Optimizing my max

Basker · 01-04-2003, 11:36 AM

I just bought a new computer, and it is a lot faster than my old one, it has 1024 ddram and xp 2000 cpu, but i dont feel that is is going that much faster when using max, and i never experience the renderer using more than 300 ram.
I am using the Nvida Geforce4 MX 440

And what should i use?
Direct 3d
Open Gl
Software

Tim_Cutho · 01-04-2003, 12:23 PM

i personally find opengl a lot faster... although direct3d can be fairly quick too... definately not software...

Basker · 01-04-2003, 12:26 PM

that is what im using, still think it is relly slow tho

blesson2k · 01-04-2003, 03:17 PM

If ur OS is 2000, try setting the performance option to foreground. Im not sure if this will give u better performance but u could try. Also how slow is max really? what I use as a benchmark is the waterfall.max scene rendered at 800x600 un compressed avi. u dont have to render out the whole scene, just tell me how much ur first frame takes to render. My comp is same as ur's except for G3 440 MX (though gfx cards dont play a big role in rendering) and it takes 36 secs.

Basker · 01-04-2003, 04:52 PM

Mine takes 52 sec's on the waterfall scene

My os is XP

blesson2k · 01-04-2003, 05:00 PM

The usual result. Now upgrade to 5.1 to bring it down to 40 secs.

Kit · 01-04-2003, 08:31 PM

On my pc ( a P3 500 with a TNT2) I found out that the wieports worked A LOT faster with direct3d than openGL, as long as I had the latest drivers/direct x and stuff.
If you see the readmes and manuals for 3dMAX 5 is quite obvious that they focused mainly on DirectX.

01-04-2003, 11:36 AM	#1
Basker Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 9 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Optimizing my max I just bought a new computer, and it is a lot faster than my old one, it has 1024 ddram and xp 2000 cpu, but i dont feel that is is going that much faster when using max, and i never experience the renderer using more than 300 ram. I am using the Nvida Geforce4 MX 440 And what should i use? Direct 3d Open Gl Software __________________ Basker The great Big Car Thread Dodger

01-04-2003, 12:23 PM	#2
Tim_Cutho Purple Ninja Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 110 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	i personally find opengl a lot faster... although direct3d can be fairly quick too... definately not software... __________________ :: Tim Cutho :: www.Tim3D.tk » Making cubes in avatars cool since October '02 «

01-04-2003, 12:26 PM	#3
Basker Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 9 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	that is what im using, still think it is relly slow tho __________________ Basker The great Big Car Thread Dodger

01-04-2003, 04:52 PM	#5
Basker Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 9 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Mine takes 52 sec's on the waterfall scene My os is XP __________________ Basker The great Big Car Thread Dodger

01-04-2003, 08:31 PM	#7
Kit Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Bs. As. - Argentina Posts: 58 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	On my pc ( a P3 500 with a TNT2) I found out that the wieports worked A LOT faster with direct3d than openGL, as long as I had the latest drivers/direct x and stuff. If you see the readmes and manuals for 3dMAX 5 is quite obvious that they focused mainly on DirectX. __________________ "There's no point to any of this. It's all just a... a random lottery of meaningless tragedy and a series of near escapes. So I take pleasure in the details."

01-04-2003, 03:17 PM	#4
blesson2k Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: India Posts: 51 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	If ur OS is 2000, try setting the performance option to foreground. Im not sure if this will give u better performance but u could try. Also how slow is max really? what I use as a benchmark is the waterfall.max scene rendered at 800x600 un compressed avi. u dont have to render out the whole scene, just tell me how much ur first frame takes to render. My comp is same as ur's except for G3 440 MX (though gfx cards dont play a big role in rendering) and it takes 36 secs.

01-04-2003, 05:00 PM	#6
blesson2k Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: India Posts: 51 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	The usual result. Now upgrade to 5.1 to bring it down to 40 secs.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode