PCA Forums

Do they rely more on Processor speed or video card speed with regards to the FPS rendering.
I tend to think it's a combination of both, but I'm not sure. I don't want to get a RADEON 9700 Pro for this unless I'm reasonably sure it'll work.

See, what I'm going to do is add some Winamp visualizations to the screens at the bowling alley I work with as well as (maybe) adding some digital projectors to project it onto, and want a TV-out card that'll let me get this done.

I'm thinking of a shuttle with a p4 2.8Ghz or maybe an AMD 3000+. Which do you think would crunch the numbers better?

Any thoughts?

Well all the visuals in winamp work great for me with a 2000+, and a radeon 9500 Pro. 512mb of ram. I'm sure u could get away with less.

Ok. Well I'm just worried since if all goes well, it'll be outputed to a COAX booster/splitter and sent along it's way to 2 TV's and 2 Projectors. I like to be able to hit 70 FPS in the visualizations if I can. And with my XP 2100, 512mb ram and radeon 7500 I get about 25FPS in full screen, I have to reduce the size down to abut 350 x 350 to get the FPS i want/need.

Yeah the radeon 7500 isnt all that fast of a card. Thats about around a 7200 (which is really a Radeon 32mb DDR). With a faster video card you would be all set. Have you used milkdrop for winamp 2.81? I have never liked the "stock" vis. stuff for winamp. Milkdrop works great. That and Geiss. But like I said, I'm on a 9500 Pro with a XP 2000+ and 512mb DDR. And it runs superb for me. I would think you could get away with an 8500.

White cap is anoter good one... just turn the random on and let it go. There is one preset that is the US flag as the amp map.