I'm fpsboosting and can honestly notice the difference. When boosted gameplay is smoother.
Having said that I can afford the CPU time to boost. If you're restricted on CPU power and want to run loads of servers, then not boosting is probably the only way to achieve that. On 6/10/08, 1nsane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Everyone! > > I've started looking into the effects of the fpsboost on CPU usage/ the FPS > themselves and found a few oddities . > > For example, which would be better? Boosted 66 fps or nonboosted 66 > (fpx_max > 66)? > > Nonboosted running at ~62 +/- fps while using around 2% total CPU or "5.47" > per core on a full server (hoovers around "0.00" most of the time) > http://is1337.net/boostsrcds/nonboosted.PNG > > Boosted running at ~62 +/- fps while using around 47% total CPU or "77.84" > per core on a full server. > http://is1337.net/boostsrcds/boosted_66.PNG > > Also what would the CPU usage difference be between say fps_max 60 and > fps_max 999 when boosted? > 60 boosted: > http://is1337.net/boostsrcds/boosted_60.PNG > 900 boosted: > http://is1337.net/boostsrcds/boosted_fps.PNG > http://is1337.net/boostsrcds/booster_900-p2.PNG > 300 boosted: > http://is1337.net/boostsrcds/boosted_fps.PNG > > No difference... both use up the same amount of CPU to do either 60 fps or > 600+ > > So my question being... Which is better? Seeing that at the same fps_max > level the Total CPU usage can go from 2% to 50% just by running the > boost... > What do you guys think? > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
