Action vs. FRAPS (FPS Tests)

[Valk]

Hello,

I recently saw Action! on Steam Greenlight.

I have been interested in a new game recorder for quite awhile now, mainly due to FRAPS having no compression/large file sizes. So when I saw Action! with it's claims of excellent performance vs. competitors while having excellent quality, I decided to try the trial out.

My Rig is this:
- Win7 x64 Home Premium
- GeForce GTX570
- intel i7-3820 3.60GHz
- 8GB RAM
- 2TB 7200RPM HDD (I know it sucks...) w/ 500GB partition dedicated to video storage
- ASUS P9X79 Mobo

My Results with Full FRAPS vs. Trial version of Action:

Sleeping Dogs @ Ultra/High Settings:
FRAPS: Stable 50-54FPS
Action: Unstable 40-50FPS

The WarZ (My primary recording game) @ Max Settings:
FRAPS: Stable 34-36FPS
Action: Stable 27-29FPS

COD: BOII MP @ Max Settings:
FRAPS: Locked 60FPS
Action: Stable 57-60FPS (Had an issue where it would cause a massive drop in FPS when done recording)

Darksiders II @ Max Settings:
FRAPS: Locked 60FPS
Action: Very Unstable 55FPS-62FPS (Was suppose to lock at 60FPS)

Dead Space 2 @ Max Settings:
FRAPS: Locked 30FPS
Action: Locked 30FPS (Once again caused massive drop in FPS when done recording)

What I mean by stable: FPS occasionally goes up/down and stays within the said FPS, no radical drops or increases.
What I mean by unstable: Consistently/Constantly changing FPS commonly going outside the said FPS, has radical changes.
What I mean by locked: Program/Game locks/limits the FPS to a defined value.

These were my results, so I can personally say that FRAPS has better performance then Action. Although; I highly prefer the Action! UI over FRAPS, and find it's options and file sizes far superior to FRAPS. As far as quality goes, I think both are outstanding.

I am still debating over using Action!(Excellent UI and smaller file sizes) over FRAPS(Better Performance). If I come to a conclusion I will be sure to post it here.

Thanks for reading,
Valk

[Blutaar666]

I assume you did that without using your I7 at it's full potential. Mirillis is supporting Intel Quick Sync:

http://mirillis.com/en/products/tutoria ... s.html#top

I think you will gain alot with that.

And you should record to a seperate harddrive.

[RuskiRozpierdalacz]

Blutaar, his CPU doesn't have GPU, so he can't use QuickSync.

[Valk]

I assume you did that without using your I7 at it's full potential. Mirillis is supporting Intel Quick Sync:

http://mirillis.com/en/products/tutoria ... s.html#top

I think you will gain alot with that.

And you should record to a seperate harddrive.

Quick Sync is not applicable to me due to what Ruski said. Although, I wouldn't use it anyways due to MP4 having a far inferior quality to AVI.

Indeed I should record to a separate HDD, but until I get my hands on another I won't be able to.

Nevertheless; in it's current state without Quick Sync, Action! suffers lower performance than FRAPS. I even rechecked Darksiders II (due to me finding it's results odd), and this time it was even more unstable.

[Blutaar666]

I assume you did that without using your I7 at it's full potential. Mirillis is supporting Intel Quick Sync:

http://mirillis.com/en/products/tutoria ... s.html#top

I think you will gain alot with that.

And you should record to a seperate harddrive.

Quick Sync is not applicable to me due to what Ruski said. Although, I wouldn't use it anyways due to MP4 having a far inferior quality to AVI.

Indeed I should record to a separate HDD, but until I get my hands on another I won't be able to.

Nevertheless; in it's current state without Quick Sync, Action! suffers lower performance than FRAPS. I even rechecked Darksiders II (due to me finding it's results odd), and this time it was even more unstable.

AMD user her Thought all the I7 have an IGPU. The performance "problems" are strange, all of my clan members have better performance (inlc. input lag) with mirillis. Anyways, thx for your test.