NVIDIA driver slowdowns - Page 3

Andy0687 · #31 11-24-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerami

Shame. I'll try to get my fraps codec problem fixed

The problem is fraps is not recording in any particular codec, use virtualdub to convert the large fraps video into an avi and then upload to youtube.

Crono · #32 11-24-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy0687

The problem is fraps is not recording in any particular codec, use virtualdub to convert the large fraps video into an avi and then upload to youtube.

Thanks.

Here it is at 1280 x 1024 (91.47 I believe): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOmuGXQpXpA

(dont think it's working again -_-)

Andy0687 · #33 11-24-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerami

Thanks.

Here it is at 1280 x 1024 (91.47 I believe): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOmuGXQpXpA

(dont think it's working again -_-)

Worked fine :P Glad to see you got it.

Crono · #34 11-24-2006, 09:14 PM

that isn't even it, i think i used the wrong compression -.- what do you recommend i use for virtual dub?

spydrct02 · #35 11-24-2006, 11:30 PM

Weird, I don't see the outside world on your video. At first I thought it was a huge load time.

Yeah, Fraps outputs video as uncompressed. I sometimes mistake decompressors as a codec when I see it in a codec list, so my mistake if I said anything about a Fraps codec (I'm pretty sure I did).

I recommend using DivX as a codec in VirtualDub. I'd leave the bitrate as default within the DivX configuration, mostly because YouTube doesn't convert the videos to very high quality anyway. If you recorded audio, you'll probably want to disable audio encoding within VirtualDub, unless the audio is something you want in there, in which you'd want to compress as well.

Crono · #36 11-25-2006, 12:29 PM

Ok I'll try the DivX compression in VirtualDub. The compression thing messed up the video.

This should work now:

1280 x 1024: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS29mOFNkow

Note to everyone: Fraps will still make your load times SLIGHTLY HIGHER. So keep that in mind :|

Spyder i looked at your "old driver" video and it's almost identical to mine and I was using 91.47. :P

spydrct02 · #37 11-25-2006, 03:11 PM

It worked fine this time. Hey, Fraps doesn't make my load times on Graal any noticeably different, but that's likely because I set it to record at half resolution. The results you see in my videos are exactly what I see - if I were to record with a real life camera, it'd be no different.

Yeah, you're definitely having the level loading problem too. With ForceWare 66.00, my load times are actually shorter (about twice) than yours, but if I use the same drivers, I get around twice as long. I can only imagine if you could use old drivers.

I read on some Linux forums that the oldest NVIDIA cards give the fastest 2D speed; maybe (probably) because they had older drivers with it? Strange, though, using older ForceWare benefits in the game, but doesn't in regular Windows' tasks (scrolling in windows like Firefox or Explorer mostly). Ah, right, because the game is using the video card, and Windows isn't.

Do you have another (but older) NVIDIA card around you could test with the newer and older (ForceWare 70 and below) drivers? Actually, everyone with the 6 series cards that's had their say here is capable of both testing the older drivers, and making a screen recording of it. Whether they'd know how might be a different story, though.

Crono · #38 11-25-2006, 08:53 PM

Ah. Ok I have it too. Stefan, help us.

Questa · #39 11-25-2006, 10:44 PM

Haha Graal still runs ok on my old Pentium II 350mhz, 128mb RAM with a slightly newer GeForce 2 MX card in it.

spydrct02 · #40 11-27-2006, 07:31 PM

About a year ago, I was running around an overworld with someone, and I noticed he was pulling away from (outrunning) me. I asked him, "new computer?" "No, this is my first computer ever, from like 10+ years ago."

That's about when I knew something was wrong. Not only was my processor 10+ times faster (numerically) than his, but so was everything else. That's something I wouldn't accept, so I tried:

- video overclocking (result: no performance gain)
- video underclocking (result: no performance loss)
- running with no services (sysinternals' site has an article of how to do this) with about 3 processes running (result: no performance gain)
- disabling video hardware accelerations gave INSTANT level changes--so fast that the only limit was how fast I could run back and forth between them. Using no hardware acceleration wasn't ideal, because as soon as you see a light in the level, you're moving 75-90% slower.
- old video drivers, since the newest ones are almost always bug fixes and more bulk that I have no use for.

I was surprised the drivers gave different performance, because I always thought Graal used the processor for drawing everything but the lights; and lights never slowed me down, so I always thought the video card wasn't the problem.

Draenin · #41 11-27-2006, 07:47 PM

Check your video settings like Antialiasing and Anisotropic Filtering and so on to make sure that's not slowing it. Also, check to make sure vsynch is off. Your card is clocked rather high to begin with, so you may want to take that down a bit. My current card has issues with resources sometimes when I have it clocked at default (500 MHz core and mem) so that might be something influencing it. There's a possibility that your card was clocked so high by default that it's overworking itself.

spydrct02 · #42 11-27-2006, 09:59 PM

I've underclocked it in the past to something like 50/100 from 350/500 (core/memory (both 2D and 3D)); Like in my last post, underclocking it to that extreme didn't even affect performance and still gave the same level load time. Vertical sync is not on, nor Antialiasing and Anisotropic Filtering. Even with them on, it doesn't reduce performance any. In 3D games that are graphically intensive (lack of a better term), yes, they do affect performance, and that's normal in any card.

ReBorn_Spirit · #43 12-02-2006, 11:01 AM

I would like to say something about the original comment. About "newer" drivers, really...

Is it newer then your video card?
Did you even read in breif what that newer driver does compared to the old one?

My thing about Video drivers is rather simple actually
I have a GeForce 5700LE (AGP 8X)
which basically means, I can use the NVIDIA driver version 7*.** and it would make absolutely no difference in comparison to a 9*.** driver.

But yes, The newer NVIDIA drivers are actually slower, too many instructions and extra things to go through first is all.

**In English, Don't fix what is not broken.

spydrct02 · #44 12-02-2006, 11:09 PM

So you're trying to say it does or doesn't make a performance difference on your system? You've said both.

The newer drivers have bug fixes for various games, new Antialiasing modes, and better image quality. I get higher FPS in 3D games with the newer drivers than the older ones (with all visual settings set the same).

I don't believe in your "don't fix what is not broken" quote, by the way. We would all have 50 MHz computers if everybody lived by that.

Crono · #45 12-03-2006, 01:31 AM

Newer drivers = should work well with Graal. I wish we could test this on G3D and see if the problem still shows up =[ (by that I mean comparing FPS or somehting)