View Single Post
Old 13 March 2002, 00:33   #14
Global Moderator

Ian's Avatar
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Derby, UK
Age: 40
Posts: 2,129

If what you say is correct, I should get more speed from using your old 0.8.17r3 version with AVI support, that only takes up on average about 11% (Get as high as 40% in parts, but mostly about 10 or less) of my CPU time, whereas the 0.8.21r* takes up an average of about 65% without recording.

My system should have far more time to encode the DivX avi, but I get exactly the same 21 fps I get when I use the latest WinUAE, which use far more of the processor time anyway.

Even though the Codec is getting 50% (Roughly) more CPU time with your 0.8.17r3 version, I still get exactly the same fps when recording. I'm not doubting what you say is right, I just seems very strange to me (Someone who knows nothing about encoding and the problems it causes)

It also make no difference if I choose Fastest mode for encoding, as opposed to the higher quailty slowest mode I still get the same fps.

Bearing in mind that I don't really know about encoding, I hope you can explain some of this to me (In a nice non-argumentative way)


I have 2 hard drives, and I can say it makes no difference at all on my system.

I get 21 fps using my system HD and the same using my other HD.


I never said it effected emulation, I said it effects recording speed And the hard drive I use to save the output on is a 7200 rpm DMA 100 IDE Drive, so obviously they ain't good enough to record at full speed.

BTW, I get 19 fps when writing full uncompressed frames.
Ian is offline  
Page generated in 0.04937 seconds with 10 queries