Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Is this normal? (Does my PC suck this badly!?)

Author
Message
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 6th Sep 2009 21:25 Edited at: 6th Sep 2009 21:26
Link
So, my desktop computer is really worrying me now...

Specs:


Yeah, the computer is really sucky, and the video card is really old. I know that.

But let's say I run this simple code in DBPro or even a DarkGDK version of it..



Surprisingly, I only get a maximum of 110 FPS. What worries me, is that if I'm to develop an actual game, how could it possibly survive if each aspect is to decrease the FPS another step? Let's say I add a terrain. The FPS could drop by half as much. What if I added shaders? A full game with shaders made in DarkBasic on my computer probably wouldn't even be playable.

I don't remember my framerate ever being this bad while nothing is even running except a single text command and basic synchronization.

So is my video card really that bad? Or is there something else I can do to improve this frame rate?


Thanks for all help, and if the conclusion comes that my computer really is that old and there's nothing I can do about it except buy a new one... then I'll have to start saving up

-Xeno

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 6th Sep 2009 21:51
Link
The CPU isn't brilliant, but the graphics card is very weak. What sockets does your motherboard have?

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 6th Sep 2009 22:21
Link
Here's an article outlining stuff about my motherboard...

Linky

In this article and on the manual for the motherboard itself, it says "Support AMD Socket 754 Sempron, Athlon 64 processors".


Hope that helps.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 6th Sep 2009 22:23 Edited at: 6th Sep 2009 22:25
Link
Hmm, you're pretty much stuck with that graphics card because AGP cards of any power are like gold dust.

Edit: I misread the article. You can upgrade to any PCI-E card, meaning the whole lot is open to you. I'd advise a 9500 or 9600 because they seem to be best value for monies.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
mike5424
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2009
Location:
Posted: 6th Sep 2009 22:32
Link
your computer is way better than my laptop but, suprisingly, i get around 20 - 50 fps more!

dark basic keywords: http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=156401&b=1
my models and textures: http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=156401&b=1
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 6th Sep 2009 23:15
Link
110 seems suspiciously low. My old dinosaur with an FX 5200 would run an empty loop at about 250 - and it was a much slower processor. I'd say something else is slowing it up.

I'll post back when I've run your code on the dinosaur.

Just a thought. Does screen resolution affect things?
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Venge
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2006
Location: Iowa
Posted: 6th Sep 2009 23:28
Link
Are you running Vista?

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
Back to top
Profile PM
lil marioman
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Apr 2008
Location: Canada
Posted: 6th Sep 2009 23:43
Link
My Specs:

Celeron D 356 3.3ghz Single Core Processor
1.4gb of DDR RAM
XP Pro SP2
ATI Radeon Xpress 200

When it first run, it was at about 150 fps, then stabilized at about 145 fps. And I'm running Virtual PC (taking up 256mb of my RAM) + Downloading something.

I'm saving up to get a new computer too.
--

Anyways, I don't think it's the video card. It's a simple text application - not demanding on the GPU at all.

I honestly don't know what the root of the problem is, but I choose to rule out the GPU.

--

Programming? Not my Forte. But THAT is!
-insert picture of a KIA Forte here-
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 7th Sep 2009 00:04
Link
Venge,
I have written in the first post in specs that I have XP Pro SP3

Green Gandolf,
I do remember it being higher before... much higher... so yeah, I think it might be something else too.
And yes, screen resolution affects things.
Here's a list of average framerates I get running the empty loop in different resolutions in full screen mode...



NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret,
There seems to be a lot of debate on Nvidia video cards. I always see people arguing about similar cards and why the other one is better. I'll have to do more research into it before I make any purchase decision. Plus, it seems like they come out with new video cards like every week, so I'm gonna see what's up with that.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 7th Sep 2009 00:04
Link
Strange. The text just over-writes itself when I run the snippet. How are you all seeing the text? I had to change it to this:



I get 205 on my laptop when running at 640x480x32 and 128 when at full desktop resolution 1280x800x32 - will test the dinosaur later.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 7th Sep 2009 00:08
Link
Green Gandolf,
Sorry, I forgot to include the CLS. I actually have it there.
I'll wait for your results on the dinosaur, hehe.

lil marioman,
Why would you say that it's not using the GPU? I think when you turn synchronization on, it's already using the GPU.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 7th Sep 2009 00:09
Link
Quote: "I'll wait for your results on the dinosaur, hehe."


Don't hold your breath - I'm watching a film at the moment.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 7th Sep 2009 00:16
Link
No problem. I have a few hours until I need sleep again.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 7th Sep 2009 07:26
Link
Drawing nothing isn't a very good benchmark for your graphics card. There's a huge difference between updating buffers and actually drawing vertices. Try a more tangible test.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
z_man
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posted: 7th Sep 2009 09:13 Edited at: 7th Sep 2009 09:13
Link
The text command isn't known to be very fast either. Even so, that's still an unusually low frame rate. Are you sure no processes are eating up your comp's resources?

Back to top
Profile PM
Rudolpho
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Dec 2005
Location: Sweden
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 00:08 Edited at: 8th Sep 2009 00:08
Link
It doesn't run much faster for me; it's (almost) all due to the graphics card on my end however. I keep on meaning to update it, but something always gets in the way

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 00:12 Edited at: 8th Sep 2009 00:13
Link
Here's a more meaningful test, it's the CPU/GPU benchmark test that was made a bit ago.
This test is at 1024x768x32.


Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
thenerd
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2009
Location: Boston, USA
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 00:26
Link
i have the same system specs, and i get 600 fps...


forever loading...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 00:44
Link
That's crazy!

Could you list all your specs (processor, gpu, ram, Operating system) and also the resolution you are running at to get that 600fps?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
thenerd
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2009
Location: Boston, USA
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 00:55 Edited at: 8th Sep 2009 00:57
Link
Ok, here they are, according to steam:

-GenuineIntel 2793 Mhz processor
-Windows XP (32 bit)
-NVIDIA GeForce 6200
-Integrated RAM: 256 Mb
-2 GB PCI RAM
-Primary Display Resolution: 1680 x 1050 x 32


forever loading...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 01:24
Link
Well your processor is about a whole Gigahertz faster than mine, so I'm guessing that make's all the difference...

What do you get in this benchmark test, running it at 1024x768x32?
Forum Thread

If you can post up a pic of your results for that resolution I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
thenerd
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2009
Location: Boston, USA
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 02:32 Edited at: 8th Sep 2009 02:37
Link
here they are.
odd results. more objects than you at a higher fps, but fewer at the lowest (15 fps). maybe you had more because of your native desktop res. what is yours?

I said "same specs" when i saw you had the same video card.


forever loading...

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 03:58
Link
Thanks for posting the screenshot.

The results are odd indeed... at 30 FPS we have it about the same, but ith 60 fps and 15 fps, we have opposite results.

My current desktop resolution is at 1280x1024x32
How about you?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Omega gamer 89
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 07:43
Link
I get around 750 FPS running that code in the first post. Im gonna take a look at that benchmark test.

I have a devious mind.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
dark coder
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 10:38
Link
Quote: "Drawing nothing isn't a very good benchmark for your graphics card. There's a huge difference between updating buffers and actually drawing vertices. Try a more tangible test."


Read this people. All you're benchmarking here is your GPU bus' transfer speed from the GPU, you may as well be testing the rate your printer depletes ink when printing black pages for what this is worth.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 13:24
Link
Benjamin and Dark Coder

Any constructive suggestions?
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 16:12
Link
Yes, upgrade your printer drivers to see a boost in spooling speed which will in turn increase the vertex fill rate of the transharmonic shield buffers.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 16:17
Link
Actually, as the printer drivers may inadvertantly use CPU power, modifying them might actually increase system speed, especially if the printer drivers are those obscene 330Mb HP DeskJet drivers.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Omega gamer 89
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 17:11 Edited at: 8th Sep 2009 17:11
Link
WOW.



I have a devious mind.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 20:31
Link
On the original code (plus a CLS so I could see the number!), I get ~240 FPS.

I have a weaker graphics card (the same as yours but without the 'TurboCache', a weaker CPU (1.67 GHz) and less RAM (1.5 GB)

I have the same OS, but SP2 instead of SP3.
My screen resolution is 1152x864.


There are two things to note:
- DBPro 'text' commands are SLOW.
- The FPS is not linearly related to the time taken to draw each frame. (The change from 1000 FPS to 200 FPS is 4 milliseconds, the change from 1000 FPS to 40 FPS is 24 milliseconds, six times the render time!)


New DBPro IDE + integrated debugger!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
thenerd
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2009
Location: Boston, USA
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 21:42
Link
Quote: "My current desktop resolution is at 1280x1024x32
How about you?"


1680 x 1050 x 32.


forever loading...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Xenocythe
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2005
Location: You Essay.
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 22:20
Link
Quote: "Read this people. All you're benchmarking here is your GPU bus' transfer speed from the GPU, you may as well be testing the rate your printer depletes ink when printing black pages for what this is worth."


I have no knowledge in this stuff. I've never researched it, learned about it, etc. That's why I posted this thread. If you know something that could be of any help, or answer my questions, then please share. Tell me which tests to run if you believe that even the CPU/GPU test I posted a picture of is useless.


Omega Gamer,
You have a much better graphics card and CPU. That's probably why you're results are so much better than mine.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
thenerd
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2009
Location: Boston, USA
Posted: 8th Sep 2009 22:37 Edited at: 8th Sep 2009 22:39
Link
the test is not useless. I don't know what to say, though. maybe your comp is just getting old.

Quote: "Drawing nothing isn't a very good benchmark for your graphics card. There's a huge difference between updating buffers and actually drawing vertices. Try a more tangible test."


he was talking about the other test, with nothing being drawn except the fps.

Quote: "Read this people. All you're benchmarking here is your GPU bus' transfer speed from the GPU, you may as well be testing the rate your printer depletes ink when printing black pages for what this is worth."


Dark Coder was also talking about the other test (or i think), because what matters is the speed of drawing vertices. which is exactley what the test is looking at.


forever loading...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Outscape
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd May 2008
Location:
Posted: 6th Dec 2009 13:57 Edited at: 6th Dec 2009 21:46
Link
in XP in the task manager you can run programs with a higher priority and sometimes double FPS
=)

oh and Xenocythe

my laptop in my game has 10fps, whereas my pc has 40+

but my laptop plays as smoothly as my pc (only difference is that the water shader doesnt work with this gcard)
i guess its because i made it on my laptop and i programed the timer movement ideal for this fps, meaning you cant realy lagg that bad lol



Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Aaagreen
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2007
Location: City 17
Posted: 6th Dec 2009 20:52
Link
Meh.

Jeku always gets drunk and tries to Moderate the ocean. Tirelessly slapping the waves as they roll in.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mistrel
Retired Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2005
Location:
Posted: 6th Dec 2009 21:20 Edited at: 6th Dec 2009 21:21
Link
I get about 600-650 fps on my laptop running your example in the first post. It's a 1.4Ghz Core 2 Solo (one core) with an Intel GMA X4500M HD.

My processor is slower (ghz-wise) than yours and I'm using a pretty lame onboard video card. So either your computer really is that slow or it's something else.

I think it's your CPU, personally. The video card is a budget card but it's not that bad.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Darth Vader
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th May 2005
Location: Adelaide SA, I am the only DB user here!
Posted: 6th Dec 2009 23:46
Link
Well running your code I get about 7220 FPS....

I think it's either your CPU or RAM.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-25 10:25:48
Your offset time is: 2025-05-25 10:25:48