Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Old Computer vs. New Computer FPS


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
15 replies to this topic

#1 Viscous-Flow   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2001 - 11:04 AM

Hello, I have am drawing one simple textured quad on a not that old computer and a new computer and they get absolutely different FPS, more than 500 off. For the somewhat old system here are the specs: 16mb TNT2 VANTA AGP 256mb ram 733mhz I get about 80fps for this computer For the new computer I get about 600fps, system specs: 32mb Radeon VE 256mb ram 1.4ghz Is there any reason why the two systems would have that much of a difference when drawing just ONE textured cube? Thanks!

Sponsor:

#2 Krunk   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2001 - 11:11 AM

Maybe the old system had "vsync" on. That would lock the frame rate to the refresh rate of the monitor, and 80Hz sounds like a likely vertical refresh rate to me...

#3 Viscous-Flow   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2001 - 11:15 AM

It isn''t that because I made sure they both had it off.

#4 MirekCz   Members   -  Reputation: 132

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2001 - 11:16 AM

the other possibility is that you use a quite high screen mode (1024x768x32bpp) and this kills off vanta''s fillrate immediately. try testing in low res like 640x480x16 and vanta should reach much better results.

With best regards,
Mirek Czerwiñski
http://kris.top.pl/~kherin/

#5 Viscous-Flow   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2001 - 11:30 AM

I do get better results, but I was running it in 800x600. In 640x480 I get about another 20fps on the old one but well over 100 more on the new one.

EDIT: Is this normal?

Edited by - Viscous-Flow on November 3, 2001 6:32:28 PM

#6 sigmaent   Members   -  Reputation: 146

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2001 - 12:49 PM

Processors generally do go slower in 640x480.



#7 Maximus   Members   -  Reputation: 124

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2001 - 02:00 PM

quote:
Original post by sigmaent
Processors generally do go slower in 640x480.


Since when? The video RES doesnt affect the CPU at all, just the drivers which fill the video buffer with whats going to be shown on screen, and even then that will fill faster because there are less pixels to draw into it.



#8 Screaming Lunatic   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2001 - 05:06 PM

Do you have the newest drivers for both cards?

Do you have lighing enabled? If so how many lights? Maybe all the lights don''t fit into hardware on the TNT.

It doesn''t seem to be a cpu problem. Since the new system has a processor that is twice as fast but the FPS is much more than twice. But with only one cube that wouldn''t be a problem.

Hmm, I have a TNT2 Ultra and I get about 300 FPS with one textured cube. So you should be getting at least 150-200 FPS.

I don''t know what else to tell ya. I''m just spitting things out from the top of my head.

SL

#9 Viscous-Flow   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2001 - 05:38 PM

I have the newest drivers for both of them. NVidia just released new drivers about a month ago, I think.

There are no lights it is just a simply basic textured quad I am testing out.

Are there any OpenGL settings I could change?

#10 Viscous-Flow   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 November 2001 - 06:00 PM

If I make it so that the texture slowly moves across the screen that framerate drops about 30fps when the texture is right in the middle but gains about 60fps when it is not being displayed, yet it should still be being processed each frame.

Perplexing, isn't it?

[EDIT]: That is on the old computer, the new one barely takes a hit.

Edited by - Viscous-Flow on November 4, 2001 1:02:21 AM

#11 Scarab0   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 04 November 2001 - 12:08 AM

That only confirms MirekCz''s suspicion that it is a fill-rate problem. The Radeon has a lot of fill-rate to spare and won''t buckle under a few pixels more or less. But the Vanta has far less, so it will make a lot of difference whether you draw pixels or not.

Dirk =[Scarab]= Gerrits

#12 Viscous-Flow   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 04 November 2001 - 01:40 PM

Is there any way to combat the fill-rate problem, other than buying a new video card? I mean all I am doing is drawing a single textured quad, how hard can that be on the video card? Can''t the rate at which pixels are drawn to video memory handle one textured quad?

Or, do you think that the 16mb TNT2 Vanta AGP is just to out of date for modern times, and I should get a new 32mb or 64mb GeForce3?

#13 CheeseGrater   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 05 November 2001 - 09:00 AM

How big is the texture you''re using?

#14 MadProgrammer   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 05 November 2001 - 09:15 AM

i had a problem something like this when i started using Directx on my 1.0ghz comp w/ Voodoo 5. I could get over 200 fps in 800x600x8, but only 4 fps at 800x600x16. It really ticked me off for a while, but the some1 told me how to fix it. there was something wierd w/ the anti aliasing on my voodoo, and i had to change some obscure setting to get the framerate to go back up in 16 bit mode. maybe that will help ya some.

the MadProgrammer

#15 mkaltner   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 05 November 2001 - 10:16 AM

You had it right when you said your TNT2 Vanta is out of date. That's my opinion at least. TNT2 is pretty old now, and the Vanta was the budget version of that chipset so I'd say that's your bottleneck... When I upgraded from a Voodoo3 3000 AGP to a Radeon 64 DDR, the difference, on the same hardware, was incredible.

- Mike

Edited by - mkaltner on November 5, 2001 5:17:37 PM

#16 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 07 November 2001 - 06:31 AM

I have A 8 meg Vanta LT. I think it is the bottle Neck in my system. I have a 800 tbird, old proc.

I use opengl, but everyone also has the dx sdk. In the 3d8 sdk sample on billboarding I get around 22 fps. Thats really low but games run fine.

Is this normall for my card?




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS