Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vista vs XP performance comparison.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    oh, my...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/bu...in&oref=slogin

    For me the handwriting on the wall was when Dell offered XP as an option on their PC's way back in April of 2007:

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,131033/article.html

    to make a relevant analogy, I think we're going to see some spawn killing in Microsoft's base...

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    ^^^ Well I still stand by feelings about 85 vs 120 but I also deleted my post so I wouldn't look stupid. lol

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Lol anuban, I deleted the post because I'm also bored to death by this thread and wanted to stay away from it.

    I posted something like "how can one diss Microsoft, attacking and defending 2 OS that are made by them, etc...?"

    I see what you mean. But I don't agree with you about the 120 vs 85 fps idea though. Some dudes here work to upgrade or buy new machines ( or study hard to get a rig as a gift, whatever), with at least a Q6600 and 8800gt. They pay high-end money, buy high-end kit, and in exchange deserve high-end performance. If you pay with the sole purpose of being faster, how come it is acceptable to be slower ?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Most new mobos will work fine with 4GB or RAM or even more ... it is just the OS the majority of the time that is the issue. If you use a 64 bit OS you can access the memory beyond 4 GB as well as leave the memory adresses in the 3-4 GB area completely out of the equation. Whereas any 32 bit OS will still be restricted to having to map the RAM on the video card to that space (between 3-4 GB memory map area) ... like in my case a full 1GB is already "GONE" ... used by the system for the Video Ram mapping. Vista only see 3.0 GBs.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by AnubanUT2 View Post
    But for folks who want the absolute highest possible fps then yeah XP is for you but again what's the practical difference between 120 fps and 85 fps???
    A reason to diss Microsoft because it makes them feel good inside?

    Frankly I think we'll see the next iteration of Windows be a heavy gamer platform. Vista (near the end of it's development cycle) seemed to switch focus from "badass OS" to "replace XP so we can finally have a secure Operating System".

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by PyrHExile View Post
    Hi,

    I am currently running on Vista-32 (the one that came with my computer), but I now really think I'll just revert back to XP. People that have less powerful hardware get better framerates...

    But I was wondering? What do you think about XP-64? Good idea? Bad idea? Why? I'm asking because I have 4 GB of RAM and the computer only sees 3,25 of course.
    That is a Vista 32 limit, but also a limit for many motherboards. Check your hardware specs to see if you can see more than 3.25. XP_64 works great for UT3.

    My very obsolete specs;
    Opty 180 @ 2.6GHz (socket 939)(AMD Dual-Core Optimizer)
    DFI Infinity NF4 SLI (nforce 6.85 driver)
    2GB DDR400 (value ram, 4x512MB single sided)
    2 x XFX 7950GT 570MHz 512MB SLI (169.04 driver, AFR2)
    BFG Ageia PhysX (1.1.1.14 driver)(quiet Vantec ICEBERG5 cooler)
    SB Live 24 bit (1.004.0055 driver)
    XP64 pro SP2 until Linux port arrives
    1600x1200, 3-3 quality, 38-85 FPS (I set a 85 FPS cap)
    1600x1200, 3-3 quality, 26-70 FPS PhysX maps
    21" Sony Trinitron G520, 100Hz refresh
    UT3 ver. 1.2

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Same here .. the only problems I have had I am responsible for making a mess. But otherwise Vista has done great by me and my hardware with no problems whatsoever. UT3 as well as all my games run just fine and if I want to use DX9 mode for some of my games that I can do that with no issue and some games (notably Crysis) runs even better. Like I said if you only have UT3 as a game on your rig then it makes sense to use XP since it is a little faster. Still on a powerful rig I don't see how there is a difference ... especially if you don't unlock the fps to go past 62 fps as its set in the defaults. But for folks who want the absolute highest possible fps then yeah XP is for you but again what's the practical difference between 120 fps and 85 fps???

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I never had a problem with Vista on my rig and the game runs great at 1920 x 1200 on a 24 inch LCD.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Hi,

    I am currently running on Vista-32 (the one that came with my computer), but I now really think I'll just revert back to XP. People that have less powerful hardware get better framerates...

    But I was wondering? What do you think about XP-64? Good idea? Bad idea? Why? I'm asking because I have 4 GB of RAM and the computer only sees 3,25 of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    And this of course, doesn't have to do anything with your machine configuration, right?
    Edit: Sorry guys, I'm out of this discussion and won't read here anymore because the discussion does not make any sense to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Johnnsen View Post
    Also it is a fact that vistas ram management is not good yet.
    and this statement is based on what exactly? the fact that you have higher usage under Vista? really, what is the point of having ram, if you're not going to use it?

    right now, at this moment, i'm hitting nearly 50% ram usage... but i can pull up Vista Media Center to put on LiveTV WHILE playing UT3 if i so choose. i know this, because i was playing R6 Vegas while the tv was going among other things.

    XP on the other hand, i believe would choke.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Johnnsen View Post
    I thought framerate was limited to 62 in singleplayer and 90 in multiplayer?
    So what is about this? If this is true (read that somewhere on two different magazines) I wonder how you people get your 150+ fps.

    Also it is a fact that vistas ram management is not good yet. So you can say "I get good fps, rethink if vistas performance is bad now" Even if your ressources are still enough to get a game on high settings with good quality, that does not mean that the performance is good if it is not as good as it could be.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Mwah I am running UT3 with all settings high and 1280-1024 with 80 fps average in vista, it seems to run smoother in XP but it's rlly a minor difference for me.

    P5E AI - Q6600 - 8800 GTX - 4 gig corsair XMS.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I thought framerate was limited to 62 in singleplayer and 90 in multiplayer?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by martinblank View Post
    what motherboard do you have?
    #
    Manufacturer: Asus
    #
    Motherboard Name: P5BW-LA

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X