hey guys, i have a few pcs that i was thinking about upgrading to windows 7. now mostly the pcs are used for gaming,mainly ut3 and left for dead. i was wondering how ut3 is running on the new operating system? you guys getting the same frames per second? any issues with ut3 at all? see i play a lot of ut3 on a vista machine and it runs great,so im sceptical about upgrading, but i just bought a asus laptop with 7 on it and i love it,it is a big difference over vista,although i have not run ut3 on it. on my desktop pcs 4 of em have vista and one has xp, i just would like everything on the home network running on the same os,especially with the crazy price on windows 7 3 user pack sellers are offering, but at the same time i dont want to sacrifice my performance in ut3...? what do ya think?
-
-
-
Not sure I would define a 1 FPS gain as 'notable' tbh...Comment
-
they are on "optimist" mode haha..
Comment
-
For me, it has been on par with Windows XP for gaming.Originally posted by DR._MINDBENDER View Post
I tested w7 for awhile before i dropped XP all together, XP was only good for gaming and with w7 being as good at gaming as XP, i have had no reason to look back
Comment
-
Read the XP version link in that benchmark post. 30-40% fps loss against XP with a non ultra high end machine.Comment
-
dont expect miracles. i have had nothing but trouble with win 7, i reckon if you are on a quad or above you'll be fine but core 2 dont seem too happy though some people have been fine with them
have a look at these 2 posts
http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=703837
http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=704122Comment
-
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
win 7 is just vista fixed, so the problems people had switching to vista may still exist in win7. Problems from almost 2 years ago like the needing the --onethread fix seem to be still there.Comment
-
So, Vista is an hog and Windows 7 is much slower than Vista??Originally posted by Bl!tz~ View PostComment
-
-
rofl!....vista & windows7 are perfect if u have a Powerfull PC; on "slow" mashines XP is the good oneOriginally posted by Benfica View Post
and on UT3 2% more or less isnt a big change but ...WTF with COD results ?....30 % losen from vista to w7......omg.......looks like a joke!Comment
-
I wouldn't expect Win 7 to be any faster with what are essentially old DX9 titles, games like UT3 could be improved performance wise by making changes like these . On a like for like basis, DX9 vs DX11, the fully optimized DX11 game and its feature set should clearly leave DX9 way behind in terms of fps performance, it's just down to whether devs use that potential or not.Comment
-
I found this info at Tomshardware.com about WIN 7 vs XP
Thank to frozenlead for the info and his comments.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/84...arked-complete
Windows XP SP3 Scores
C:\Windows\ directory size: 3.67GB
3D Mark 2001: 15264 @ 1024x768, 0xAA
3D Mark 2001: BSOD @ 1024x768, 4xAA (related - unsolvable)
3D Mark 2005: 6719 @ 1280x1024
3D Mark 2005: 6087 @ 1600x1200
Crysis: 36.66 fps @ 1280x1024, Low, DX9, 32 bit
Crysis: 33.02 fps @ 1680x1050, Low, DX9, 32 bit
Doom 3: 55.18 fps @ 1280x1024, High
Doom 3: 50.87 fps @ 1600x1200, High
UT3: 23.20 fps @ 1280x1024, Medium
UT3: 23.09 fps @ 1680x1050, Medium
WinRAR compression: 3:07 (141MB Starcraft folder)
DIVX upscale: 5:22:58
Sonar 8 mix-down: 2:20 (Custom 4-track mix of the Hymn to the Red October)
Windows 7 Professional x86
C:\Windows\ directory size: 7.95 GB
3D Mark 2001: 12508 @ 1024x768, 0xAA
3D Mark 2001: 10362 @ 1024x768, 4xAA
3D Mark 2005: 5605 @ 1280x1024
3D Mark 2005: 5411 @ 1600x1200
Crysis: Crash @ 1280x1024, Low, DX9, 32 bit (driver related - unsolvable)
Crysis: 22.84 fps @ 1680x1050, Low, DX9, 32 bit
Doom 3: 27.83 fps @ 1280x1024, High
Doom 3: 21.87 fps @ 1600x1200, High
UT 3: 16.30 @ 1280x1024, Medium
UT 3: 15.37 @ 1280x1024, Medium
WinRAR compression: 3:23 (141MB Starcraft folder)
DIVX upscale: 5:36:29
Sonar 8 mix-down: 3:24 (Custom 4-track mix of the Hymn to the Red October)
Performance Delta
(7's values relative to XP's values)
C:\Windows\ directory size: +216.62%
3D Mark 2001 (0xAA): -18.06%
3D Mark 2001 (4xAA): NA
3D Mark 2005 (1280x1024): -16.58%
3D Mark 2005 (1600x1200): -11.11%
Crysis (1280x1024): NA
Crysis (1680x1050): -30.83%
Doom 3 (1280x1024): -49.57%
Doom 3 (1600x1200): -57.01%
UT3 (1280x1024): -29.75%
UT3 (1680x1050): -33.43%
WinRAR compression: -8.56%
DIVX upscale: -4.25%
Sonar 8 mix-down: -45.71%
XP still beats WIN 7
Conclusion from frozenlead
Those who have older machines and were clinging to the hope that 7 might improve your one last time - forget it. In my case, at least, the software and just isn't there - the new OS resulted in massive performance losses. Whether or not newer hardware will show the same I've still yet to find (see my other thread), so who to blame for the performance loss is a little unkown right now. It could be bad AGP drivers (which are notoriously so) or just as likely be the new OS. I'll update after the other test on newer hardware is complete!Comment
-
Thanks Doz, I'll be looking for the new hardware results... running shista 64 now, UT3 maxed out at about 25-30 fps, waiting to see if I should "upgrade".Comment
-
I didnt read the rest of the thread, sorryOriginally posted by MikeHunter, what use was repeating that?
Comment
Comment