• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Crysis--XP32 vs. Vista 64--Why the Performance Difference??

hamltnh

Member
Oct 8, 2006
35
0
0
The title says it all--I'm running XP32 and Vista64 as a dual-boot--system config as follows:

Intel Q6600 OC'd to 2.7Ghz
2GB DDR2 Buffalo RAM running @ 300Mhz
DFI Inf 975X/G--FSB running @ 1200Mhz
Visiontek 3850 256M graphics card--Cat. 8.2 drivers
Creative Audigy 2zs sound card, etc., etc.

Crysis patched to Ver. 1.1
XP Service Pack 2 and all updates
Vista64 with all updates

Crysis runs smooth as butter with settings at High under XP32. Try as I might I cannot get anywhere near as good of performance with Vista64 under Dx 9. I get nothing but constant slowdowns, freezes, etc. with Vista64 using Dx9. Driver wise I've tried Cat 7.11, 7.12, 8.1 and now 8.2 including the ATI Hotfixes for Crysis--same results.

Does anyone have a similar config. and experience with running Crysis on XP32 and Vista64. I'm trying hard to like Vista64, but Crysis is holding me back--any suggestions??
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: hamltnh
The title says it all--I'm running XP32 and Vista64 as a dual-boot--system config as follows:

Intel Q6600 OC'd to 2.7Ghz
2GB DDR2 Buffalo RAM running @ 300Mhz
DFI Inf 975X/G--FSB running @ 1200Mhz
Visiontek 3850 256M graphics card--Cat. 8.2 drivers
Creative Audigy 2zs sound card, etc., etc.

Crysis patched to Ver. 1.1
XP Service Pack 2 and all updates
Vista64 with all updates

Crysis runs smooth as butter with settings at High under XP32. Try as I might I cannot get anywhere near as good of performance with Vista64 under Dx 9. I get nothing but constant slowdowns, freezes, etc. with Vista64 using Dx9. Driver wise I've tried Cat 7.11, 7.12, 8.1 and now 8.2 including the ATI Hotfixes for Crysis--same results.

Does anyone have a similar config. and experience with running Crysis on XP32 and Vista64. I'm trying hard to like Vista64, but Crysis is holding me back--any suggestions??
maybe a bad install, maybe your drivers are messed up in Vista 64 ... everything perfect in Device Manager ... no issues with signed drivers?

here is Vista 32 vs Vista64 ... Vista 32 wins in everything [except FarCry] but there is not much difference.

Vista32- vs. Vista64-bit OS Showdown *Pt 1 Done!*


 

hamltnh

Member
Oct 8, 2006
35
0
0
I don't think it's a bad install--my experience is based on 2 different Vista64 installs since Crysis came out--both appeared to be clean--nothing hokey in Device Manager, etc. My only guess is the Audigy 2 sound card maybe--been alot of problems with Creative's drivers under VISTA. I don't have any experience with Vista32....
 

WicKeD

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2000
1,893
0
0
I am playing Crysis on Vista Ultimate x64 using DX10

QX9650
eVGA 8800 Ultra KO
2GB DDR3 Corsair Dominator

Resolution 1920x1200 Everything on High except shadows (Medium)

Smooth like butter... Avg. frames between 25-30 I notice no slow down at all.

 

batmang

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2003
3,020
1
81
I'm running 1440x900 in High with a couple things turned to medium and it runs fairly smooth for me in Vista 64 (DX9). Averaging about 30-35FPS. In fact, I finally got to the final boss last night. I love this game.
 

hamltnh

Member
Oct 8, 2006
35
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: hamltnh
The title says it all--I'm running XP32 and Vista64 as a dual-boot--system config as follows:

Intel Q6600 OC'd to 2.7Ghz
2GB DDR2 Buffalo RAM running @ 300Mhz
DFI Inf 975X/G--FSB running @ 1200Mhz
Visiontek 3850 256M graphics card--Cat. 8.2 drivers
Creative Audigy 2zs sound card, etc., etc.

Crysis patched to Ver. 1.1
XP Service Pack 2 and all updates
Vista64 with all updates

Crysis runs smooth as butter with settings at High under XP32. Try as I might I cannot get anywhere near as good of performance with Vista64 under Dx 9. I get nothing but constant slowdowns, freezes, etc. with Vista64 using Dx9. Driver wise I've tried Cat 7.11, 7.12, 8.1 and now 8.2 including the ATI Hotfixes for Crysis--same results.

Does anyone have a similar config. and experience with running Crysis on XP32 and Vista64. I'm trying hard to like Vista64, but Crysis is holding me back--any suggestions??
maybe a bad install, maybe your drivers are messed up in Vista 64 ... everything perfect in Device Manager ... no issues with signed drivers?

here is Vista 32 vs Vista64 ... Vista 32 wins in everything [except FarCry] but there is not much difference.

Vista32- vs. Vista64-bit OS Showdown *Pt 1 Done!*

Well, I've scrubbed my Vista64 install, uninstalled the ATI dirvers, cleaned the registry, reinstalled the 8.2 drivers again, etc. I've set both my XP and Vista64 options in the games to High on all video options except motion blur set to off and mouse smoothing set to on.

XP is still smooth as butter if not better with motion blur set to off and Vista64 Dx10 is very choppy, Vista64 Dx9 is better, but nowhere near as good as XP. I notice while I'm in the game in Vista64 a fair amount of HD activity that starts when I start the game and continues while I'm in the game (unlike XP--No HD activity while I'm in the game)--even the cut-scenes stutter in Vista64 with both Dx9 and 10--I'm stumped--short of starting to randomly turn off services under Vista64, I'm not sure where else to look--I'm trying to keep an apples to apples comparison, so turning down the game's video settings is not really the point......
 

Gautama2

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2006
1,463
0
0
Crysis forces DX10 if you have the hardware even if you don't use very high, are you forcing DX9 through the shortcut?
 

Build it Myself

Senior member
Oct 24, 2007
333
0
0
i'm on 64bit, DX10, rig in sig, high settings except shadows on med, 1650xwidescreen equivilant resolution, runs great
 

hamltnh

Member
Oct 8, 2006
35
0
0
Originally posted by: Gautama2
Crysis forces DX10 if you have the hardware even if you don't use very high, are you forcing DX9 through the shortcut?
Yes, I am forcing Dx9 in Vista64 for my comparison.
 

hamltnh

Member
Oct 8, 2006
35
0
0
Originally posted by: BassBomb
Doesnt vista use much more system ram than XP?
That's my understanding also, but I thought when you started a game it offloaded to accomodate the game.....
 

themisfit610

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2006
1,351
2
81
It does.

XP32 is significantly faster than Vista64 in Crysis DX9.

I can run 1920x1200 with tweaked INIs to get the DX9 equivalent of almost all "very high". It's very smooth. Played the whole game through without any complaints. A few slow spots, but it was always quite playable.

Vista it was a whole different story. Not a fan.

~MiSfit
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
1
0
Originally posted by: hamltnh
Originally posted by: Gautama2
Crysis forces DX10 if you have the hardware even if you don't use very high, are you forcing DX9 through the shortcut?
Yes, I am forcing Dx9 in Vista64 for my comparison.
On NV hardware with Vista, Crysis runs best in DX10 with the 32-bit client. If that's not the case with ATI hardware, it could be DX10 performance with ATI drivers. Generally XP performance will be better than Vista but typically within 2-3 FPS, which can represent a big % but isn't quite the earth-shattering differences some make it out to be.

I highly recommend using this benchmark tool from Crymod.com to get an idea of relative performance. Its easy to use and allows you to quickly and easily change 32/64-bit and DX9/10 along with quality settings to get an idea of how your system best performs.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: hamltnh
Originally posted by: Gautama2
Crysis forces DX10 if you have the hardware even if you don't use very high, are you forcing DX9 through the shortcut?
Yes, I am forcing Dx9 in Vista64 for my comparison.
On NV hardware with Vista, Crysis runs best in DX10 with the 32-bit client. If that's not the case with ATI hardware, it could be DX10 performance with ATI drivers. Generally XP performance will be better than Vista but typically within 2-3 FPS, which can represent a big % but isn't quite the earth-shattering differences some make it out to be.

I highly recommend using this benchmark tool from Crymod.com to get an idea of relative performance. Its easy to use and allows you to quickly and easily change 32/64-bit and DX9/10 along with quality settings to get an idea of how your system best performs.
On the pre-release Crysis demo there are "issues" with 64-bit Vista with my [AMD] Crossfire rig that aren't present in 32-bit Vista.

btw -especially for *you* - Hellgate: London is significantly faster on 64 bit [duh it's 64-bit] and the Witcher DOES run a bit smoother also on 64-bit over Vista 32 ... but then it IS a memory mismanagement hog. All the other dozen or so games i tested - except FC and Hg: L - run a little faster on Vista 32 than Vista 64. AND ... from my past benchmarking in May ... Vista32 is more-or-less-equal-to XP32.

So i confirmed some things you noted ... and Disputed others.



i think you're gonna have to wait a while for DW's results :p

AND do you [anyone?] know if WiC MP demo has a built-in demo ... i have the dvd and can finish up my testing tonight.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
1
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: hamltnh
Originally posted by: Gautama2
Crysis forces DX10 if you have the hardware even if you don't use very high, are you forcing DX9 through the shortcut?
Yes, I am forcing Dx9 in Vista64 for my comparison.
On NV hardware with Vista, Crysis runs best in DX10 with the 32-bit client. If that's not the case with ATI hardware, it could be DX10 performance with ATI drivers. Generally XP performance will be better than Vista but typically within 2-3 FPS, which can represent a big % but isn't quite the earth-shattering differences some make it out to be.

I highly recommend using this benchmark tool from Crymod.com to get an idea of relative performance. Its easy to use and allows you to quickly and easily change 32/64-bit and DX9/10 along with quality settings to get an idea of how your system best performs.
On the pre-release Crysis demo there are "issues" with 64-bit Vista with my [AMD] Crossfire rig that aren't present in 32-bit Vista.

btw -especially for *you* - Hellgate: London is significantly faster on 64 bit [duh it's 64-bit] and the Witcher DOES run a bit smoother also on 64-bit over Vista 32 ... but then it IS a memory mismanagement hog. All the other dozen or so games i tested - except FC and Hg: L - run a little faster on Vista 32 than Vista 64. AND ... from my past benchmarking in May ... Vista32 is more-or-less-equal-to XP32.

So i confirmed some things you noted ... and Disputed others.



i think you're gonna have to wait a while for DW's results :p

AND do you [anyone?] know if WiC MP demo has a built-in demo ... i have the dvd and can finish up my testing tonight.
Well as I said in my last post in your testing thread, your tests didn't show much besides potential differences in 32-bit/64-bit clients, 32-bit WOW emulation in Vista 64 or even driver differences between 32 and 64-bit versions. Certainly useful information but again, not completely relevant given the uncertainty whether the tests you ran would even benefit from the 64-bit OS running 32-bit clients. Small differences in FPS between 32-bit/64-bit and Vista/XP are concessions I never disputed, however, I'd rather lose 2-3 FPS for a smoother game experience overall, or at worst, a complete game crash 1-2 hours into gaming.

Not sure about WiC MP demo having a built-in test, but the built-in bench for the retail version is embedded in the graphics option like CoH. If you're looking into this for benchmarking purposes you have to again ask yourself if running a 30s canned benchmark is really a good measure of 32-bit vs 64-bit performance.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: hamltnh
Originally posted by: Gautama2
Crysis forces DX10 if you have the hardware even if you don't use very high, are you forcing DX9 through the shortcut?
Yes, I am forcing Dx9 in Vista64 for my comparison.
On NV hardware with Vista, Crysis runs best in DX10 with the 32-bit client. If that's not the case with ATI hardware, it could be DX10 performance with ATI drivers. Generally XP performance will be better than Vista but typically within 2-3 FPS, which can represent a big % but isn't quite the earth-shattering differences some make it out to be.

I highly recommend using this benchmark tool from Crymod.com to get an idea of relative performance. Its easy to use and allows you to quickly and easily change 32/64-bit and DX9/10 along with quality settings to get an idea of how your system best performs.
On the pre-release Crysis demo there are "issues" with 64-bit Vista with my [AMD] Crossfire rig that aren't present in 32-bit Vista.

btw -especially for *you* - Hellgate: London is significantly faster on 64 bit [duh it's 64-bit] and the Witcher DOES run a bit smoother also on 64-bit over Vista 32 ... but then it IS a memory mismanagement hog. All the other dozen or so games i tested - except FC and Hg: L - run a little faster on Vista 32 than Vista 64. AND ... from my past benchmarking in May ... Vista32 is more-or-less-equal-to XP32.

So i confirmed some things you noted ... and Disputed others.



i think you're gonna have to wait a while for DW's results :p

AND do you [anyone?] know if WiC MP demo has a built-in demo ... i have the dvd and can finish up my testing tonight.
Well as I said in my last post in your testing thread, your tests didn't show much besides potential differences in 32-bit/64-bit clients, 32-bit WOW emulation in Vista 64 or even driver differences between 32 and 64-bit versions. Certainly useful information but again, not completely relevant given the uncertainty whether the tests you ran would even benefit from the 64-bit OS running 32-bit clients. Small differences in FPS between 32-bit/64-bit and Vista/XP are concessions I never disputed, however, I'd rather lose 2-3 FPS for a smoother game experience overall, or at worst, a complete game crash 1-2 hours into gaming.

Not sure about WiC MP demo having a built-in test, but the built-in bench for the retail version is embedded in the graphics option like CoH. If you're looking into this for benchmarking purposes you have to again ask yourself if running a 30s canned benchmark is really a good measure of 32-bit vs 64-bit performance.
i thought i'd get your attention quickly :p

... my benchmarking is getting finished up - i haven't posted in it recently ... it is still a work in progress and you are getting just a little 'taste' of it - right here.

"Canned" benchmarks are the best we have to work with ... it is both repeatable and scientific - unlike the smoke & mirrors that HardOCP uses for their "real world" nonsense.

However, there are tests that show some differences ... and IF you have 4+GB of RAM there are some advantages. Huge advantages with 64-bit games and minor advantages in "loading/saving", in memory-mismanaged games and also if you are an 'extreme multitasker'

imo - for personal use - i'd rather have the FPS :p

but i see where you prefer the slightly smoother experience in *some* games [like the Witcher/NWN2/G3] and you are also a maxi-multitasker

As i UNINSTALL Vista 64, i have to say it is THE FUTURE - it is just as STABLE as Vista 32 and you have to 'nitpick' to find flaws as you trade the irritation of 'signed drivers' for slightly better security.

So ... pick one ... don't feel bad picking either choice as it is not a "marriage"

and if you want you can be polygamous ... tri- or even quad- boot your OSes if it makes you feel "high end"
:roll:

:D

 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
As i UNINSTALL Vista 64, i have to say it is THE FUTURE - it is just as STABLE as Vista 32 and you have to 'nitpick' to find flaws as you trade the irritation of 'signed drivers' for slightly better security.

So ... pick one ... don't feel bad picking either choice as it is not a "marriage"

and if you want you can be polygamous ... tri- or even quad- boot your OSes if it makes you feel "high end"
I agree with apoppin here,Vista x64 is just as stable as Vista x86,I have yet to find a 32 bit game that I can't run or have issues with,as always it comes down to drivers with 64 bit OS,signed drivers is a good thing in my case,all my drivers are signed.

Vista x64 will become the norm,its still in its infancy when it comes to 64 bit software support from major software companies,however there is a lot of 64 bit software floating about if you bother to search, its also growing day by day.

Hellgate London 64 bit version I had no issues with,nice to see some new games with the choice of a 64 bit installation.

Side Note:remember the beauty of Vista x64 is it'll run most 32 bit software as well.
 

hamltnh

Member
Oct 8, 2006
35
0
0
Originally posted by: themisfit610
It does.

XP32 is significantly faster than Vista64 in Crysis DX9.

I can run 1920x1200 with tweaked INIs to get the DX9 equivalent of almost all "very high". It's very smooth. Played the whole game through without any complaints. A few slow spots, but it was always quite playable.

Vista it was a whole different story. Not a fan.

~MiSfit
Yep--that's my experience too--still trying to sort through the why of that--seems that there is some disagreement about that observation though...

To get equivalent XP32 performance in Crysis, I have to turn down the textures, shadows and post-processing settings to medium to get equivalent performance using Vista64--so there does appear to be a measureable, repeatable difference between the O/S's.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com

To get equivalent XP32 performance in Crysis, I have to turn down the textures, shadows and post-processing settings to medium to get equivalent performance using Vista64--so there does appear to be a measureable, repeatable difference between the O/S's.
only with Crysis .. it stands to reason that the CryTek devs are also "businessmen" .. they would "fix" XP [their largest fan base] first .. then Vista 32 and finally Vista64 - which will *eventually* get the MOST attention as it will [eventually] run faster in Vista 64 then in either Vista 32 or XP 32

FACT
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
Originally posted by: apoppin

To get equivalent XP32 performance in Crysis, I have to turn down the textures, shadows and post-processing settings to medium to get equivalent performance using Vista64--so there does appear to be a measureable, repeatable difference between the O/S's.
only with Crysis .. it stands to reason that the CryTek devs are also "businessmen" .. they would "fix" XP [their largest fan base] first .. then Vista 32 and finally Vista64 - which will *eventually* get the MOST attention as it will [eventually] run faster in Vista 64 then in either Vista 32 or XP 32

FACT
same reason the released the game semi buggy and got the community involved with modding, etc.. by time the cost of hardware reaches the masses, the game will be so well patched and refined that to most people its fucking perfect.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY