Best FRAPS performance tips AFAIK

_KaszpiR_

_KaszpiR_

#21
#21
Disabling preferch and Superfetch is actually not a good idea and leads to the general performance decrease. You can disable it only if you got really low memory on the system, like 2GB. But then why you ever installed Windows 7 on that system ;)

Secodnly - disabling pagefile/swap is really NOT a good idea. When your system lacks the memory it will drop important data to the pagefile. When you disable it then Windows (well, actually any system) will try to save itself from resource locking and will just kill the application to spare some memory.

Also some games just require swap/pagefile to exist - for example most of Unreal Engine based games, and they can misbehave without it.

My suggestion - get more ram - if possible always fill the machine to the max of available ram - ram is cheap nowdays. If you cannot afford it then get at least 6 or 8 GB - it is enough for most demanding games and system will not have to hit the swap.
Then you can think about upgrading your HDD, and for FRAPS it's even better to get to smaller disks and put them in RAID0 or Windows Dynamic Disks and making RAID0 from it and dedicate it just for not so critical data like FRAPS and temp files.

You can disable Prefetch and Superfetch only on SSD disks whicha re so blazing fast that there is no point in using those technologies. Swap file also could be disabled but only on that disk to save up free space - so it should be moved to the normal HDD.
 
ciarlo2006

ciarlo2006

Well-Known Member
Site Contributor
#22
#22
Because it's fine for me does not mean it is for everybody else, I understand this as much as everyone else.

The whole purpose of superfetch and prefetch is to hold files in the memory so they load up faster first time as far as I am aware. Unless you have a really slow computer, then there is no need to use this. It's just using up memory for programs that may never be used.

It's been a good long while since I looked up pagefiling. What you say is true, but how often will someone hit 4GB when playing a game and having 70 or so processes in the background? Unless they have 10x100 frame animations in photoshop, I don't see the downside, apart from certain games not working, which I have yet to see.

If you all think these are bad suggestions then I'll remove my post, but for me personally they work a charm.
 
_KaszpiR_

_KaszpiR_

#23
#23
You don't have to delete your post, I just wanted to point out that there are things that doesn't have to be exectuted 'becasuse other says so'. Of course one thing may work for ones, but for others it will result in worse performance - everyone shoudl experiment with their setup.

'Superfetch is just using up memory' is actually a good thing because it tries to optimize memory usage, but then the preloaded application data is in cache state, that can be immediately dropped when other application requires more memory. Netherless just buying more memory is the most valuable option on long run than executing some system tweaks to 'free up memory'.

http://www.osnews.com/story/21471/SuperFetch_How_it_Works_Myths - here is a good explanation about it.

Current 99% of the games are 32bit applications, that makes them able to eat up to 3 GB of memory if possible. Frankly speaking most games are developed also to run on consoles, thus they ususally sport in conservative methods of using memory. Usually games eat up to 2GB max.

Of course there are mods that often provide better textures and so on and then it is suggested to run them on 64bit verison if available. The they can really hog up memory if they can ;)

Some applications like Photoshop are designed to use scratchdisks to levereage memory usage.

In general I suggest keeping system to the default settings, maybe except disabling some multimedia options. The guys that make operating systems really got experience and knowledge of how stuff works.


Modern operating systems better utilize current hardware, although they tend to actually be more complicated an use more resources in general.
More ram + modern OS = less disk utilization especially in random operations, turning it to more sequential operations. Same as getting disk with SATA2 + NCQ gives HUGE performance boost on current systems.
Remeber that Windows XP is really old operating system designed with penitum4 + 512ram and IDE disks on the go. With new hardware like dual cores, 2GB Ram and SATAII disks with NCQ Windows 7 is really a better option, especially because its much better memory usage than XP.
 
raffriff

raffriff

Moderator
Staff member
Site Contributor
#24
#24
I personally feel the pagefile is needed. More->here. No informed opinion on superfetch.

_KaszpiR_ said:
Then you can think about upgrading your HDD, and for FRAPS it's even better to get to smaller disks and put them in RAID0 or Windows Dynamic Disks.
Click to expand...
While I agree in principle, I think you yourself have spoken a bit about the difficulty of setting up RAID. I wouldn't recommend it for 99% of users. What we need here on this forum is a guide for RAIDing from a Fraps perspective (hint, hint).
 
_KaszpiR_

_KaszpiR_

#25
#25
Raid is actually not so hard to set up, it just depends on the hardware nad the available tools. Some solutions are just easier. I can provide two howtos - for Intel based chontrollers and creating stripe set under windows using windows dynamic volumes.
But that will come rather at the beginning of the July - I got some important things to do till the end of June.
 
ciarlo2006

ciarlo2006

Well-Known Member
Site Contributor
#26
#26
You don't have to delete your post, I just wanted to point out that there are things that doesn't have to be exectuted 'becasuse other says so'. Of course one thing may work for ones, but for others it will result in worse performance - everyone shoudl experiment with their setup.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right and I have tried to hammer this in to peoples heads for years now, hence my signature.

I personally feel the pagefile is needed. More->here.
Click to expand...
Pagefiling is very controversial. I would like to go on and on about it but I don't want to hijack this useful thread.

:D
 
N

NauticalNonsense

#27
#27
@raffriff only respond unless you think you have a better solution

AMD FX-4100 4.4ghz OC'd
EVGA 9800gt 1gb hdmi (dont judge... it was $40 dollars)
4gb ddr3 1333mhz ram
msi 760gm fx
250 gb boot drive
1.5tb seagate barracuda (recording)

are these good specs for recording games from 2007-2010 on medium/high settings 2x aa 8x af

for all my game i will be recording at 45 to 60fps and rendering out to 30fps at 1280x720p with sony vegas pro 11

YouTube channel is NauticalNonsense hopping to start uploading around spring to summer time. WISH ME LUCK!!:D...

And my graphics card will be soon upgraded to an EVGA GTX 660 (non Ti) around winter
 
N

NauticalNonsense

#31
#31
Shukaku said:
AMD processors are pretty lousy for recording, recommend Intel. 4GB is low as well, 8GB is recommended. Also, what is this:
Click to expand...
and by the way i do have an intel processer intel core 2 quad 2.66 ghz, but the problem is that i cant find a good gaming socket 775 motherboard that can support ddr3 ram

but i dont think using an intel core 2 quad is reconmended for recording purposes
 
ciarlo2006

ciarlo2006

Well-Known Member
Site Contributor
#32
#32
NauticalNonsense said:
and by the way i do have an intel processer intel core 2 quad 2.66 ghz, but the problem is that i cant find a good gaming socket 775 motherboard that can support ddr3 ram

but i dont think using an intel core 2 quad is reconmended for recording purposes
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it's a q9450. I have that CPU and use the Foxconn Blackops board.

And it works perfectly fine for recording.
 
Thalmor Wizard

Thalmor Wizard

Moderator
Staff member
Site Contributor
#36
#36
NauticalNonsense said:
im switching to an 8350... fuck intel

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
Click to expand...
AMD Processors, like we have already said in this thread, are lousy at recording. Even the most powerful AMD processor is useless. We've seen so many reports of lagging videos and every one of them were computers using AMD based processors. Intel are superior in all aspects for recording footage.

As to your other question, you could have loads of good parts, but if the processor is not up to the task then everything else is useless. If your not going to listen to our advice by ignoring our recommendations to go for a processor we know is better for recording and go for a processor that we know isn't up to the task of recording for long periods of time and will cause issues, then we can't assist you any longer.

Also, let's compare all of those statistics in that video to find the overall winner:
* Crysis 2 @ 1080p with AMD: 25fps. Same game @ 1080p on Intel: 30-40fps.
* Crysis 2 @ 1440p with AMD: 20fps. Same game @ 1440p on Intel: 23fps.
Result: Intel beats AMD

* Crysis Warhead @ 1080p with AMD: 35fps. Same game @ 1080p on Intel: 2 of the processors had 26fps, but the other had 38fps.
Result: Intel beats AMD but very marginally.

* Using XSplit:
** Crysis Warhead @ 1080p with AMD: 26fps. Same game @ 1080p on Intel: 37fps.
** Crysis Warhead @ 1600x900 with AMD: 39fps. Same game @ same res on Intel: 36fps
** Crysis Warhead @ 720p with AMD: 48fps. Same game @ 720p on Intel: 42fps
Result: AMD only beats Intel @ 720p streaming to XSplit. Intel beats @ 1080p. No outcome @ 1600x900 resolution. Overall, the Intel does better here with the higher resolutions.

* Black Mesa Source @ 1440p with AMD: 188fps. Same game @ 1440p on Intel: 121fps
* Black Mesa Source @ 1080p with AMD: 262fps. Same game @ 1080p on Intel: 196fps
Result: AMD beats Intel (I have a feeling the quality settings were set slightly differently here. The FPS difference is far too big)

* Metro 2033 @ 1440p with AMD: 20fps. Same game @ 1440p on Intel: 12fps
* Metro 2033 @ 1080p with AMD: 36fps. Same game @ 1080p on Intel: 25fps
Result: AMD beats Intel but very marginally.

* Trine 2 @ 1440p with AMD: 36fps. Same game @ 1440p on Intel: 27fps
* Trine 2 @ 1080p with AMD: 58fps. Same game @ 1080p on Intel: 40fps
Result: AMD beats Intel but not a great margin.

Overall Result: AMD seems to do better on games in which there's less graphics to render. Intel excels mainly in streaming and graphic intensive games. Number of cores in a processor doesn't mean much if all of the cores are made of a weak material and underclocked massively.

Our Recommendation: Intel processors will do better in just about every game and AMD processors tend to lag far behind in quite a lot of games. AMD processors are only good for when your trying to play and record a game that the Intel can't do so well in, which is very few.
 
raffriff

raffriff

Moderator
Staff member
Site Contributor
#37
#37
This article on TechReport talks about the problem with AMD processors. It seems that most AMD processors have more 'lagging' frames (frames that take longer to render than they should) than comparable Intels, even at the same average frame rate.


EDIT ...and as I said here, those occasional "late" frames cause further cascading delays, especially when capturing video, I think. If you are capturing at 60 fps (frametime = 1/60 second or 16.7 ms) any frame that takes longer to be rendered - and written to disk - than 16.7 ms has "missed the bus," and must wait for the next 1/60 second time slot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top