|
|
gunder
Member

Posts: 63

|
Yup, it stayed about the same in a window and when it was maximized. There was only about a 2-3 FPS difference. I was expecting it to run faster after some of the other peoples reports but I really can't complain, it was nice and smooth.
-gunder
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
gunder "I have a perfect body, but it's in the trunk and starting to smell."
|
|
|
|
|
gunder
Member

Posts: 63

|
Yeah your right, I just checked and my monitor is set to 60Hz as well. I didn't think about that until you mentioned it (I didn't notice your earlier post).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
gunder "I have a perfect body, but it's in the trunk and starting to smell."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crysstaafur
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Looks sharp as always Rel!
60 fps WinXP 400Mhz Celeron ATI RageIIC (unable to test full screen with the included binary , recompiled code with mode 16, got 58 fps fullscreen)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tio Bit
Member

Posts: 30
|
- 54 FPS P3-500Mhz Toshiba Notebook (Unkown videocard)
- 100 FPS P3-750Mhz - Geforce2-MX400 (64Mb) It's rare that on machines that obviously are a lot faster than mine, I got a better FPS, ... probably some kind of false reading.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gunder
Member

Posts: 63

|
It was to do with what z!ire said about vsynch. If your monitor is set at a certain Hz level for refresh, you won't get a higher fps than that. For example, I am set at 60Hz, I topped out at 59 fps, but my machine is capable of far higher.
-gunder
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
gunder "I have a perfect body, but it's in the trunk and starting to smell."
|
|
|
|
|