"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:48aa1660@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>     No, it just clears some heavy memory for you as far as I understand 
>> it.
>
> Virtual memory, much? Maybe Windows' VM algorithm sucks, but I wouldn't
> think it sucks that bad. And you'd need to have a crapload of services
> running before the bookkeeping overhead started to take up noticable
> memory, methinks. On my machine, all the services put together are 100
> meg, which is about 4 times the size of explorer with no windows open.
> Assuming that "mem usage" actually means "in physical memory" and I
> don't have to subtract out the "vm size" to find the working set size.
> Not exactly "heavy memory" either way, methinks. :-)

   Well, maybe not, but it does make a difference.

>
> You should try it and tell us how many FPS it saves you, for real.

   Sure. See the attached. This is quite a heavy scene from my map in the 
editor. Screen1_mem is with all services on. Screen2_mem is with only 9 
non-essential services turned off. I more or less managed to get the shots 
in the same position, but notice the difference. Now, when you're running 
along a clear road, I can see that being a good 3 to 5 fps gain, (probably 
more).

    ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'screen2_mem.jpg' (89 KB) Download 'screen1_mem.jpg' (88 KB)

Preview of image 'screen2_mem.jpg'

Preview of image 'screen1_mem.jpg'