I'd like to know if he set UT3 to run in DX9 mode when running on Vista. Cause if not these stats are hardly comparible, though I'm sure that XP will still have an edge. Just nowhere near as much.
-
-
There is countless computer system bits and peices.... you couldn't dream up the combination of things that MAKE the system what it is and how performance rolls from one os to the other... so many factors..
Either vista runs like dirt on your machine, or it doesn't..... typically it's all in how the user installs and sets up the system AND alot of it has to do with the support for the product as well...Comment
-
if the linux one's done well, hopefully we'll be seeing even better (from the infinitely superior OS)Comment
-
I always find these threads where people compare fps and don't mention their resolution among other things are absolutely hilarious!!! "Yeah I'm getting 150fps in Vista... oh yeah at 640x480 though..."Originally posted by Hickeroar View Post
Jaysus people!!!
Comment
-
um ok how about this pic my res is 1280 x 1024 and I get a 100fps take a look if ur not satisfied
hard to tell but its 96 so u still saying vista has bad performance, u might want to rethink that thought.Comment
-
UT3 does not support DX10 ootb. This has been gone over a dozen times. Disabling DX10 on a DX9 game makes no sense...Originally posted by Slayer X View Post
It was SUPPOSED to support DX10, but it does not. It will be patched in at a later time.Comment
-
LOL, so my Vista system is just a magic combination that leads to utter suckage in games? Nice story.Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
I can't believe you're vehemently defending VISTA of all things. The OS sucks at everything...and most of all it sucks at gaming. This is a well known fact and you're lying your face off saying you're getting greater performance under vista.Comment
-
LOL I'm getting like 200 fps in Vista solid with max settings bla bla bla bla...
The man has benchmarks, he's speaking the truth. These people who say they get "d00d gr8 per4mance with Vista" don't have a clue and are bull****ting us. Fact is there's no good reason to move to Vista for a while, and UT3 runs a lot better in XP than it does in Vista.
Case closed, unless you can come up with *reliable* benchmarks to contradrict the 1000 benchmarks I've seen online up to this point.Comment
-
Hickeroar..
i'm not going to bother explaining anything in detail to you.
It's not a horribly hard to logical think about concept that various hardware combinations have been proven to lead to horrible performance figures..... Or in some cases, poor System setup by either the manufacturer or the operator....
You've already made up your mind about vista.... while your opinion may be right, the fact is that the statement about the product is utterly rubbish....
Sorry, but your poor system just wasn't ment to run vista... i'm sorry for you... course it doesn't help that your running a nforce 680i motherboard and a nvidia video card..... which the combination of both have a bit of a history that alot of people seem to ignore or refuse to accept as having very VERY poor performance in windows vista usually.
Granted, nvidia is makeing vast improvements to the video drivers, the board is still a bit of a mess
Stick to your windows XP... you'll be happier, and don't judge vista on your machine... sorry but it's unfortuneate that you just don't have the experience to make a educational and logical conclusion about vista.
Try running vista on an intel P35 or x38 chipset with your 8800, guaranteed you'll see a much MUCH better boost... and likely see a much more "balanced" frame rate between the 2 oses....
Course ATI's been ahead of the game in the video department for XP vs Vista.... still so many factors to consider though..Comment
-
hahahaha! what you say means NOTHING. only 30 odd posts?Originally posted by Dr3thepooner View Post
im telling u mate, im running vista, and to me its INCREDIBLE. i have found not one bug, and performance is sweet
Comment
-
i could potentially throw out all the benchmarks i want at the fact.... quite often though most people don't flipping give a **** because they've already made up thier mind....Originally posted by Mosh View Post
Quite often though just to prove a point, one benchmark is made, then sifted around and thrown around the internet to various new sites, a few changes per the sites wishes and we all end up with "1000" out of a handful....
No different then all the bs "news" being regurgitated constantly about how horrible vista is.....Comment
-
look at page two at the post I made, if you think vista is bad then don't get it after you see the fps I posted and this will probably go with everyone else that is running a high end video card and also vista
EDIT: what I mean above is anyone who has vista and a high end card should notice improvement.Comment
-
I prefer UT2004. This runs on the better operating systems. No problem and high framerates with Debian and Windows 2000 . Dont' buy UT3.Comment
-
LOL my poor system? I've got one of the highest end motherboards you can buy, one of the highest end video cards you can buy...and you're saying I have a poor system?Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
If I buy an MSI motherboard and run the same clock speeds with the same video card, my performance under vista isn't going to be magically drastically different on that setup. I know this, because I used to have the same system...with a different motherboard. My vista performance on that sucked as well. UT3 has shown by far the biggest drop in framerate going from Vista to XP. Usually it's a 5-10% drop, not a 50% drop.
And don't talk computer hardware at me. I've probably built more computers and used more varying system setups than you can count.Comment
-
Vista is a nice Os, but not for gaming. I had this FPS- loss (as mentioned in another thread), too.
Dont discuss with these 100FPS trolls on Dual486-machines. Such people are popping up magically if there are some people in a forum talking about framerates.Comment
Comment