8800 and Vista stutter...

[nullpointerus]

Yeah, I agree, but I'm saying things might have changed a bit in the last year or two.

 

[cputeq]

You'd be surprised at just how good the scaling can be.

I used to have a 19" Hyundai monitor, scaling wasn't all that great.

Now, I run a 24" Gateway and scaling is awesome. I actually prefer the monitor's scaling of images to using the Nvidia driver scaling.

Of course you aren't running native resolution, but at least for me, I could run at around 1200x800 and it looks great. (this was with my old 7800GT).
Anything below 1200x800, though, and the blur kicked in too much.

So yeah, of course you get the sharpest at native, and at first I was regretting not being able to run at native res (even with my 8800GTS), but now I don't mind at all. The 8800 pretty much lets me run at around
1600x1000 with all the goodies on and it looks superb. plus, I still have the ubah-resolution going when I need to actually get some work done in 2-D windows

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: cputeq
You'd be surprised at just how good the scaling can be.

I used to have a 19" Hyundai monitor, scaling wasn't all that great.

Now, I run a 24" Gateway and scaling is awesome. I actually prefer the monitor's scaling of images to using the Nvidia driver scaling.

Of course you aren't running native resolution, but at least for me, I could run at around 1200x800 and it looks great. (this was with my old 7800GT).
Anything below 1200x800, though, and the blur kicked in too much.

So yeah, of course you get the sharpest at native, and at first I was regretting not being able to run at native res (even with my 8800GTS), but now I don't mind at all. The 8800 pretty much lets me run at around
1600x1000 with all the goodies on and it looks superb. plus, I still have the ubah-resolution going when I need to actually get some work done in 2-D windows

That's something I will think about. I'll have to see how well each monitor I'm interested in, scales up from a lower resolution. This will give playable FPS for sure.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: cputeq
You'd be surprised at just how good the scaling can be.

I used to have a 19" Hyundai monitor, scaling wasn't all that great.

Now, I run a 24" Gateway and scaling is awesome. I actually prefer the monitor's scaling of images to using the Nvidia driver scaling.

Of course you aren't running native resolution, but at least for me, I could run at around 1200x800 and it looks great. (this was with my old 7800GT).
Anything below 1200x800, though, and the blur kicked in too much.

So yeah, of course you get the sharpest at native, and at first I was regretting not being able to run at native res (even with my 8800GTS), but now I don't mind at all. The 8800 pretty much lets me run at around
1600x1000 with all the goodies on and it looks superb. plus, I still have the ubah-resolution going when I need to actually get some work done in 2-D windows

Are you talking about using the monitor's 1:1 function? Or are you selecting a lower resolution and having the monitor fill the screen?

I have the same monitor as you and I find the upscaling attrocious. Then again I think any scaling looks really bad (unless you're scaling down 1:1).

 

[cputeq]

Are you talking about using the monitor's 1:1 function? Or are you selecting a lower resolution and having the monitor fill the screen?

I have the same monitor as you and I find the upscaling attrocious. Then again I think any scaling looks really bad (unless you're scaling down 1:1).

I'm using "Wide" video scaling in the monitor options, disabling video card scaling in Nvidia driver panel, and ensuring I run a 16:10 resolution.

I was certainly impressed by how well it scales, and I think I might even have a hard time picking out a set of screenshots trying to determine which one was scaled more. (from say a 1200x800 to 1600x1000)
I guess one man's junk is another's treasure, though. What OSD version are you using (found in Information) ? I'm using GA5.5 That could have something to do with monitor performance, as apparently the older version GA5.0
took the Xbox 360's VGA 1080P signal just fine...but mine won't So there's no telling what other changes they made.

Or, maybe I'm just blind or my standards have dropped with age!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: cputeq


As for moving up to 4GB, it's nice, but it may not be a cure-all.

Even if you move to 4GB and Vista-64, you're still running into a 2GB user-mode space limitation from the app itself because it's not a 64-bit compiled app. Only if the app is "LargeAddressAware" is 64-bit going to help, but in that case a /3GB switch may help a normal Vista-32 installation.

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewth...2005/06/01/423817.aspx


http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms791558.aspx

---------------

This is only partially true, as a 64-bit OS with 64-bit and 32-bit apps will still handle > 2GB better than a 32-bit OS with only 32-bit apps with > 2GB. A common misconception is that > 2GB on a 32-bit OS will improve performance similarly to a 64-bit OS with > 2GB when in actuality the extra 1GB or so from the /3GB switch is largely wasted because the OS, hardware and 32-bit apps are still fighting for the same addressable memory as they would with 2GB or less. In many cases, using 3GB can cause additional problems due to conflicts with addressable memory.

Even if the app is 32-bit or isn't LargeAddressAware enabled, the native 64-bit OS and its various hardware/software drivers will be able to address memory > 2GB, which frees up the full 2GB for the 32-bit app. Again, this is even more important under Vista vs. XP since its well documented that Vista requires more addressable memory for its new video driver model (changed with hot fix to XP levels) before it even gets to its memory-hungry SuperFetch caching. In any case, more and more games are becoming LargeAddressAware so they will be able to use > 2GB with very real and tangible benefits.

 

[SexyK]

Okay guys, here's another update. Though the 163.67 update fixed most of the problem, I was still experiencing some hitching. Then I had a brilliant :light: idea - shutting down FAH. Under XP I could run 2 instances of FAH in the background with no change it system responsiveness or performance. Under Vista, I was only running a single instance and left 1 core idle, but for some reason FAH was still causing the hitching. Perhaps it was confusing the Vista thread manager/scheduler, but whatever the reason, with FAH shut down I'm back to silky smooth performance in every app. Goes to show, you gotta suspect every piece of software running on the machine. Either way, fixed now and I'm happy. :thumbsup:

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SexyK
Okay guys, here's another update. Though the 163.67 update fixed most of the problem, I was still experiencing some hitching. Then I had a brilliant :light: idea - shutting down FAH. Under XP I could run 2 instances of FAH in the background with no change it system responsiveness or performance. Under Vista, I was only running a single instance and left 1 core idle, but for some reason FAH was still causing the hitching. Perhaps it was confusing the Vista thread manager/scheduler, but whatever the reason, with FAH shut down I'm back to silky smooth performance in every app. Goes to show, you gotta suspect every piece of software running on the machine. Either way, fixed now and I'm happy. :thumbsup:

hrm...could also be that superfetch holds your memory in limbo and only releases what the app asks for. If FAH asks for memory at the same time as your game, well I guess that could be a problem. That's a wild guess.