View Full Version : Why is AVS so slow?
20th August 2001, 18:42
I have a pretty good machine (AMD Athlon 1,2GHz, 256 Mb RAM, TNT2 Ultra) and still AVS lags!
When I run Fullscreen, I can only have 320*200@16BPP, If I have for example 640*480, it's so laggy it's not good-looking any more.
Is there any HArdware-accelaration or anything like that you can enable? Please help!
20th August 2001, 19:23
Try going into options, *plug-ins*(the main plugin menu) and raise the "visualization plugin priority" to max or close to max, other than that try to shrink your window size on winamp, Then in AVS go to settings-display and draw the bar to the far left(Higher framerate), if it's still slow then as a last resort enable pixeldoubling in the same menu.
20th August 2001, 19:36
Thanks man, but still it lags at 640x480...
20th August 2001, 19:42
lol, 640x480 and above are only used for the fastest presets around, check the speed on geiss, it aint that fast, about 18-20 fps.
For now go to fullscreen & you should find another *higher framerate*, but it's just not fast enough for sizes that big. ;)
20th August 2001, 21:12
Here's some stuff you can do to maximize your fps.
I'm running an Athlon 850, and was also dissapointed at first, but here are some quick tricks to get the most. I'm currently running AVS in fullscreen at 320x240 at 32bpp's, I get around 25-35 fps for most presets. I also re-installed windows and scrapped a bunch of useless background utilities.
If you uncheck wait for retrace it'll speed it up some, but not significantly.
I'm thinking that if you run it fullscreen in 400x300 32bpp with wait for retrace unchecked and nothing running in the bakground, you should be able to get aroud 25fps.
Let me know, cause I'm interested in how much better I could get Avs to run with an athlon 1.4ghz chip.
Also, it's been said many times before, but AVS uses only your processor, nothing else really makes a difference in it's performance.
21st August 2001, 01:53
In 1-2 years the 3ghz processors and boards will be around so until then I suggest putting up with the put-put-ing. after all, many of these presets are truly beautiful in their complexity thanks to the visual artists who create them, and beauty has a price. But some are great for the simplicity and will run smoothly until the processor speeds double once more.
21st August 2001, 04:34
Haven't you heard?
I read in the paper IBM announced it's plans to have a 200GHZ processor into mass production for late 2002 to mid 2003.. This is diretly related to recent discoveries in the field of miniaturized semi-=conductors. They have learned to make "nano-tubes" transistors so small they will allow incredible amounts of power!
I think they might just skip the 3ghz!
look forward to it, think of what AVS will become then!
21st August 2001, 20:07
I think I saw the same article implying 210Ghz transistors making up a 100Ghz processor to be used for "communications". Generally speaking the higher end communications technology is way past PCs in speed due to multiple processors and faster processors- like 10Ghz servers even a year ago. Obviously the 100Gig barrier will eventually be broken on the home computer level but long after the processors have been used in the professional satellite and telecommunications sectors. I'll upgrade from my medium PIII to a P5 when they hit 3Ghz, and then sit on that until the IBM (or other co.) super CPUs are ready for a standard tower.
21st August 2001, 20:57
Yep, same article basically, although your differentiation between desktop and communications applications makes sense and puts a bit of a damper on my parade :(
My knowledge of the difference between "communications" chips and the home computer processors is next to nil.
However, with transistors being one of the main limiting factors with desktop processors as well, I can see this leading to some very powerfull improvements for us as well.
Besides, I ain't nothing but a dreamer..
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.