Why asking about this using windows examples ?? This is a Linux-list !
Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "1nsane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:43 PM Subject: [hlds_linux] Boosted Performance VS Nonboosted Performance > 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_linux > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
