Para quem entende inglês,veja esse relato:
Hi folks:
I sure could use your advice. My older computer had a motherboard problem, so I just went out and bought a new expensive computer (over $900). Here is some of what it has:
AMD Phenom Quad-Core processor
Vista 64 Bit Premium edition with SP1
5 GB RAM
500 watt Altec power supply
Nvidia GeForce 9600 GT video card
Plus lots of other stuff such as a big hard drive, DVD burner, etc.
The store I bought it in (Best Buy), installed the power supply and video card, along with the latest drivers.
I loaded Celestia 151 on it and expected it to be lightning fast. At least with frame rates of 80 fps or more. To my shock, when I launched the program, my frame rates are no better than they were on my old system. I'm getting only 24 or so fps when viewing High-res Earth and only 16 -18 fps when viewing the high-res version of the Hubble Space Telescope. Something is wrong. Before my motherboard went out on my old system, I had installed the GeForce 9600 GT on it, and my frame rates were over 50 fps when viewing Earth.
Is there something in Windows Vista I have to do to optimize running Celestia? I installed the program in C:/Program Files, rather than C:/Program Files x86. Does that matter?
If this is the poor performance I can expect with this computer, I'll take it back to the store. They have a 14 day return policy. My time is running out, so any advice you can give me would be MUCH appreciated. Thanks
Just FYI, Frank...
24FPS is actually pretty good for a Vista system. I get approximately
16-20FPS when I am am not viewing a special area in Celestia, so you
are actually doing pretty well.
It is very sad, I know, but Vista causes the PC to use any extra resources
for itself. At least that has been my experience so far.
Configuração desse último
HP Pavillion m9047c, Intel Core 2 Quad 6600,
3072 MB RAM, 500 GB disk space with Nvidia
GeForce 8400 GS/PCI/SSE2 V2.1.1, 256MB
1680x1050 HP w2207 screen, Latest SVN
hi fsgregs from what i have read .On the same NEW machine Vista is 40% slower than XP
and you have been around here long enough to have gotten the driver from Nvidia and not MS .
so that is not the problem .
PS: Just so you get a feeling: with my VERY old FX5900ultra/256MB card and a 3.2GHz/3GB RAM Pentium4 I am still getting 50-60 fps right after a fresh Celestia 1.60SVN has started and Earth fills a certain fraction of the screen. These are my fps values both for Windows XP and for Linux. I have anisotropic filtering = 4x and NO antialiasing, triple buffering = ON. The temperature of my card is 45 degees C.
Hi folks:
I sure could use your advice. My older computer had a motherboard problem, so I just went out and bought a new expensive computer (over $900). Here is some of what it has:
AMD Phenom Quad-Core processor
Vista 64 Bit Premium edition with SP1
5 GB RAM
500 watt Altec power supply
Nvidia GeForce 9600 GT video card
Plus lots of other stuff such as a big hard drive, DVD burner, etc.
The store I bought it in (Best Buy), installed the power supply and video card, along with the latest drivers.
I loaded Celestia 151 on it and expected it to be lightning fast. At least with frame rates of 80 fps or more. To my shock, when I launched the program, my frame rates are no better than they were on my old system. I'm getting only 24 or so fps when viewing High-res Earth and only 16 -18 fps when viewing the high-res version of the Hubble Space Telescope. Something is wrong. Before my motherboard went out on my old system, I had installed the GeForce 9600 GT on it, and my frame rates were over 50 fps when viewing Earth.
Is there something in Windows Vista I have to do to optimize running Celestia? I installed the program in C:/Program Files, rather than C:/Program Files x86. Does that matter?
If this is the poor performance I can expect with this computer, I'll take it back to the store. They have a 14 day return policy. My time is running out, so any advice you can give me would be MUCH appreciated. Thanks
Just FYI, Frank...
24FPS is actually pretty good for a Vista system. I get approximately
16-20FPS when I am am not viewing a special area in Celestia, so you
are actually doing pretty well.
It is very sad, I know, but Vista causes the PC to use any extra resources
for itself. At least that has been my experience so far.
Configuração desse último
HP Pavillion m9047c, Intel Core 2 Quad 6600,
3072 MB RAM, 500 GB disk space with Nvidia
GeForce 8400 GS/PCI/SSE2 V2.1.1, 256MB
1680x1050 HP w2207 screen, Latest SVN
hi fsgregs from what i have read .On the same NEW machine Vista is 40% slower than XP
and you have been around here long enough to have gotten the driver from Nvidia and not MS .
so that is not the problem .
PS: Just so you get a feeling: with my VERY old FX5900ultra/256MB card and a 3.2GHz/3GB RAM Pentium4 I am still getting 50-60 fps right after a fresh Celestia 1.60SVN has started and Earth fills a certain fraction of the screen. These are my fps values both for Windows XP and for Linux. I have anisotropic filtering = 4x and NO antialiasing, triple buffering = ON. The temperature of my card is 45 degees C.