No announcement yet.

AVS problem (?) with new comps

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AVS problem (?) with new comps

    I got my 2,4 ghz p4 (with 512 mb ddr 333) last week and AVS runs really weird with this. AVS presets tends to run exactly with 32 or 64 fps. For example if the fps is, let's say, 55fps in the very beginning, after a few seconds it jumps to 64fps. I can't get fps any higher that 64 fps no matter how simple & how small screen I have. What is even weirder is that the speed is not so debendful from screen size. For example NemoOrange's Pepsi preset runs with 32fps with 320x240 screen, and when I enlarged the screen to 360x280 it ran with same fps !! I don't think it's the fps counter what is "broken" because it seemed to ran as smoothly as with the smaller screen size. First I thought it was the winamp version what caused it (I was using Wa2.77 then) but when updated to 2.81 & 3 same problem with them.....And yes, I have 'wait for retrace' disabled..

  • #2
    It's the FPS counter which is broken for fast speeds. Over here it snaps at integer divisions of 100 sometimes (25, 33, 50, 99.9).

    Did you bother looking at the presets to see if they actually do suddenly go slower, or are you just one of those FPS freaks?

    Shouldn't be a problem to make a better FPS detector as an APE, but really, who cares?


    • #3
      Come on you gotta be a fps freak.
      "Rules are for the guidance of wisemen and the obedience of fools"

      Visuals - Morphyre


      • #4
        *says the milkdropper*
        "guilt is the cause of more disauders
        than history's most obscene marorders" --E. E. Cummings


        • #5
          I don't care about FPS, I care whether or not a preset looks and moves smoothly. You can make smooth 15FPS presets, or crappy 25FPS presets.


          • #6
            15 FPS presets in relation to what?


            • #7
              FPS isn't relative. What does your question mean raz?

              [Over The Monkey] | [My DeviantArt] | [Seti] | [Atmo Digital Design Forums]


              • #8
                what my question originally meant was on what computer because a 25 fps preset may be 15 on another, when i reread it i realised it didn't make much sense. Never mind.


                • #9
                  Well, yeah, I don't really watch the fps rate to brag with it, but now it's very hard to say is the preset fast or not because the fps counter shows what it shows & every preset works smoootly with this anyway

                  ...ofcourse I still have that 550mhz comp


                  • #10
                    Raz, fps on your computer cant compare with a normal comuter. You can't really talk about slow fps rate because it doesn't exist on your computer(considering the sheer size and slowness of 'glass cubes, it took bill gates to make it a tiny bit fasterhow the hell did you make it).
                    Please read:
                    Caution! Only read this thread if you have the symptims of winampolaria.
                    - Do not read on an empty stomach.
                    - Do not read with any alchoholic substances.
                    - side affects include vomiting, cursing, and torching your computer and watch it melt in a firery death.


                    • #11
                      I have the exact same problem as blazer. It gravitates toward 32 and 64, and NEVER goes above 64. I'm pretty sure it's not just the counter, too. For example, I tried a blank preset with a n=20 superscope running a simple spin, and it actually did run faster on my older computer, as well as reading about 280fps on the old and only 64 on the new. Of course, on more complex presets my new computer does way better than my old. The only time my new computer ever ran above this limit, though, was once when I was fooling with the render thread priority. The odd thing was that it ran this way when it was set on idle. However, after closing Winamp and reopening, the problem was back and fooling with any of the display options didn't help. Of course, I'm not complaining here, but it is an odd glitch that I'd like to fix. Oh, and by the way, this glitch occurs on both Winamp 2.91 and 3.

                      Here are some stats...

                      Old computer:
                      400Mhz Gateway
                      64MB Ram
                      a really old ATI Rage card, I think 2mb video memory
                      a really old Creative sound card, not sure exactly which

                      2.4Ghz Dell
                      512MB Ram
                      ATI Radeon 9700, 128MB video memory
                      Creative Audigy 2

                      Anyone else who has had this problem, please post your computer specs to see if we have anything in common that might be the source of the problem.

                      Thanks in advance.


                      • #12
                        Hmm... could it be an Intel Inside problem?
                        I have an athlon XP +2100 and i don't have such problems.

                        Of course if you use wait for retrace it always tends to sync the fps to the refresh rate of your monitor, but i guess this isn't the issue here.

                        All in all, totally weird, but i expect it to be hardware based and even more it's just your cpu's fault.
                        Texer Resources

                        Im retarded... err i mean retired!
                        Probably both...


                        • #13
                          ...turn of wait for retrace?
                          note that this will cause problems with the oscs going so fast that they get the same sample multiple times; try putting an oscilloscope star in there at >64 fps. you'll see 'echoes'...
                          "guilt is the cause of more disauders
                          than history's most obscene marorders" --E. E. Cummings


                          • #14
                            I always leave Wait For Retrace off, so that's definitely not the problem. But it doesn't really bother me much, so don't worry about it. Though, if you have a solution, please post it.


                            • #15
                              Try this... it measures the time between render() calls, so this is the actual amount of frames being drawn per second.