Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ut3 and windows 7

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

  • replied
    Rjc
    I read your other post
    nvidia drivers arenotthat old, neither is my system or my OS
    and I could understand your post if I was trying tto het it to work on XP
    it's all new stuff.
    I did a check today on CPU activity and memory and got large spikes while UT was running
    turning off nvidia multithreading sounds about the same as turning CPU multithreading off, but neither SHOULD be necessary.
    The gpu multithreading fix is 3 years old now so why would it still count today

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by MikeHunt
    er, what use was repeating that?
    I didnt read the rest of the thread, sorry

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Benfica View Post
    So, Vista is an hog and Windows 7 is much slower than Vista??
    rofl!....vista & windows7 are perfect if u have a Powerfull PC; on "slow" mashines XP is the good one

    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Benfica View Post
    So, Vista is an hog and Windows 7 is much slower than Vista??
    er, what use was repeating that?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Bl!tz~ View Post
    So, Vista is an hog and Windows 7 is much slower than Vista??

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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=704122

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Read the XP version link in that benchmark post. 30-40% fps loss against XP with a non ultra high end machine.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by DR._MINDBENDER View Post
    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?
    For me, it has been on par with Windows XP for gaming.
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    they are on "optimist" mode haha..

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Not sure I would define a 1 FPS gain as 'notable' tbh...

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/83...arked-complete
    ...............

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X