You are not logged in.
I figured I'd make this topic just so we could group together tweaks to make games run better. Go ahead and just put out ideas that seem to help you out.
What I've found so far:
- Disable Power Savings (Right click desktop, Graphics Properties, Display Settings, Power Settings, set the slider to "Disable Power Savings")
- Set Driver Memory Footprint to High (Right click desktop, Graphics Properties, 3D settings, Change "Driver Memory Footprint" value from Normal to High)
- Some people have luck with GMABooster, I however haven't tried it yet because I'm unsure about the safety of it. http://www.gmabooster.com/
Please add your own.
Offline
GMA Booster is safe, all it does set the GMA back to factory default of up to 400MHz. Asus just under clocks it to save power and help get those advertised battery life.
For watching videos you can also change the color depth from 32bit to 16bit, not so good for photos and wallpaper but it can make the difference between stuttering video and a smooth playing video.
Also keep it in the native resolution, 1024x768 can really slow the system down. VGA output is more flexible though.
Offline
If you're on Windows Vista (euuugh) or 7 (yay!) you can turn off Aero.
I've found that some games go faster on 7... probably because of DirectX 11.
Offline
The improvements from Game Booster are negligible for gaming in my experience but, I still have it though because I discovered that one of the the strange side-effects is that it increases the battery life dramatically. Seriously too, because I got a lot of background programs et al running, so, using it to shut down everything except the tray and SHE will increase the battery by about 2 hours- which is great for taking notes in classes or when I'm just watching a video during lunch.
Offline
I downloaded GMABooster and it seems to be working a bit better than I expected it to. However, I've realized something. People claim it's safe because it doesn't overclock the card, it rather puts it back to the clock speed it's meant to be at. Well, Asus doesn't expect people to be doing this, so don't you think they build their laptops with this in mind? Parts are close together, fans only go so fast, other ventilation, etc. They probably don't anticipate people running it at 400MHz. So while we technically aren't overclocking, we're still going over what the manufacturer designed it for. Might I run into any physical problems on my 1005HA?
Offline
400MHz is the stock GMA clock of desktop chipsets, not notebook chipsets. So yes you are overclocking the chip. A notebook chipset does not have the large heatsink of a usual desktop motherboard.
Also, I'm sure that the GMA 900/950 in these netbooks is memory bandwidth limited. We only have single channel memory interfaces and not the fastest RAM either.
Offline
good point!
Granted, I haven't noticed any extra heat from my 100HA, but then again, I haven't run it past 5.5 hours either (about an hour less then I get with the booster according to the meter), still, you can't always tell what the temp is going on *inside* the machine...
On the other hand, I kind've bought the thing to be a bit of a junker that I had less issue actually *using* (which always equates to my mind as running into the ground) because it costs about the same as my hubbie's consoles these days- so, as long as it doesn't catch fire or totally burn out in less then a year- I figure I got my $300 out of it. I mean- even if it lasted only 12 months- that comes down to about $25 a month to be able to compute what I want- when I want-where I want without having to sweat battery-life, the endless battle for plugs- nor destroy my back just because I wanted to do some email or play a game or two on the road....not bad all told to be honest.....
Offline
The only side effect I've felt so far is a hotness on the palm rest area, mostly on to the left of the trackpad.
Offline
I have GMA Booster automatically set to 400MHz on Windows Startup, never had a problem even after hours of use.
Btw, all three primary chips are passively cooled by the aluminum heat sink beneath the keyboard. If it ever got too hot you'll feel it. Besides the chips will shut down if they get too hot. So perfectly safe, you'll need to flash fry them to get past the heat sensors and the GMA950 isn't powerful enough to really generate much heat.
It does get a little warm when watching movies constantly but normal use doesn't stress it that much and it'll otherwise stay cool. So unless your fan was constantly on to begin with, it does depend on your ambient temperatures, then you should have plenty of leeway to add a little more heat to the system.
Offline
Speaking of which, what are your tips for watching 720/1080p movies on this? I've heard of turning the colors down to 16 bit, downloading a few codecs... and I'm sure GMABooster helps too.
Offline
Ummm well if you do a search on the forums you can find that answer, but generally speaking 1080p movies tend to not be movies and just slideshows with sound. But 720p movies are indeed playable, but if they are in MKV format your going to have to demux/convert it into something else like a mp4 or avi file, which doesnt take any longer than 10 minutes to do if you do it right. The only codecs i have installed is FFDSHOW and i use various players because not any one player ever seems to work for everything it seems. Ive had alot of luck with WMP and VLC tho
Offline
CoreAVC is the recommended codec pack, not free though. Along with MPC, just make sure you turn deselect the internal filters and use only the external filters to enable the CoreAVC codecs.
Otherwise FLV will run fine in most cases and the 16bit color change does help video playback. 2GB RAM can let you set up a RAM drive to speed up apps like web browsers cache and a faster SSD can reduce latency to help improve Flash performance. Add GMA Booster, along with the latest BIOS to ensure you have the 224MB max shared video memory, and you can get fairly decent performance.
Offline
actually if you have Windows 7 installed, 720p and 1080p are both playable,
720p > perfect
1080p > requires you to have it full screen in order to play it smoothly.
*if you have the right settings, doesn't matter what the container is... .mkv, .avi, .divx, .ts
as long as it was encoded using H264... they all works.
reason: win7 support atom processor H.264 hardware processing.
windows xp and vista don't, and will not(according to microsoft).
third party support like cyberlink do not make use of atom built-in H264 decoding.
* you still need to have the right player of coz, i prefer using PureCodec Player which lets you change video(codec) settings according to your computer hardware spec.
Last edited by comscier (2009-11-20 10:15:50 pm)
Offline
Cyberlink is planning to add h264 hardware processing, but they will only work with some netbooks.
Offline
I'm not aware of any netbooks that have a video processor that can accelerate any part of H.264 or VC1. Lots of notebook chipsets made in the past 2 years can do it, but netbooks use cheaper older stuff. GMA 9x0 can not do anything more than DVD/MPEG2.
Also, I've found that Media Player Classic Homecinema's built in FFMPEG decoders are quite fast. Using the internal codecs is faster than ffdshow and perhaps even DiVX's free H.264 decoder. I've been playing around with H.264 decoding on old P4s and P3s and this is what I've found. I have not purchased CoreAVC so can't speak for it in comparison.
Last edited by swaaye (2009-12-07 8:24:27 pm)
Offline
I've been really curious to see if GMABooster really helps, so I conducted a semi-formal test in Counter-Strike: Source. My machine has the N280, 2GB of RAM, and Windows 7. I used the Video Stress Test within the game. Numbers are of course frames per second.
Without GMABooster (166MHz)
1024 x 600, all highs: 7.72
1024 x 600, all lows: 8.26
640 x 680, all highs: 9.58
640 x 480, all lows: 10.05
With GMABooster (400MHz)
1024 x 600, all highs: 8.24
1024 x 600, all lows: 8.99
640 x 480, all highs: 9.43
640 x 480, all lows: 9.52
At native res, GMABooster produced ever so slightly better numbers. At 640 x 480, the stock speed won. Even then, these numbers are too close to really say there's any true difference.
So, this isn't the only game in the world that could be tested, but in CS:S's case, GMABooster doesn't seem to be all that effective.
Offline
CurlyCarlos wrote:
At native res, GMABooster produced ever so slightly better numbers. At 640 x 480, the stock speed won. Even then, these numbers are too close to really say there's any true difference.
Really shows how much the Atom is bottlenecking the GMA950. I can't wait for the Via Nano + ION chipsets - they'll be such an improvement over the one's bundled with an atom.
Offline
esnedon wrote:
CurlyCarlos wrote:
At native res, GMABooster produced ever so slightly better numbers. At 640 x 480, the stock speed won. Even then, these numbers are too close to really say there's any true difference.
Really shows how much the Atom is bottlenecking the GMA950. I can't wait for the Via Nano + ION chipsets - they'll be such an improvement over the one's bundled with an atom.
at what cost? (both monentary and battery)
Offline
Try to have GMA Booster automatically set to 400MHz on Windows Startup.
Offline
Zoev wrote:
at what cost? (both monentary and battery)
It is a question but hopefully ION 2 will not use significantly more power than ION 1 does, the reduced 40nm fab size should help but they also want to double the performance and that may wind up having it use more power.
Via and AMD alternatives are usually very price competitve. So the price at least should be manageable. And there is always the chance that one of the new advancements in battery technology that they have been working years on will actually produce some real improvements in next year's line up. We can only hope as we wait and see. . .
Offline