now it says 40 fps after i updated my drivers!
now it says 40 fps after i updated my drivers!
you have an ATI card so im not sure. for LFS you need to use your GFX card profiler to set it up for the LFS.exe
maybe an ATI user can tell u how.
maybe an ATI user can tell u how.
It's mostly the graphics card. Any decent cpu (>1GHz if AMD, >1.5GHz if intel) can play the game just fine, as long as the graphics card is up to the job.
I can play it just fine, 640x480x16 with most detail settings to low/off, on my laptop which has a 3100+ sempron (s754) but a completely worthless vid card. On my main desktop pc, i have a slower CPU but a rather good graphics card, and i can play at like 10 times the frame rate . so the game is gfx card-bound. Meaning, the graphics card is more important in this game. And, now that i think about it, for most modern games that holds true, too.
I can play it just fine, 640x480x16 with most detail settings to low/off, on my laptop which has a 3100+ sempron (s754) but a completely worthless vid card. On my main desktop pc, i have a slower CPU but a rather good graphics card, and i can play at like 10 times the frame rate . so the game is gfx card-bound. Meaning, the graphics card is more important in this game. And, now that i think about it, for most modern games that holds true, too.
No offense, but you don't have a clue. This game is completely CPU dependent.
The only deciding factor for the GFX card is that it must be able to do HVS, which any card > GF2/GF4MX can do. The card on your laptop probably wasn't able to do HVS, slowing you down big time.
CPU is #1 in all cases but the one when your GFX card is so crappy it cannot even do HVS. Just think about it: this game is all about physics. Physics are calculated by the CPU and have nothing to do with the GFX card. The latter one is responsible for high polygon counts / large textures / complex shaders, neither of them is used in LFS.
An example: Take a 6600GT and a decent CPU and run the LFS benchmark @ 1024x768 without AA/AF. Now run the same benchmark @ 1600x1200 with 8xAA/16xAF. The fps will stay pretty much the same. That means, that your graphics card has a very high power reserve but is held down by something different. And that is the CPU.
Now, HVS is so important because originally the CPU had to process all the vertex data (basically the coordinate info of all polygons, etc.) and let the GFX card do the texturing. With HVS, the graphics card itself processes this data, giving the CPU much more time to do physics.
(PS: HVS stands for Hardware Vertex Shading)
The only deciding factor for the GFX card is that it must be able to do HVS, which any card > GF2/GF4MX can do. The card on your laptop probably wasn't able to do HVS, slowing you down big time.
CPU is #1 in all cases but the one when your GFX card is so crappy it cannot even do HVS. Just think about it: this game is all about physics. Physics are calculated by the CPU and have nothing to do with the GFX card. The latter one is responsible for high polygon counts / large textures / complex shaders, neither of them is used in LFS.
An example: Take a 6600GT and a decent CPU and run the LFS benchmark @ 1024x768 without AA/AF. Now run the same benchmark @ 1600x1200 with 8xAA/16xAF. The fps will stay pretty much the same. That means, that your graphics card has a very high power reserve but is held down by something different. And that is the CPU.
Now, HVS is so important because originally the CPU had to process all the vertex data (basically the coordinate info of all polygons, etc.) and let the GFX card do the texturing. With HVS, the graphics card itself processes this data, giving the CPU much more time to do physics.
(PS: HVS stands for Hardware Vertex Shading)
maybe the game is indeed cpu bound, but that is because the rendering to be done is very very simple. Simpler than other titles out there, at least. That's why even a worthless card like mine (5700LE overclocked to more than double the original frequencies for both core and memory) can cope.
dropping my athlon's (mobile, barton core) core frequency from 2.2GHz to 1.1GHz, LFS dropped my fps from 100 to 85.
a 25% decrease for HALF the processing speed?
85fps at 1.1GHz and you say it is cpu bound?
Well, ok, if you use a 600MHz p3, the game is indeed cpu bound and the fps will drop to... say... 40? still perfectly playable.
At that point (1.1GHz) i turned on 4xAA and 8xAF. the fps from 85 dropped to 40. And at THAT point, turning my athlon back to 2.2GHz restored the fps to 41fps. gee.
So we have:
half the CPU, 100fps->85fps
More graphics, 85fps->40fps
Original CPU, 40fps->41fps
cpu bound... gpu bound...
depends on the setup i guess. By definition anyway, the game runs as fast as the slowest of the two allows (fast gpu slow cpu-> generaly games go fast, but since LFS is simple graphicaly speaking, most gfx cards can go really well.)
and i do take offence, so please go shove a hardware vertex shader pipeline into your preferred body orifice: Hardware Vertex Shaders is most probably not what you wanted to talk about, at this point, considering the rendering engine in LFS gives you the option to not use the programmable vertex pipeline that your graphics card might have. So that is not reason for slowdowns. You are referring to hardware Transform and Lighting, which is indeed the deciding factor for many modern games' performance. If a card doesn't have it, (pre-geforce or lappy vid) then D3D8.1 (don't remember the exact version) uses software for it, which drops the fps a LOT. Some games do not run without it (Homeworld2 comes to mind).
but what do i know. Me haves no clue.
dropping my athlon's (mobile, barton core) core frequency from 2.2GHz to 1.1GHz, LFS dropped my fps from 100 to 85.
a 25% decrease for HALF the processing speed?
85fps at 1.1GHz and you say it is cpu bound?
Well, ok, if you use a 600MHz p3, the game is indeed cpu bound and the fps will drop to... say... 40? still perfectly playable.
At that point (1.1GHz) i turned on 4xAA and 8xAF. the fps from 85 dropped to 40. And at THAT point, turning my athlon back to 2.2GHz restored the fps to 41fps. gee.
So we have:
half the CPU, 100fps->85fps
More graphics, 85fps->40fps
Original CPU, 40fps->41fps
cpu bound... gpu bound...
depends on the setup i guess. By definition anyway, the game runs as fast as the slowest of the two allows (fast gpu slow cpu-> generaly games go fast, but since LFS is simple graphicaly speaking, most gfx cards can go really well.)
and i do take offence, so please go shove a hardware vertex shader pipeline into your preferred body orifice: Hardware Vertex Shaders is most probably not what you wanted to talk about, at this point, considering the rendering engine in LFS gives you the option to not use the programmable vertex pipeline that your graphics card might have. So that is not reason for slowdowns. You are referring to hardware Transform and Lighting, which is indeed the deciding factor for many modern games' performance. If a card doesn't have it, (pre-geforce or lappy vid) then D3D8.1 (don't remember the exact version) uses software for it, which drops the fps a LOT. Some games do not run without it (Homeworld2 comes to mind).
but what do i know. Me haves no clue.
I bet you were alone on the track when you tested this. The point is, you have to run the LFS benchmark to post any "results" regarding GFX/CPU performance. Why? Because for each AI and even in multiplayer for each other racer, you have to do physics calculations too. These are the one that bog down your system, not the physics of your car when you're alone on the track.
Of course your fps dropped from 85 to 40, a 5700LE isn't exactly... good. The GFX card determines how much bells 'n whistles you're able to turn on (read: how high you can go with resolution + AA/AF). And of course if you go too high, it's the GFX card that starts limiting you.
I won't bother discussing this any further before you made the same tests with the LFS benchmark mentioned above. Then you can come back and see how wrong you actually were/are.
E: Also argumenting that HVS is not important because you can turn it off... :doh:
Of course your fps dropped from 85 to 40, a 5700LE isn't exactly... good. The GFX card determines how much bells 'n whistles you're able to turn on (read: how high you can go with resolution + AA/AF). And of course if you go too high, it's the GFX card that starts limiting you.
I won't bother discussing this any further before you made the same tests with the LFS benchmark mentioned above. Then you can come back and see how wrong you actually were/are.
E: Also argumenting that HVS is not important because you can turn it off... :doh:
1
2
Fps?
(31 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG