I understand why people prefer Vista, I really do, I have both on dual-boot. But for the ones that defend gaming, it seems that it gives you lower fps, 20%, 30%, 50% doesn't matter. You say that having 60 it's fine because the eye can't see more, and you don't care if XP would give you 80, etc... Then why the hell did you buy a GTX, wasn't it for steady high fps ???
-
-
For the past few months, Vista has had pretty much 100% identical performance vs XP, with the exception of SLI, which is about 2% slower.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...date/page8.asp
It wasn't the operating system that was slow, the drivers just needed time to mature.Comment
-
exactly what I've been telling people here for a while but they are too brain dead to understand.Originally posted by ShocWave View PostComment
-
Originally posted by ShocWave View PostOriginally posted by FYouFragU View Post
Such a nonsense. In Vista UT3 performs like ****. Like other games, too. I cannot turn on all details in Ut2004 without the UT2004 64Bit patch in Vista, otherwise framerates will drop below 80! On my system i have a permament Fps loss of 30%, with spikes to 50% performance loss.
Vista is slower in games, dont write such nonsense here. If your stickin on 60FPS with your **** TFT monitor in both OSs there is no point to say they are equal in speed.
im can use and im useing Vista 64Bit only because i found a 64Bit for UT2004 patch wich allows me to play this game with more details and faster speed than under XP. For UT3, i have to switch to XP. And even in XP, performance is very bad with this game. Occlusion culling is nowhere in this game/ it dont work.
@FYouFragU
And you? Mr. "on my rig all is running fine, even if i have got a X-FI with X-RAM and OpenAL enabled"? I should mark you as a troll.Comment
-
Vista ran UT3 fine on my PC with x-fi with openAL enabled, but the card is wasted now so that doesnt matter much.
if a particular system can still not run fine maybe it indicates precisely that drivers are an issue? or that hardware is not indicated to run the OS?
Don't expect an OS from 2007 to be lighter than an OS from 2001, but it does the job pretty well now. For those that don't, well... use XP, but this conflict is completely ludicrous, tbh. It's just an OS, use whatever makes you happy.Comment
-
Uhm, judging by those benchmarks, XP is up to 8% faster than Vista, everything else equal, and never slower (except that one time when Vista64 got 0.2 fps more than XP). What exactly are you trying to tell us?Originally posted by ShocWave View Post
I won't switch with my gaming PC. Nor would I for the office, but we're using Vista there for nearly a year now and meanwhile got used to it. And yes, it did improve a lot during that time, so there. But it's still not gaming-grade.
Vista does have more overhead than XP - it's more streamlined and unified, but with more overhead. DX10 will give us nicer graphics one day, and then I'm prepared to switch, but so long I don't see reason. The reason why I'll switch then is not performance, but feature breadth, and game availability. When performance is critical, as it is in gaming, it pays off to be a bit conservative with operating systems.Comment
-
The first benchmark, BioShock, is ****, because if you're running in Vista, even if you have DX10 effects set to off it still runs them. The 4 FPS or so difference is definitely worth the dx10 effects.
And there have been just about a million driver releases since then-- most with bigger results for vista than XP.
Honestly, the hottness of vista-- that's right, the only benefit to upgrading to it is the better aesthetics-- is worth losing the 2 or 3 FPS that are probably the only result as of today. Do you guys who have been complaining have the hotfix installed? Do you have FSAA set to 0 in your UTengine.cfg just to be safe?
I run XP because I'm too cheap to upgrade to vista until I *find* a copy, but I can't wait to have it.Comment
-
-
Talk about an immature, little troll.Originally posted by [FfFC]_-(MAD)-_ View Post
You have anger issues, buddy. Seek help...Comment
-
I agree, look at my specs below, i get a max of 90FPS no matter what.Comment
-
BTW, i don't run dual 8800GTS in SLI anymore, I run a single GTX, much faster... I have an XP box w/dual core 6800 and a 8800GTS, i'll do a benchmark reference and see what i come up with...Comment
-
I never drop below 60fps, so I'm happy.
Comment
-
Okay, the XP box downstairs is a dual core x6800 with 8800GTS and both machines run 90FPS, nailed, no deviation... There must be someway to unlock that cap..Comment
-
-
I made a brand spanking new(every part fresh out of the box) build specifically for this game.....
I decide to have Windows Vista 64-bit as my OS
Biggest ****ing mistake, I will ever make in the computing world
I have:
Intel pentium core 2 duo Q6600
680i SLI EVGA motherboard
8800 GT OC video card
4 G's RAM
beautiful machine
None of the downloadable software drivers work, Vista is incomaptible with practically everything I can throw at. I even tried messing with my BIOS off of Nvidia's vista download page, not of them can start up because it says I'm running a "non-32 bit installer" even when I start up in ****ING 32-bit Safe Mode!!!
It shuts down every time I play(averaging about 5 minutes a time)
I HATE VISTA
I'm saving for XP
I only hope ******* hellspawn microsoft has unleashed upon the world, I actually paid money for, will UNINSTALLComment
Comment