| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mooogie
   |
Posted - 2007.08.04 09:05:00 -
[1]
hi!
simple question.
limited answer range.
I was wondering what computer (and its relevant internal configuration) was used to render and create the famous video "EVE never fades" featuring music by junkie xl.
By render, I mean, actually provide the fps and graphics performance seen in that video.
i ask because I would love to have a graphics card/cpu setup that favors EVE in every aspect possible. I'd like to maybe create a video in a similar fashion.
Thank you for your input.
|
Haffrage
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 09:19:00 -
[2]
At the time every day gaming on medium-high grade computers looked like that, but lately it seems to be getting rougher for various reasons.
-----
Tech 2 Tier 2 Battlecruisers
Eve GUI Tweaks |
Terra Alnilam
Umbra Congregatio
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 10:26:00 -
[3]
Yeah that's what i keep hearing, myself.
So I tried running EVE on Windows 2000 for a small experimentation.
It actually ran faster on win2k  than it would on the same comp with winxp or even windows vista.
Sure, that may be the result of a fresh install of win2k, but i had a fresh install of vista at the time of testing too, and i noticed a marginal improvement over my fragmented, aged, etc install of windows xp.
 Originally by: Gus Preston
my boner just broke my zipper
|
ry ry
StateCorp
The State
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 10:39:00 -
[4]
win2k was always faster than XP wasn't it?
|
Terra Alnilam
Umbra Congregatio
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 10:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: ry ry
win2k was always faster than XP wasn't it?
See, that was my theory when i conducted that little experiment. And, in my case, my theory was accurate. Everything was faster in EVE under Win2k. WHen i did a market search, there was no delay unlike the lag I witness under XP. When I would jump from system to system, the client-side processing was considerably shortneed when compared to performance inside XP.
For me, on my outdated computer (2.4 P4/1.5GB RAM/ATI 9600 Radeon) Wink2k not only ran faster overall, but it also was more stable (for example, when i hit ctrl-alt-del, the task manager came up NO MATTER WHAT... good luck trying to get that kind of instantaneous response with XP).
And indeed, overall, imho, win2k is the superior OS overall in terms of what I want from an application launcher. I am not sure what MS did to funk up XP when compared to Win2k, but they seemed to continue that trend with Vista. Dumbed down or not, I want an OS that performs and not one that sacrifices general performance over aesthetic virtues. |
Kryttos
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 21:10:00 -
[6]
hrm ive been meaning to fresh install my comp. maybe ill try Win2k.
Currently Running XP
Athlon 2600XP
1768mb of ram
Geforce 6800 XT
Eve should be running like a ch amp, but im lucky it runs 30fps.
|
Theo Samaritan
Gallente
UNSC Manufactoring Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 21:32:00 -
[7]
the FPS and performance seen in eve-never-fades isnt that hard.
All he had to do is fraps at a constant 30fps... I can manage 60fps before my core 2 duo starts straining.
______________________________
"To fight a war on the table, you must be able to fight a war on the front." |
RogueAnt
Minmatar
R.U.S.T.
Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 21:34:00 -
[8]
Out of XP and Vista, Vista is the winner the performance of eve on vista must be 70% better than that of XP Vista ftw :P ( thats Vista Ultimate 64bit btw )
|
tikinish
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 00:34:00 -
[9]
would like to know if it actually runs after even on a more then enough capabel computer? any one know?
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 00:35:00 -
[10]
Originally by: RogueAnt
Out of XP and Vista, Vista is the winner the performance of eve on vista must be 70% better than that of XP Vista ftw :P ( thats Vista Ultimate 64bit btw )
Probably because your XP install was overloaded with crap, while your Vista install was new 
(Especially since EVE is a 32-bit program!)
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save EVE-files bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 03:05:00 -
[11]
I fully support playing under Windows 2K :)
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Daelorn
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 03:08:00 -
[12]
Was recorded on a special client \o/
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 03:13:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Daelorn
Was recorded on a special client \o/
Correct
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save EVE-files bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! |
Torquemanda Corteaz
Gallente
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 06:02:00 -
[14]
a pretty good futureproof setup for eve would be something along the line of
dual core cpu (3ghz one)
2gig or more ram (is it ddr3 these days?)
direct x10 compatible gpu (x2)
I would imagine with the trinity engine on the horizon that would be a pretty sound setup go dual core instead of quad, it will probably be a loooong time before eve utilizes quad cores nevermind two.
Two gig ram is the recommended amount for running vista, but I have had 2 gig in this machine for 3 years so go with 4 or hell maybe even 8
The trinity engine will be coming in a dx9 and dx10 flavours so a dx10 gpu (or 2 if you have money to burn) would be a good investment.
But as someone said the video was created using a customised engine
|
Lord XSiV
Amarr
Digital Research - Omega Protocol
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 06:38:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Lord XSiV on 05/08/2007 06:39:22
Actually the reaosn that w2k would run faster has to do with the patch level - xp sp2 is horrendous from a performance perspective with all the gobbly **** to protect happless users who shouldn't be on the internet anyhow.
xp in itself is just a gui enhancement to w2k. Now, you can do this:
Fresh install xp, no sp2.
Install as many security patches as possible.
edit: wow, g.o,o.k is a profanity, who would have ever thought a word used in many children books (including Dr. Suess) would end up in a profanity filter.
Get a dedicated firewall, preferably a UTM appliance that will catch nastiness at the application layers. Either Sonicwall or Fortinet (e.g. fg 60) would work perfectly.
Install one of the registry optimization applications. There is one out there for gaming that I used on my laptop a number of years ago that increased performance like 75%. They chop out all the unneeded services, visual enhancements that you don't use anyhow.
Or, you can get real gear and go to xp 64bit.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 08:44:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: RogueAnt
Out of XP and Vista, Vista is the winner the performance of eve on vista must be 70% better than that of XP Vista ftw :P ( thats Vista Ultimate 64bit btw )
Probably because your XP install was overloaded with crap, while your Vista install was new
(Especially since EVE is a 32-bit program!)
Vista comes with all the crap pre-installed instead. 
---
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, thats what hello kitty online is for.
|
Anson Halleck
Lost Eden
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 09:47:00 -
[17]
[offtopic]
Originally by: ry ry
win2k was always faster than XP wasn't it?
No, is is a myth. Win2000 runs faster only on very old computers. If I remember correctly, benchmarks showed significant performance increase on WinXP with 400MHz CPU/256MB RAM and better computers.
[/offtopic]
|
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 09:50:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: RogueAnt
Out of XP and Vista, Vista is the winner the performance of eve on vista must be 70% better than that of XP Vista ftw :P ( thats Vista Ultimate 64bit btw )
Probably because your XP install was overloaded with crap, while your Vista install was new
(Especially since EVE is a 32-bit program!)
Vista comes with all the crap pre-installed instead.
QFT, and you can not get rid of most of the crap in vista.
I have two comps, one with w2k and one with vista.
The w2k outperforms the vista machine - even though the w2k has much weaker hardware and is loaded with all sorts of stuff I put on.
So when I find the time to do a reinstall, the vista will go *pop* and turn into w2k. Realy looking forward to that.
|
Cygnus Zhada
Amarr
UK Corp
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 09:50:00 -
[19]
Win2K is NOT a good gaming platform, W2K by design doesn't allow software direct control over hardware, it has to go through 'filters' and as such there's delay when a game tries to get access to the sound and videocard.
XP will preform the best imo when it comes to playing games, Vista has way too much overhead going.
Yes, I use lasers, please stop laughing in the back. |
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 09:57:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Soulita on 05/08/2007 10:04:29
Originally by: Cygnus Zhada
Win2K is NOT a good gaming platform, W2K by design doesn't allow software direct control over hardware, it has to go through 'filters' and as such there's delay when a game tries to get access to the sound and videocard.
XP will preform the best imo when it comes to playing games, Vista has way too much overhead going.
W2k is still faster than vista though. But maybe better to scrap vista and put XP instead of w2k on it. Worth a try I guess.
What makes me angry is that nowadays you have to pay Microsoft twice, and have a lot of work with machine setup as well.
It used to be you buy a comp, leave the operating system on, and just tweak a lil.
Now you buy a comp (included in the price is the pay to MS for vista)
Then you need to deinstall vista.
Then you need to buy a XP or win2k license.
Then you need to reinstall with new operating system.
Honestly sux.
|
BATMorpheous
Caldari
BAT Empire
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 10:25:00 -
[21]
so after reading this thread ive come up with my own little assumption..
W2K still good but very outdated
XP mediocre but does the job
VISTA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha lets try it again in 18 months when MS
release a billion patches and screw it even more.
anyone else starting to think MAC's look like a good option?? lmao
Your SIG is to big please reduce it to fit these limits
The size limits for signature graphics are as follows:
Maximum height: 120 pixels
Maximum width: 400 pixels
Maximum file size: 24,000 bytes
Thanks - Hutch |
Cygnus Zhada
Amarr
UK Corp
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 11:47:00 -
[22]
XP isn't mediocre, that's just something the cool kids want to say to uhm... look cool.
Seriously, you really shouldn't use W2K for gaming, video editing or the like, it's just not meant for that. Besides most of the time the audio and videodrivers for W2K are crap.
On a different note, Vista runs EVE just nicely, actually vista itself isn't exactly slow on my computer (boots in around 10-15 seconds or so) but it's the sheer number of annoying problems (or features, as we call them in EVE), the lack of proper drivers for a lot of hardware and the complete lack of control you have.
XP is just fine, stick to it.
Yes, I use lasers, please stop laughing in the back. |
Savvon
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 11:51:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Torquemanda Corteaz
dual core cpu (3ghz one)
2gig or more ram (is it ddr3 these days?)
direct x10 compatible gpu (x2)
Don't take this the wrong way but,
Why?
Why?
Why?
We are talking about Eve.
|
Cygnus Zhada
Amarr
UK Corp
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 11:52:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Cygnus Zhada on 05/08/2007 11:53:37
He said 'future proof', don't forget there will be a DX10 client in a while and who knows what that'll need.
But yeah, it's a bit overdone, that's like asking your friend what kind of car you should be to do the weekend shopping in and he replies "A Ferrari!!!!oneleven!!!!".
Yes, I use lasers, please stop laughing in the back. |
BATMorpheous
Caldari
BAT Empire
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 11:59:00 -
[25]
Edited by: BATMorpheous on 05/08/2007 12:00:48
Originally by: Cygnus Zhada
XP isn't mediocre, that's just something the cool kids want to say to uhm... look cool.
Seriously, you really shouldn't use W2K for gaming, video editing or the like, it's just not meant for that. Besides most of the time the audio and videodrivers for W2K are crap.
On a different note, Vista runs EVE just nicely, actually vista itself isn't exactly slow on my computer (boots in around 10-15 seconds or so) but it's the sheer number of annoying problems (or features, as we call them in EVE), the lack of proper drivers for a lot of hardware and the complete lack of control you have.
XP is just fine, stick to it.
XP is and always shall be mediocre it claims to be a good gaming platform yet within its own coding it numbs down the traffic from gfx card to processor. which is why gfx cards sometimes work better on w2k because w2k dont.
p.s. i use XP for gaming just so you know and i still think its not as good as it should be for gaming
|
Marc Zhorr
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 14:22:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Marc Zhorr on 10/08/2007 14:25:51
I switched from Vista to win2k on my Samsung R70 notebook.
Win2k framerates on the R70 (remember, its a notebook) are:
(all graphics set to max, 1280*800 res)
Framerate in station is 115Fps in Fullscreen mode
Framerate in station is 105Fps in Windowed mode
That should be enough to make a video.
Might try XP in another Install to compare. If I do, will post the results here.
If anyone with an R70 reads this and now wants to install w2k on it - be carefull!
The Install is tricky. Make sure you have all drivers, windows installer v3.1 and w2k service pack 4 on a CD BEFORE installing w2k.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |