Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Its_Just_Me

XP Slowdown

Recommended Posts

I''ve read in the forum about OpenGL demos running slower under Windows XP and am experiencing the same problem myself e.g. what runs on my XP system at 60 fps (and thats the maximum framerate I can get at 1024 x 768 fullscreen) runs on an identical spec computer running Windows 98 at 300+ fps. I''ve also read about driver updates that can fix this problem and so I''ve downloaded the lastest drivers from Nvidia (3.0.8.2) for my GeForce 2 and still I have the same slow framerate. Please can someone post a link to drivers to make OpenGL work properly under XP or suggest another way to fix the problem - except to downgrade from XP thanx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right click desktop > Properties > Settings > Advanced > Video Card > Additional Properties > OpenGL Settings > Vsync > Always Off
*Note that some things may be different on your comp, I think you can figure it out.

------------
The Audacious Engine - After briefly disappearing (aka being deleted), Audacious is being rebuilt. Although it''s not ready yet, so don''t you dare go there. I mean it.
MSN: nmaster42@hotmail.com, AIM: LockePick42, ICQ: 74128155
"It''s all part of the conspiracy of conspirators conspiring to conspire their own conspiracies..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanx for your help guys but there''s still something wrong somewhere. I did all the above (disabled V-SYNC and I have the latest Nvidia drivers) and still i can only get 90 fps...even with the simplest OpenGL app of just drawing a white triangle. My PC is an AMD 1600, 256mb & 32MB GeForece 2, and Win XP...my dads has identical specs except for Win 98 instead of XP and the same app on his gets over 300 fps. I just looked through the really old forums and there''s sum posts about OpenGL hardwae support being removed from XP and just to get the latest drivers to solve the problem...which I''ve done, and still the problem! Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Its_Just_Me
Thanx for your help guys but there''s still something wrong somewhere. I did all the above (disabled V-SYNC and I have the latest Nvidia drivers) and still i can only get 90 fps...even with the simplest OpenGL app of just drawing a white triangle. My PC is an AMD 1600, 256mb & 32MB GeForece 2, and Win XP...my dads has identical specs except for Win 98 instead of XP and the same app on his gets over 300 fps. I just looked through the really old forums and there''s sum posts about OpenGL hardwae support being removed from XP and just to get the latest drivers to solve the problem...which I''ve done, and still the problem! Any ideas?


amd 1800++
512 ddr
32 onboard video S3 pro "savage"
Win XP
Framarate : 90 ++ with the same stuff u did...
something is wrong with your motherboard drives like said

Metal Typhoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
How do you calculate your frame rate? If you are using timeGetTime() it behaves different on Win2k (not sure about Xp but I bet it is same on XP). By default I believe the smallest time change it will show is 5ms. Any how, I doubt this is your problem but you might want to check. BTW: use performance counters any how not timeGetTime (for FPS calcs only) for physics mine as well use timeGetTime

Exerpt from windows docs:

Windows NT: The default precision of the timeGetTime function can be five milliseconds or more, depending on the machine. You can use the timeBeginPeriod and timeEndPeriod functions to increase the precision of timeGetTime. If you do so, the minimum difference between successive values returned by timeGetTime can be as large as the minimum period value set using timeBeginPeriod and timeEndPeriod. Use the QueryPerformanceCounter and QueryPerformanceFrequency functions to measure short time intervals at a high resolution,

Windows 95: The default precision of the timeGetTime function is 1 millisecond. In other words, the timeGetTime function can return successive values that differ by just 1 millisecond. This is true no matter what calls have been made to the timeBeginPeriod and timeEndPeriod functions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites