Vista vs XP performance

[marketpantry]

Is it worth it to install xp for the performance boost? how much of a boost is possible with xp?

[Ronvdl]

with the latest vista drivers there's almost no difference anymore. you only need more RAM for vista, but you're fine if you have more than 1 GB, but 2 GB is better.

[marketpantry]

with the latest vista drivers there's almost no difference anymore. you only need more RAM for vista, but you're fine if you have more than 1 GB, but 2 GB is better.

I have 4... i noticed that this game doesnt give me 60 fps on a lot of maps.... im using a bfg 8800gt 0c2

[Benfica]

Is it 32 or 64 bit?

[marketpantry]

Is it 32 or 64 bit?

my windows vista is 64 bit.. idk about the game.

[Benfica]

64 bit is slower than 32, for 32 bit programs

[MTL]

Nah....just tweak the game for more FPS.
the simplest tweak for more smoother performance is DetailMode=0 in the UTEngine.ini

[Masaai_Warrior]

I have 4... i noticed that this game doesnt give me 60 fps on a lot of maps.... im using a bfg 8800gt 0c2

As long as your gameplay experience is smooth, then I would not worry about the numbers. My 8800 GTX does not give me a steady 60 FPS on most maps but I don't think I need a different OS to resolve it. The game plays very smoothly with max graphics. It also depends on your resolution and CPU of course.

What tweaks have you applied? Have you checked out Ultron's Tweak thread in the Technology subforum?

[marketpantry]

As long as your gameplay experience is smooth, then I would not worry about the numbers. My 8800 GTX does not give me a steady 60 FPS on most maps but I don't think I need a different OS to resolve it. The game plays very smoothly with max graphics. It also depends on your resolution and CPU of course.

What tweaks have you applied? Have you checked out Ultron's Tweak thread in the Technology subforum?

my cpu isnt a problem.. i notice a huge frames drop when i pay a 64 player match.

[Masaai_Warrior]

my cpu isnt a problem.. i notice a huge frames drop when i pay a 64 player match.

Unanswered: Are you using any tweaks? What resolution do you run at?

I have never played a 64 player match for the horrendous lag issues such matches have, let alone the CPU load.

[gargorias]

Vista 64 all the way for me from now on. But then again, I can! Runs perfectly on my system, better then my XP and better then my old Vista 32 which is now lying idle in my desk drawer ( waste of money ) and now its time for that Q5550 and 8GB of ram and perhaps a 4870x2 LOL my bank is going to kiss me! Seriously though if you have the right hardware Vista is just fine and I guess if more of us start supporting 64 Bit then the computer age may progress to the next level a 128Bit OS. Wow sweet! and software developers may get there butt in gear and give us more 64 bit apps. Certainly would be nice to see after having once programmed in 16 bit DOS.
**** those were the god old days.
MOV DX,OFFSET FILE_NAME
MOV AH,3CH
MOV CX,0
INT 21H
Gee I can even remember doing some old binary coding on my old XT but now it's Visual Studio 2008 - need to sell my arms and legs to get that!

Oh and Benfica do you remember any of your old 16 bit apps running slower on XP 32 then they did on 98, same is happening with 32 bit apps on Vista 64 or XP 64 they just gave it a fancy name called WOW. Bite me!

[nevaziah]

I play with windows vista x64 ultimate. I dont get any lag OR any drop in performance. I can understand if you're playing UT3 on xp with 1gb of ram and then upgrade to vista, it's a bad idea. The OS itself is not the problem, but if vista is not getting enough ram to run by itself, how will it run the game aswell?

I run a Q6600 with 4gb of ram and an 8800gts and i never have a problem unless it's internet lag. how fast is your internet, how many people on your 'home' server? Also, keep in mind that internet play depens a lot on how fast the other people's connections are too.

Best thing to do is run tests on say 10 games with 64 people, take down which maps you were on and see if it's depending on maps, areas, number of people, 'other' players experience etc...

[Benfica]

I'll byte you. I'll tear you into pieces

Seriously though if you have the right hardware Vista is just fine and I guess if more of us start supporting 64 Bit then the computer age may progress to the next level a 128Bit OS.

*sigh*
You have 128 bits registers since the Pentium3/Athlon SSE. The old Pentium-Pro allowed 32 bit addressing + 4 extended, the original Athlon 64 allowed 40(?), the Core2 allows 48(?). The default register size for addresses is 64 bits, but for integers is 32. Too much for linear progress. And:
- It's better to use 32 bit integers as default and use 64 bit only when needed.
- The existing 128 bit registers are not used as a whole, but are for parallelism. They may be split in 4 groups of 32 bit, 2 of 64, 8 of 16, etc...
- On the memory addressing side, there isn't enough RAM available on the planet to exhaust the capacity of 64 bit addresses

Wow sweet! and software developers may get there butt in gear and give us more 64 bit apps.

Of course. And give you milk cookies too. And multi-threaded programs with load balance that happen to match exactly the processor/graphics card combination you happen to have. And DX10 because it has an higher version number than DX9, even on those occasions when it increases complexity and reduces performance. And pay to have their 64 bit drivers signed. And bugs, BSOD, release delays. And more people complaining on forums.

Certainly would be nice to see after having once programmed in 16 bit DOS.
**** those were the god old days.
MOV DX,OFFSET FILE_NAME
MOV AH,3CH
MOV CX,0
INT 21H

They were Even though the Amiga pwned all that ****

Oh and Benfica do you remember any of your old 16 bit apps running slower on XP 32 then they did on 98, same is happening with 32 bit apps on Vista 64 or XP 64 they just gave it a fancy name called WOW. Bite me!

Who cares, we are talking about UT3 performance that doesn't have a 64 binary, so the calls must be translated by that layer which makes it slower. If it is residual or is noticeable depends on one's PC, but it is slower! I'm talking about UT3 only, you are bringing a different issue that doesn't go against mine.

[exil3]

Finally switched to Vista Ultimate from XP pro about month ago and i see no difference. No sure if u can use motion blur on DX9 if not. Then I think vista looks better I like the motion Blur.
Vista's pretty sweet after a few tweaks

[gargorias]

QUOTE=Benfica;25548632]
Who cares, we are talking about UT3 performance that doesn't have a 64 binary, so the calls must be translated by that layer which makes it slower. If it is residual or is noticeable depends on one's PC, but it is slower! I'm talking about UT3 only, you are bringing a different issue that doesn't go against mine.

I really hate to disappoint you but:
Using ut3Bench.exe
CTF-Vertebrae Flyby at 2560x1600
Game Settings and Nvidia CP settings exactly the same.

XP32:
Dumping FPS chart at 2008.10.03-16.33.01 using build 3601 built from changelist 264644
Bucket: 0 - 5 Time: 0.63 Frame: 0.02
Bucket: 5 - 10 Time: 0.52 Frame: 0.04
Bucket: 10 - 15 Time: 0.46 Frame: 0.07
Bucket: 15 - 20 Time: 0.13 Frame: 0.02
Bucket: 20 - 25 Time: 0.19 Frame: 0.04
Bucket: 25 - 30 Time: 0.49 Frame: 0.15
Bucket: 30 - 35 Time: 0.68 Frame: 0.24
Bucket: 35 - 40 Time: 0.32 Frame: 0.13
Bucket: 40 - 45 Time: 1.18 Frame: 0.56
Bucket: 45 - 50 Time: 0.78 Frame: 0.41
Bucket: 50 - 55 Time: 1.27 Frame: 0.74
Bucket: 55 - 60 Time: 1.27 Frame: 0.83
Bucket: 60 - 99 Time: 92.07 Frame: 96.74
4602 frames collected over 51.22 seconds, disregarding 0.01 seconds for a 89.86 FPS average, 97.58 percent of time spent > 30 FPS
Average GPU frame time: 0.00 ms

Vista64:
Dumping FPS chart at 2008.10.03-16.21.40 using build 3601 built from changelist 264644
Bucket: 0 - 5 Time: 0.00 Frame: 0.00
Bucket: 5 - 10 Time: 0.00 Frame: 0.00
Bucket: 10 - 15 Time: 0.00 Frame: 0.00
Bucket: 15 - 20 Time: 0.10 Frame: 0.02
Bucket: 20 - 25 Time: 0.00 Frame: 0.00
Bucket: 25 - 30 Time: 0.06 Frame: 0.02
Bucket: 30 - 35 Time: 0.26 Frame: 0.09
Bucket: 35 - 40 Time: 0.27 Frame: 0.11
Bucket: 40 - 45 Time: 0.08 Frame: 0.04
Bucket: 45 - 50 Time: 0.11 Frame: 0.05
Bucket: 50 - 55 Time: 0.16 Frame: 0.09
Bucket: 55 - 60 Time: 0.81 Frame: 0.50
Bucket: 60 - 99 Time: 98.15 Frame: 99.10
5649 frames collected over 59.14 seconds, disregarding 0.00 seconds for a 95.52 FPS average, 99.84 percent of time spent > 30 FPS
Average GPU frame time: 0.00 ms

Now if only Epic would release a 64 bit exe

As for the 128bit thingy. I was alluding to the architecture and not the size of the registers or memory addressing. At the moment x64 only allows the passing of 4 integers through registers in the one call, the rest are passed on the stack (extra calls to retrieve them?). I would assume that 128bit would expand this to a possible 8 which would mean less stack use and faster access to integer values and a possible increase in the number of FP registers but what would I know and probably the wrong place to discuss this - my bad!