Performance increase with a Mississippi JUR chip???

[Yoeddy1]

Ok guys, I may get laughed out of the room on this one, but I'm going to put it out there for those that like to investigate performance related issues.

In my BB1 I'm running an NXT1 (blue board with the Intel Celeron CPU and 512 megs of RAM).  The game that I'm running (currently) is Zeus II on a 13.x OS.  I haven't tested this on 9.x.  I have the game set up with multidenom of .01/.02/.05/.10. 

I was running with a Louisiana JUR chip which consequently ran the annoying clicking meters.  Today I changed the JUR chip to a Mississippi JUR chip which disables the meters.  Here's where the fun starts...

The entire time I ran the Louisiana JUR chip, I noticed that when the meters were clicking away during gameplay, the performance was a bit sluggish with the reel spins until the clicking stopped.  Usually, this would mean when I pressed the spin button on a max bet reels 1 and 2 would start off slower with the meters clicking, and then the performance would get better for the rest of the reels when the meters stopped clicking.  This was on .10 denom which would create more meter activity compared to .01 cent.

With .01, I didn't notice as much of a performance hit with the reels spinning because there wasn't as much clicking compared to .10 when doing a max bet spin. 

Now that I've replaced the Louisiana JUR chip with the Mississippi JUR chip, I don't notice the performance hit with reel spins on any denoms, and they all perform the same (better). 

So I guess the question is...

Do active meters tax the CPU with additional cycles that impact performance in some fashion compared to inactive meters?  The financial data is still being written and logged in the system, but without the meters spinning away.  I know many think I'm somewhat insane, and that is true to some degree, but who isn't right?   

Cheers!
Jason

[idesign]

Well, you obviously changed the timing belts when you added the MS chip?   


Seriously though, Wow, all I can say to this is you need to add another hobby to your collection.  You have too much time on your hands to be thinking about these mundane questions well beyond the hobbyist realm.

[iramack]

Well, you obviously changed the timing belts when you added the MS chip?   


Seriously though, Wow, all I can say to this is you need to add another hobby to your collection.  You have too much time on your hands to be thinking about these mundane questions well beyond the hobbyist realm.

 

[Haywired]

Well, you obviously changed the timing belts when you added the MS chip?   


Seriously though, Wow, all I can say to this is you need to add another hobby to your collection.  You have too much time on your hands to be thinking about these mundane questions well beyond the hobbyist realm.

 

[Yoeddy1]

Mundane?  Perhaps, but I guarantee that there are some that will try this behind the scenes simply out of morbid curiosity.  Job, family, etc...I have plenty to do no doubt.  My mind never shuts off (unfortunately), and 2-3 hours of sleep per night allows for many projects and "mundane" activities to get done I guess.

Thanks,
Jason

[cowboygames]

No biggie Jason, I dwell on the difference in spin time between the reels every time I push the button. Can't help, I can see it and it gets to bugging me after a while....

[knagl]

Do active meters tax the CPU with additional cycles that impact performance in some fashion compared to inactive meters?

I guess it wouldn't shock me if they did, Jason.  The machine has to send a pulse for every click of the meter, so it's taking up some processing power to send out all of those pulses.  Combine that with not-so-robust hardware that seems to be the norm in video slots and sure, it seems reasonable to me that you could see a slight performance hit with the CPU having to devote some of its energy to pulsing the physical meters.  Glad to hear that the machine is running better for you with the new chip.