After some further research, I found even more shocking news about this. It seems that values can range from 0 to 5, being 5 disabled hardware accel, while 0 is actually enabling full hardware accel. Since I have value 4, it seems I almost have the entire hardware accel disabled :S
What kind of issues did you have and with which games, NeoDragon? Because going from minimum accel settings to full does make quite a difference when it comes to performance. On Sep 27, 11:45 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, the thing is that I haven't been able to change hardware accel > with any gpu vendor, be it intel, nvidia or ati :S It's always > disabled, with the laughable "your driver does not allow changes to > settings" message. > > Unfortunately, I didn't check with previous driver versions to see if > the option was there by default, as I also read, like you said, that > X3100 users don't have that option, as it is set to full accel by > default. > > All 945/965 drivers are WDDM 1.0, and do not allow any changes through > windows control panel :( > > On Sep 27, 11:41 pm, NeoDragon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It hasn't been overlooked at all actually. When I was working on sigma > > 3.0 , I did research the H.A but nothing was indicating it was doing > > anything. > > > Also , while doing this research, I've found out that some opengl > > games required me to put the H.A to disabled giving it a bit more > > power. > > > Oh and also, H.A registry key shouldn't be there ( at least for the > > 965 ) as it is set to Maximum by default ( with latest 1930 drivers ). > > If you use WDDM drivers tho its gonna be there and you can set it > > higher/lower in the Graphic properties of windows. > > > On Sep 27, 6:10 pm, Rogério Queiroga <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > For years that I've known about how changing hardware acceleration was > > > meant only for compatibility measures and general system stability. There > > > were a few games that also ran better (or even ran at all) when the > > > acceleration value was one tick below maximum, which I feel like it's the > > > value we currently have, but mainly games compatibility is affected by > > > sound acceleration. > > > > The value called "Acceleration.Level" is located on the already very > > > known addreg path :) both on > > > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Class\{4D36E968-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0000 > > > and > > > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Class\{4D36E968-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0001 > > > > One thing concerns me though. If there are 5 values and I have value 4, > > > does that mean that value 4 is full accel while 0 being disabled or 4 is > > > one step below maximum? But as far as I'm concerned, the info could be > > > somewhat reliable, with Acceleration.Level”=dword:00000001 being the > > > disabled setting, with 1-5 range. > > > > Well, intel igps are known for their lack of brute pixel pushing > > > horsepower, but still I see my measly GMA950 running more swiftly than > > > many full grown nvidia and ati gpus, which only shows the untapped > > > potential of our hardware. > > > Also, it seems that 1930 driver release is still vista based, though this > > > is just a curiosity. > > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:58:05 -0700 > > > > Subject: [9xxssf] Re: Can this have been overlooked? > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > there is nothing more specific and exact than registry mode, thats one > > > > huge finding!!! > > > > > could you show me pls the way to get to that reg pls? ill give i try > > > > the ranges, by default DXDIAG shows the defual value at maximium, but > > > > thats probably like a legal-safe-stable-office-home-mom uses this > > > > computer-low performance-underated calsification, perhaps although its > > > > "at max" there is someway to make it higher, and surely it will > > > > increase the performance at least 3 or 4 FPS avarage. > > > > > -- > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
