Your Computer

[imus]

3rd times a charm?

[imus]

and

[Krash]

If ever there were two screenshots making a compelling reason to buy a 32-bit capable card just to run milkdrop, those are it... Illusion, I'm looking at you here, buddy. =]

- Krash

[Illusion]

The screenshots looks pretty similar to me

Seriously though, that looks pretty amazing. I will have a new computer before the end of April 2004, don't worry, I'll get to see MD as it was intended sometime... I want to make sure I can get a PC that can run Half-Life 2 and Doom III etc, and by that time I should have enough money to afford one.

[StudioMusic]

I will tell you my laptop was good Illusion, but there is nothing like what I have now. I am so addicted. You will be blown away if you get something decent. SM

[Jefe]

CPU: Intel Celeron @ 433 mhz
RAM: 256Mb
VID: Ati Rage 128 (not to be confused with 128 mb video memory)
SND: Creative Soundblaster Audio pci 128 (another "128")
MON: 15 inches of no name loveliness
HDD: 10gb Western Digital, 100 gb Maxtor(the one nice thing about this pc)
OS: Windows 98 SE
DX: DX8.1


My Milkdrop settings:

mesh size: 48
640 by 480 full screen

18-25 fps on average

[starman]

MOBO: ABIT BH7
CPU: Pentium 4 2.6Ghz
Ram: 512MB
Video: 128MB MSI FX5200

Running a maxtor 8 GB hard drive at the moment, does the job.

My Milkdrop settings

Full screen
1024 x 768
30 fps

Audio? using line in from my Rotel amp, for testing

17" SVGA Screen

This setup works a dream for me and can really show off milkdrop to its true potential.

[imus]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1845715 now with 5900fx i upgraded a bit. I have been playing around with the whole fps thing, I have found it looks 100x better for the fps to not change much,. But im not sure where to cap at. since crash said that rainpainting 2 needs 80 fps to look good, ive been comparing with that exact preset everytime I adjust any settings.

Also, Idiot, post new computer here

[StudioMusic]

I personally have fps set to unlimited, mesh at 48 X 36 and texture on Auto this is best for me, but then it is somewhat of a personal preference and what your system is capable of. SM

[StudioMusic]

A song to go with - Meant to Live by Switchfoot, any song will do though. SM

[bitcore]

Dell Inspiron 8200
1600x1200 UXGA LCD
2.0 Ghz P4 M
384 M DDR
Cruddy 32 MB Geforce 440 Go
I need more V-memory to run 1600x1200 properly I'm deciding on an upgrade, would a geforce 440 64M be better than a radeon 9000 64M or the inverse? Radeon has a slower fill rate than the geforce, but framerates in popular 3d games are 5-15 faster than the geforce. ONLY reason for upgrade is for milkdrop I'd get the quadro 700 hands down but that's 350$!!! Any tips?

Other main machine is a standard ol' AMD 1800+ with a radeon
7200 or 9600 with 512M
Everything else has old ASI\PCI 2d cards, that barely go to 1024x768 All I need anyways... servers

Oh, Everything run's win2K developer.

[Michgelsen]

- Pentium IV 2.4 Ghz
- 512 Mb
- 40 Gb
- 64 Mb Asus GeForce 4
- Just some normal sound card

[Loadus]

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ 1.46 GHz
128 MB / 133Hz
40 + 80 GB (mostly for video)
ATI RADEON VE PCI 64MB
Soundblaster LIVE! 1024 (digitally connected)

+

FUJITSU SIEMENS SCALEO L
Intel PENTIUM III 2.4 GHz
256 MB / 266Hz (? Actually, I'm not sure ?)
40 GB (For the Programs)
Intel Graphics Adapter AGP 64MB

Both are fast as they are stripped from the hanus WinXP services, that clutter the processor load exponentially ...

They're used for video editing and animation.

... But I'd rather have a MAC (droooooool).

[ryan]

--------[ Summary ]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Computer:
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Professional (Corp.)
OS Service Pack Service Pack 2, v.2055
Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.2055
Computer Name YOUR-900DBF7D1B
User Name Ryan Dugger
Logon Domain YOUR-900DBF7D1B

Motherboard:
CPU Type Intel Celeron 4A, 2700 MHz (6.75 x 400)
Motherboard Name Unknown
Motherboard Chipset Intel Brookdale-G i845GL
System Memory 247 MB (PC2700 DDR SDRAM)
BIOS Type Award Modular (10/16/03)
Communication Port Communications Port (COM1)
Communication Port ECP Printer Port (LPT1)

Display:
Video Adapter Intel(R) 82845G/GL/GE/PE/GV Graphics Controller (64 MB)
3D Accelerator Intel Extreme Graphics
Monitor Plug and Play Monitor [NoDB] (CNR33202YX)

Multimedia:
Audio Adapter Intel 82801DB(M) ICH4(-M) - AC'97 Audio Controller [B-0]

Storage:
Floppy Drive Floppy disk drive
Disk Drive WDC WD400EB-11CPF0
Optical Drive Generic DVD-ROM SCSI CdRom Device
Optical Drive LITE-ON LTR-48247S

Partitions:
C: (NTFS) 27907 MB (12421 MB free)
D: (FAT32) 10237 MB (7334 MB free)

Input:
Keyboard Standard 101/102-Key or Microsoft Natural PS/2 Keyboard
Mouse PS/2 Compatible Mouse

Network:
Primary IP Address : removed
Primary MAC Address : removed
Network Adapter Realtek RTL8139 Family PCI Fast Ethernet NIC

Saving up for a 'real' video card, since the intel onboard crap sucks :P

[Illusion]

Onboard graphics do indeed suck, I know that from experience..

I will definitely have a new PC by the end of March, which is cool. At this stage I'm probably looking at getting a P4 2.8GHz, 1GB+ RAM and a Radeon 9600XT... which should be a lot better than my current box

[imus]

Also, does your board have an agp slot for a "real card"?

[ryan]

Dosen't really matter, I'm building a 'real' PC anyways.. This will be turned intoa server

[Jefe]

Originally posted by Jefe
CPU: Intel Celeron @ 433 mhz
RAM: 256Mb
VID: Ati Rage 128 (not to be confused with 128 mb video memory)
SND: Creative Soundblaster Audio pci 128 (another "128")
MON: 15 inches of no name loveliness
HDD: 10gb Western Digital, 100 gb Maxtor(the one nice thing about this pc)
OS: Windows 98 SE
DX: DX8.1


My Milkdrop settings:

mesh size: 48
640 by 480 full screen

18-25 fps on average

That was then, this is now Just got everything set up yesterday.


Sapphire Radeon 9600 Haven't run any benchmarchs yet, but looks wonderful so far.
80 gb Hitachi Desktar SATA drive
Abit AN7 mobo
Athlon XP 2500+
Window XP pro
Nforce sound storm audio
1 gigabyte Crucial pc3200 ram


Getting a solid 60fps with default settings @ 1024 x 768.

[mysterious_w]

CPU: Athlon XP 2000+
Ram: 512MB
Video: S3 Onboard 32Mb
Monitor: 17in cheapo
Soundcard: Onboard
Motherboard: Don't have a clue

[imus]

This is a picture of my computer. Click on it to see more pictures of it.

[Jefe]

Awesome case mod, Imus.

[imus]

This is an updated picture taken with a little bit nicer camera

[nick0nyx]

CPU: Duron 650MHz :/
RAM: 384MB SDR
GPU: TNT2Ultra, 32MB :/
Monitor: Sony 19"
onBoardCard :/

nick

[|3enjam]

i have a quick question...

if the monitor is only refreshing at 60-80 Hz (mine's set at 75 Hz), how will running a preset at 180 fps do anything but break the image up?

you'll basically be only getting one image every 1/75 sec. that is made up of several images cut and pasted together changing from top to bottom. wouldn't the processor be better put to use by oversampling the image at like 2x or 3x and cap the fps to your refresh rate?

i'm just not understanding the benifits in allowing page tearing... i turned it on for a short while on my system and was getting in the area of 150-180 fps, but i could see where the image was changing, and the same preset at 75 fps (to match my refresh rate) but oversampled 3x looked much better.

if i'm way off, please let me know.


oh and btw-
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 2.2 GHz
AGP: NVidia GForce 4 Ti w/ 19" flat monitor (1280x960)
RAM: 256Mb

and thats all i can remember right now, i'm not at home...

[Krash]

1.
Because alot of Milkdrop's calculations are performed on a per-frame basis, a higher framerate will cause the movement of the preset to appear physically faster.

2.
Because Milkdrop modifies each previous frame, rather than drawing a new one totally from scratch, you *will* actually see the effects of the higher framerate - eg, you will have 120 instances of the waveform being warped around the screen per second, rather than 60.

3.
Any calculations performed using base, mid, or treb, their _att values, or a combination thereof, will in theory more accurately reflect the music at a higher framerate (as they are calculated once per frame). Any beat-detection algorithm will (with appropriate tuning) work better at a high framerate, as there is less chance of missing the "frame" in which a beat occurs. MP3s are typically 44100 samples per second, and I'd estimate that the staccato sound of a snare of bass drum would take up maybe 300 samples, give or take. With this in mind, you'd need a framerate of at least 150 or so in order to never miss any beats. (Of course, I'm just guessing with the numbers, but you get the idea).

- Krash

[|3enjam]

ok then... that works, thanks.

[|3enjam]

i got the real skinny on my system...

just to ammend the above post:

Display mode: XRGB-8888, 1280 x 960, 75 Hz
Texture size: Auto (1024 x 1024)
Mesh size: 48 x 36 slow
Anistropic Filtering: On
Allow Page Tearing: On

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 2.09 GHz w/SSE
HDD: 2x WD 80Gb 7200 rpm
RAM: 512Mb
AGP: NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X w/64Mb RAM
SND: Onboard NVIDIA nForce2 5.1 Sound

the first set is my settings for the screencap (i had to shrink the image 50% to fit it in the post), and the second set is my comp stats.

[imus]

what ive been doing, is if i haVE over 90 fps with that one preset "rainpainting2", I increase mesh size and or texture size so that fps is only at 75-85 .

BTW I now have 18 inch monitor, kinda nice now I can do 1600x1200,I can actually do more

And I flashed my bios of my 5900 to a 5950 ultra, I guess the only difference between the 2 cards is the bios and the extra RAM , So now my card runs alot faster and even cooler since it speeds up the fans too.

[PieturP]

About fps:

Never seen Milkdrop running above 40 fps... (due to slow GForce 2MX 400) Some presets can't even run above 8 fps (gamma and hard per-pixel coding) but sometimes that's not a real problem, it can be quite nice actualy (just another effect!) I'd really love a feature to set maximum fps in a preset instead of configuring it overall. (I know, should post it in a different forum :P )

About resolution:

Seriously: if -for example- shown on a TV or Beamer, anything above 800x600 is just for nerds. I mean, if one uses high resolutions on movies or anything animated and looks at it from a distance, one can't see difference at all!

My specs:

- AMD Athlon 1.4GHz
- GForce 2 MX 400 (driver: Nvidia 6.14.something)
- SB Live
- 120 Gb HDD
- 512 Mb DDR RAM
- Win XP
- 17Inch + Sony TV (for drink+smoke+lounge+triptrapin' :)

PieturP

[PieturP]

whoops... newbie error!

previous post should be an reply on "Your Computer" (pressed wrong button! "new post" instead of "reply")

sorry!

[Moderator, please move the post and delete this one!]

[Rovastar]

FOr TV's the TVout will be for teh resoultion of teh TV less than 800x600 different for PAL and NTSC.

FOr projecters though the more resolution the better for a VGA connections. Not many projectors though will go above 1024x768.

If the picture is going to be big then it is realy important as teh chunkness is many times teh size on teh big screen.

[imus]

But then again, why not go over 800x600.Who cares if you can hardly tell the difference? There might be little reason to do it, but theres no reason not to.

Atleast that's what Iv'e discovered. You would think that the fps would get worse at 1600x1200 compared to 800x600. But if anything, it actually gets better..

Well, only half a frame per second better, but atleast it's not worse.

[imus]

Every thing is on the best of the best detail with these two files including video card settings and all.