On Thursday 17 May 2001 20:35, Peter Surda wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:00:52PM -0400, safemode wrote:
> > > And you STILL refuse to accept that its your cpu thats too slow?
> >
> > i'm inclined to agree. i'm running a tuned up athlon K7-2 (athlon
> > stepping 2) @850 and a V3 2000 agp. no need to do -20 if your other apps
> > aren't using cpu when you run it. And you shouldn't because -20 will
> > still take a performance hit. -20 sometimes is worse performance wise
> > for threaded apps than just 0. I did quite a few runs on different
> > movies so it wouldn't be able to cache stuff and i find 0 to be the best
> > overall score.
>
> Lemme guess, you tried running aviplay at -20 and X at 0?
> According to my experience, renicing X alone yields better results, if you
> renice both aviplay and X everything is (almost) perfect.
Actually the cvs of X runs itself at a sub 0 value by default. This is not a
debian specific thing, it runs S<L
I tried benchmark at -20, -5, -1, 0, 20 I found that with almost no cpu
usage ( i still had konqueror open and kmail and freeamp and numerous Eterms,
and gtk apps; they all dont use any cpu when not actually rendering or doing
something active) 0 and 20 give you about the same numbers. 0 of course is
your most optimal here. As for being perfect, it's not like i'm dropping
frames on any movie at any size ( noting size doesn't matter here since no
more cpu is used if it's at 1x or fullscreen), it's that it is being
efficient.
I'd like to use the benchmark program to figure out where aviplay
development can focus it's work on to increase efficiency by lessening sync
time and such and the amount of cpu used for actual decompression. To
really do that though you'd have to test it on different systems using the
same clips and look at the general info, the wide range of systems should
cancel out the extremeties and give you some real program performance data.
I think 2 clips should be sufficient unless data shows it to be unnecessary.
one with a simple animation and another extremely complex. I think we all
agree that the format should probably be in div3 and maybe asf since those
are the most common media used with avifile. You really cant get as much of
a performance increase as one would like though because the codecs are closed
and that's that. As far as i can tell, the cvs is doing a good job compared
to the stable version and hi fives to everyone in development. aviplay beats
MS Media player easily in avi playback and seeking, i mean obviously. Not
sure if it'll ever be possible to do the hardware filtering mediaplayer does
to make edges less jagged, some kind of blurring, but that's fine.
> Bye,
>
> Peter Surda (Shurdeek) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ICQ 10236103, +436505122023
--------------------
_______________________________________________
Avifile mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://prak.org/mailman/listinfo/avifile
