Man! GeForce 3's are too fucking expensive ($700 CDN) !
Processor Speed and FPS
56 posts
Har! I'll shortly be getting a 1.2GHz Athlon with DDR memory and a GeForce3! And I'm not paying for it!!😁 😁
HEY...
Send me one too 🙂 And, just like you, I choose not to pay !
Send me one too 🙂 And, just like you, I choose not to pay !
Hey! Mind if ya could forward me a GeForce 3 as well? 😁
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 😁
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 😁
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
😱 😱 😱 😱 😱
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
😱 😱 😱 😱 😱
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
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
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!
Originally posted by Yathoshopeople should read the entire thread including the dates, it's as relevant as the brain you have, even if its the size of a shrew!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
sounds reasonable to me
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.
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.
could you add a reset button, so i can easily run this test again?
Originally posted by Mr_NudgeDo you have wait for retrace on? it should be off to be able to do any testing
my avs likes to get stuck at 64fps
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 🙂
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 🙂
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
nope, it just sticks to 64fps for some reason.
i don't mind, any faster and you get screen tearing.
Originally posted by Mr_NudgeThis could be your hardware config. AVS fps counter uses black voodoo magic that is far beyond my understanding, but it seems to measure it based on buffer updates somehow. I would dig in the source and find a definite answer, but I'm far too lazy for that...
nope, it just sticks to 64fps for some reason.
i don't mind, any faster and you get screen tearing.
I don't think this ruins the benchmark anyway. Stuff like vsync and double buffering are a part of the system configuration and their effects should be measured by a benchmark as much as stuff like CPU and RAM.
i noticed the smp settings don't seem to have any effect, do they only work with multiple physical cpus or should they work with multicores as well?
aaah, finally got a new computer..
Winamp 5.55, Windows 7 RC (64-bit) - 121
i think 1280x960 DP will be my new fullscreen resolution of choice 🙂
Winamp 5.55, Windows 7 RC (64-bit) - 121
i think 1280x960 DP will be my new fullscreen resolution of choice 🙂
here's a lot simplier one: how much time 200 frames take on blanc screen. there is a not-so-blanc version also which is a bit more precise. obviously the less value to the left, the more performance you have. press shift to reset
a blank benchmark preset it kinda pointless, it's not asking anything of your system.
the whole point of a benchmark test is to see how different computers handle the same load, not how they handle no load at all.
the whole point of a benchmark test is to see how different computers handle the same load, not how they handle no load at all.
i have played around little more. i usually never disable wait for retrace (wtr), but when i saw micro.d achieving better results on a slower cpu, i switched it off. seems like the number of threads in the smp settings actually varies a lot more, when wtr is off. with wtr enabled, the results stayed pretty much the same, no matter how many threads i was using (i tried 2-8). explanation?
this is so fast, it ain't fun anymore!
worse!
Hello there
long time no see ...
Grandchild tried this Benchmark preset on my computer.
I don't know what exactly he did, but i had a score of 118 first time and 119 anoter time.
He said my score was better then yours (yathosho) 😁
*wanking*
I don't know which resolution it was. - i will check this.
But i think it's pretty cool, since my computer is ~2,4 years old (a laptop actually).
I use avs via foobar2000 (shpeck plugin).
long time no see ...
Grandchild tried this Benchmark preset on my computer.
I don't know what exactly he did, but i had a score of 118 first time and 119 anoter time.
He said my score was better then yours (yathosho) 😁
*wanking*
I don't know which resolution it was. - i will check this.
But i think it's pretty cool, since my computer is ~2,4 years old (a laptop actually).
I use avs via foobar2000 (shpeck plugin).