I tried it on both, and I had an fps difference of 1 on 3 different sized maps. I'm staying with Vista. The only way I would've stayed with XP would be at least a diffference of 10. I'm using Vista x64 and I tried it XP 64 and 32 (no difference)
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Vista vs XP performance
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by gargorias View PostI really hate to disappoint you but:
Using ut3Bench.exe
CTF-Vertebrae Flyby at 2560x1600
...
UnrealEngine script -> Unreal Engine Native -> 3rd party Direct3D library (Epic bought one a few years ago?) -> Direct3D -> System -> Drivers -> Motherboard Northbridge -> Motherboard southbridge -> PCI-e -> GPU registers.
phew, I'm tired already, and everytime I write that thing I miss something, and pull other out of my a..My point is you are only bottlenecking the card which is working internally, all that junk that depends on Windows is idling there. Besides, you are not even using sound or networking!
As for the 128bit thingy...But x86-64 owns, the mode now has 14 general purpose registers available instead of 6 and everything could be done the way you are saying...
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Demon Slick View PostI thought Vista 64 could only utilize a total of 8Gbs including Sustem memory (Video card mem, virtual pages, etc). Is that not the limit? I use only 6gbs DDR2 because I have 2 512's GDDR2 Vid mem and figure the system ballparks around 1Gb more...?
Windows Vista Ultimate 4 GB
Windows Vista Enterprise 4 GB
Windows Vista Business 4 GB
Windows Vista Home Premium 4 GB
Windows Vista Home Basic 4 GB
Windows Vista Starter 4 GB
Version Limit in 64-bit Windows
Windows Vista Ultimate 128 GB
Windows Vista Enterprise 128 GB
Windows Vista Business 128 GB
Windows Vista Home Premium 16 GB
Windows Vista Home Basic 8 GB
Windows Vista Starter N/A
Comment
Comment