• Advertisement

Archived

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

Windows XP slower??

This topic is 5737 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Hey there, I wrote a graphics engine that just simply moves some bitmaps around on the screen. It also displays the fps. What I don't understand is on my Pentium 4 1.7GHz 256 RAM running Windows XP the max fps i can get is 37, but on my very low end old school computer running Windows 98, I can get up to 80 fps. Does XP have some sort of built in limit for how much cpu power one program can have??? Also, I am using Direct x 8.1 for both computers. Could the problem be in the XP version of direct x? and how come when I install direct x 8.1 it creates a folder "direct x" in my program files, but there's nothing in it? And also, I know this is kind of off topic, but sometimes when I run internet explorer, if I use the keyboard (to move the page, type in an address, etc.), the web page freezes and I get some error then explorer shuts down. And this will happen every time I try and use the keyboard in Internet Explorer, until I restart my computer. Is this a problem with XP or do I have a virus? I have McAfee virus scan but it can't pick up anything wrong, and I'm getting really annoyed with it. If anybody knows a solution, that'd be great. Thnx He who laughs, lasts [edited by - deadlydog on May 31, 2002 12:53:52 PM] [edited by - deadlydog on May 31, 2002 12:54:57 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Well this is not an answer to any of your questions, but I also got a weird thing going on with my XP and IE. Sometimes I am on the net using IE and it loads up VC and asks to debug a web page or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by deadlydog
Does XP have some sort of built in limit for how much cpu power one program can have???

No.
I hate to say it, but chances are, you are either doing something wrong in your program, or there is something wrong with your XP system (e.g. old video drivers).

Windows XP comes with DirectX 8.1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is an XP fix for this, The ddraw.dll is a sligly older version for the XP than the *.1 of today. Its:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/whistler/Patch/Q306676/WXP/EN-US/Q306676_WXP_SP1_x86_ENU.exe

Hope this helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi.
CoderX, that happens on W95,W98,and ME,not only on XP, and is a feature of Visual Studio, that lets you debug a code when detecting and error.

Relative to, deadlydog, I could say that I don''t use DirectX, I''m from those of openGL but, I have a program called AtomixMP3 (to mix mp3 files), and with the same computer, once I had Windows ME, and the program refresh the screen smoothly and well, but when I installed XP, on the same computer the, the same program run slowly.

It not a great problem for this program, but for other persons could be so. But, in a graphics programm as you said it can be hateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff D, I downloaded and installed the new drivers, but I still have the same results. Anybody else have any ideas??

He who laughs, lasts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turn off vsync. 37 sounds pretty close to half the 75hz refresh limit in XP. if you dont get a refresh tweak app to fix the refresh rate, then you are stuck using a 75hz refresh rate. however it could just be your timing code thats off (i find i hard to believe that even with vsync off on an older pc you would get a draw speed higher then the xp pc with vsync on (well i assume vsync is on and your barly keeping the 75hz rate).

then again your "low end" school pc could have a much better video card then you. dont read from vram (UBER slow), and are you 100% sure its the EXACT same executable that NEVER reads from vram? highly possible you are doing things wrong and the video card in the older pc does not mind since its placing texture data in system ram anyway (ie shared ram instead of onboard vram).

also, the stupid question. did you even bother to see if games ran normally? if they do, then its definatly your code, and yoru doing something wrong.



[edited by - a person on May 31, 2002 2:37:14 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it's also possible that some things that are done with hardware on your 98 machine are software emulated on the windows XP machine. Due to DirectX settings / video card drivers / etc. This could cause it to be slower, though I don't know by how much.

So I guess you want to make sure you have the latest and correct driver for your Video card, and also the latest and greatest DirectX. Also look in your DirectX settings: Start->Run: dxdiag, and check that all acceleration is turned on.

Finally, check the task manager and see if something else is sucking up CPU time.

[edited by - cgoat on May 31, 2002 3:03:29 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Heya - I''m the co-programmer. Just jumping in with a bit more information:

With vsync and all the framerate controls disabled, the program easily exceeds 120 fps on a PII350 with no video RAM - provided that machine is running Win98. On machines running WinXP, it still tops out at 30-40 fps, regardless of the specs of said machines.

What does that sound like?

- Sir Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me with my no nonsense answer:

Windows XP is slower? No duh!

If you start running 3.1 again, do you have any idea how fast your app could run? (Assuning dx worked with 3.1) Processors and programs always run this bablance: As processor power goes up it encourages programs to use more, and as programs require more processing processors keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Sir Bob wrote the graphics engine. I just posted the problem. But we''d still appreciate more input to this problem

He who laughs, lasts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you 110% vsync is COMPLETLY disabled (ie flip uses NOVYSNC and if possible directly disable it in the drivers). also are you sure no other apps are running?

i am assuming you are having this problem with all games considering you are blaming xp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What''s highly suspicious is that the WinXP framerate is so low just from "moving a few bitmaps around." I have WinXP and of course my framerate is very high just from displaying a few polygons, so there''s something wrong with your program or your video card settings. Go to the Control Panel, click Display, and make sure your card settings are not forcing v-sync.

~CGameProgrammer( );

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by a person
are you 110% vsync is COMPLETLY disabled (ie flip uses NOVYSNC and if possible directly disable it in the drivers). also are you sure no other apps are running?

i am assuming you are having this problem with all games considering you are blaming xp.




I got games running slower (or sometimes damn slow) on XP while in 98SE is as smooth as silk.

VSYNC? V-Sync i think is ''emulated'' when DX is in Windowed Mode.

...It should be implementation of graphics driver on XP DX... bcoz I got that damn Intel 3D card with, in which only has ''beta'' driver for 2000/XP. *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by a person
are you 110% vsync is COMPLETLY disabled (ie flip uses NOVYSNC and if possible directly disable it in the drivers). also are you sure no other apps are running?

i am assuming you are having this problem with all games considering you are blaming xp.
Now where did I say I was blaming XP? A teense defensive about our favorite OS, are we?

- Sir Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That''s really odd because on my 1.53 Ghz AMD athlon (just as fast as your actually), with XP and 768MB of ram, I get framerates of around 1000 when I do basic 3d stuff which has to be more complex than moving bitmaps. Perhaps you are blitting from system memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Well, that''s exactly the point - I got my hands on a computer that runs both 98 and XP, and tried it out on both. Same hardware, same drivers, same physical machine, etc., and exactly the same still runs fine on Win98 and chokes on XP.

So my question, really, is what do I have to do differently to run under XP? What''s different about the way XP does what it does with regard to DirectX graphics that necessesitates a change of methodology? ''cause until I know that, the best I can do is to randomly go through the program trying alternate ways of doing various basic tasks until something clicks - and trial-and-error is hell.

- Sir Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement