Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Vista really this bad??

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Is Vista really this bad??

    To make things quick here are my specs.

    Pentuim D Dual Core 945 3.2ghz
    2gb of Ram
    x-fi xtream music sound card.
    8800 gts 640mb
    Samsung 226 BBW S panel


    Everything set to MAX playing at res 1600x1050

    Now in vista I get an avg FPS of 22-44 (altho today it dropped down in the 10's...yuck)

    But when I am in XP, I get an avg of 48-90 fps(it stays around 60+ tho)

    To me that is unbelievable.........so my question is, is vista that crappy or is it direct x 10 is a graphics sucker???

    thankx

    skript

    #2
    I use vista and I use max settings at 1680x1050 and get 50-90 fps.

    8800GT
    C2D E6850 3.0GHz
    2GB RAM

    Don't know what your problem is.

    Comment


      #3
      Well, Vista is probably that bad FOR YOU as a result of using drivers that aren't as good as the ones you're using for XP, and perhaps lacking various hotfixes?

      Vista is definitely a few frames slower just for the extra ****, but with drivers and stuff in line it should be pretty close.

      Comment


        #4
        Something's gotta be wrong with your system.
        You have better specs than me, yet lower frame rates.
        EDIT: All highest settings, getting 60 FPS
        Running Vista on:

        Athlon dual core 4600+ (2.4ghz)
        2 gig ram
        8800 GT 512 Meg


        Are you running the latest NVidia driver (169.25)?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by CrackHead_John View Post
          Something's gotta be wrong with your system.
          You have better specs than me, yet lower frame rates.
          Running Vista on:

          Athlon dual core 4600+ (2.4ghz)
          2 gig ram
          8800 GT 512 Meg

          Are you running the latest NVidia driver (169.25)?
          Well, if he means the old GTS, your GT outperforms by a longshot. I really need to pawn mine off and get a GT...

          Comment


            #6
            Howa re you guys getting over 62 fps? My are capped at 62, Help?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by coolcat12 View Post
              Howa re you guys getting over 62 fps? My are capped at 62, Help?

              Turn off smooth framerate option.




              Anyway come on guys don't insult me. If I can set up a dual boot system them for the love of Gosh I have to be able to know how to keep my drivers up to date and apply the would be hotifxes that actually work more like notfixes.

              Its actually quite curious. In Xp my system just eats up this game like nothing else, but vista, this game runs more like a frame capped 360 game. Same thing when I play crysis. XP just gives me so much more love, but this game really draws the line in the sand tween the different O.S.'s

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Harmatia View Post
                Well, if he means the old GTS, your GT outperforms by a longshot. I really need to pawn mine off and get a GT...
                Geez man its not that bad lol!!! you act like its a 7800 vs 8800 lol. You wouldn't even know much of a diff, plus the new cards are comming out in feb.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Actually the GTS is the G80 and the GT is G92. According the Tom's Hardware VGA charts the GT gets nearly double the fps.
                  http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...1057&chart=277

                  Battlefield 2142, 1280x1024x32, 4x AA, 8x AF, max quality

                  GT OC 512mb gets 92 fps
                  GTS 620mb gets 60

                  They didn't have the non OC version, but still it's a decent difference.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I get a 500+ pt difference between Vista and XP on 3DMark05. On XP with my CPU and RAM overclocked I am able to get a easy 55FPS out of UT3

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by bclagge View Post
                      Actually the GTS is the G80 and the GT is G92. According the Tom's Hardware VGA charts the GT gets nearly double the fps.
                      http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...1057&chart=277

                      Battlefield 2142, 1280x1024x32, 4x AA, 8x AF, max quality

                      GT OC 512mb gets 92 fps
                      GTS 620mb gets 60

                      They didn't have the non OC version, but still it's a decent difference.

                      Yeah but I play at high REZ levels for me, its like no diff, whatso ever maybe and I stress maybe 1-6 fps more. Because My cpu has capped out already.(Pent D Dual core ) But for a guy with a new C2D its the only way to go.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I dont care what anyone tells me, vista is a giant, worthless, resource hog, huge pile of f*d up code malware rubbish. I hate few things as much as i do vista. Reasons? = 1. performance loss is huge. Those who disagree, upgrade 2 XP, and see how much more performance u get.
                        2. Horrible sound. Vista has absolutely no support for any eax, hardware mixing, openal, dts, prologic etc. My rather high end sound system is nothing more than loud stereo in vista. Back to XP, the sound improvement is reason enough to stay. The sound went from dull, empty and flat to vibrant, clear, full and loud.
                        3. Windows itself. Vista is slow. Copying and pasting takes forever. 55 idle processes? Wtf? Its huge aswell. And the visual effects end up making windows even more sluggish.
                        I have no doubt that vista has or is being fixed up,,, but i wont downgrade to that ****ing **** ever again. Dx10 is a waste. There is NO point to vista at all. Seriously. What is the benefit? Not to mention, internet is clearly slower in vista aswell. Btw, i had vista ultimate, and the same pc as indicated below.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          It's just an OS. Perhaps you shoulddirect your energies into something more productive.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Archon3 View Post
                            I dont care what anyone tells me, vista is a giant, worthless, resource hog, huge pile of f*d up code malware rubbish. I hate few things as much as i do vista. Reasons? = 1. performance loss is huge. Those who disagree, upgrade 2 XP, and see how much more performance u get.
                            2. Horrible sound. Vista has absolutely no support for any eax, hardware mixing, openal, dts, prologic etc. My rather high end sound system is nothing more than loud stereo in vista. Back to XP, the sound improvement is reason enough to stay. The sound went from dull, empty and flat to vibrant, clear, full and loud.
                            3. Windows itself. Vista is slow. Copying and pasting takes forever. 55 idle processes? Wtf? Its huge aswell. And the visual effects end up making windows even more sluggish.
                            I have no doubt that vista has or is being fixed up,,, but i wont downgrade to that ****ing **** ever again. Dx10 is a waste. There is NO point to vista at all. Seriously. What is the benefit? Not to mention, internet is clearly slower in vista aswell. Btw, i had vista ultimate, and the same pc as indicated below.

                            QFT.......well said I am rather inclined to in all shape and forms AGREE.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by bclagge View Post
                              It's just an OS.
                              The problem is that the OS is not optional software.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X