used to peak at 64 fps, even on like, ssc x=2*i-1. Now its like huge.
BTW:
Normal programs slow down AVS, I don't get your case at all.
I boot up, I watch some presets of mine, about 74 fps, which is really good. I can't figure it out... It always used to peak at 64 fps, even on like, ssc x=2*i-1. Now its like huge.
BTW:
Normal programs slow down AVS, I don't get your case at all.
maybe we should all try Trillian, and if it works, call it an AVS accelerator
That would be good, but my computer's a speed demon, I have no background processes except for Windows itself 😁
Originally posted by JFASI
Here's mine:
I boot up, I watch some presets of mine, about 74 fps, which is really good. I can't figure it out... It always used to peak at 64 fps
Thats to do with either your monitor refresh rate, the 'wait for retrace' option, or a combination of both.
Hmm... That would explain a bit, if I turn Wait for retrace on, it hovers around 75, my refresh rate, according to DxDiag... Otherwise, It just soars to 124 on a simple preset.
I know by experience the higher CPU L2/L3 cache in your cpu is the quicker it will be...(because it has a lot more room to put things ...instead of cramming them all together), although you kill any process that runs with windows (except for SYSTEM) and set winamp as Real-time ...?
You know by experience? You mean you've tried avs on seperate computers with exactly the same specification bar the CPU cache and noticed a difference?
Could it possibly be that you tried AVS's on different computers where one of the differences in specification happened to be CPU cache and you characterised the performance difference by it? no, it cant be that, because that would be a logical fallacy and Matt is far too smart for that.
Could it possibly be that you tried AVS's on different computers where one of the differences in specification happened to be CPU cache and you characterised the performance difference by it? no, it cant be that, because that would be a logical fallacy and Matt is far too smart for that.
Originally posted by MaTTFURYI don't understand anything about this, but it sounds lame.
I know by experience the higher CPU L2/L3 cache in your cpu is the quicker it will be...(because it has a lot more room to put things ...instead of cramming them all together), although you kill any process that runs with windows (except for SYSTEM) and set winamp as Real-time ...?
Originally posted by PAK-9And i don't understand much of this either, but see, it sounds awesome.
You know by experience? You mean you've tried avs on seperate computers with exactly the same specification bar the CPU cache and noticed a difference?
Could it possibly be that you tried AVS's on different computers where one of the differences in specification happened to be CPU cache and you characterised the performance difference by it? no, it cant be that, because that would be a logical fallacy and Matt is far too smart for that.
Even M$ admits only a 0.2-2% performance increase by enabling L2/L3 cache(s). PAK's got it goin' on.