Does the GTX295 really get trounced by the HD4870X2...

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: apoppin

. . have you even tried Vista?

Yes.

CoJ is an *awful* example as one of the FIRST games to offer a DX10 pathway

I would disagree given it's one of the few DX10 games that looks much better under DX10, and tempted me to switch to Vista when I saw it.

and forget ALL the hundreds [thousands?] of new DX10 compatible games that DO make an improvement.

Heh, I count 23, and some aren?t even released yet, while others like Bioshock gain almost nothing from DX10:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...ith_DirectX_10_support

Got a link showing those hundreds (or thousands) of DX10 games? I?d like to see them please. Thanks.

Hellgate: London was the first DX10 game that not only LOOKED [way] waay better, it RAN FASTER on DX10 than on the DX9c pathway

Really? Not according to this:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...w0LCxoZW50aGlzdWFzdA==

As you can see, DX9 is running far faster, with DX10 taking about a 40%-45% performance hit. Do you have any links to third party benchmarks showing DX10 is running faster than DX9 in that game? Thanks.

I can't comment on the visuals of that particular game, but many other DX10 titles I?ve seen showed barely any change in IQ, but an enormous cost to performance.

most of the vista haters started out that way and forgot "why" .. now they settle for second best .. for years;

How about reading the Microsoft blogs showing how stressful file copying is still broken in Vista even after SP1? Users in corporate environments report slowdowns and even outright failures which are mysteriously cured when rolling back to XP.

Also how about the GigE throttling that lowers your network bandwidth to 15% (or less) by simply having an MP3 playing in WMP?

Look, I?m not going to go into this again as I?ve been over it many times before. The fact is, DX10 isn?t prevalent and there are still good reasons to avoid Vista, even if you can?t see them.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: chizow
Oh right, I actually thought you had experience based on your "everything grinds to a halt in Vista" comment, along with some of the other comments you made that are common misconceptions perpetuated by Vista-haters. Makes more sense knowing you don't actually have Vista, you're basing your comments on your roommate's machine.

I wouldn't expect to see any difference in COD5 btw, being a DX9 title and all. Crysis does look good in either DX9 or 10 but there's still a decent different, particularly with shadows, water and particles. If that's all you're basing your comparison on, Crysis and a DX9 title its not surprising you don't think there's much difference, but there's many more DX10 games that do look much better than DX9. Again, just look at a list of DX10 games, then check out the side-by-side comparisons on HardOCP or PCGH, if you're truly interested.

I honestly had no intention of starting a flame war. I know that is difficult to avoid in the Video forum, but it was by no means my intention.

I understand that my experience is limited with DX10, but I haven't had a problem with the visuals on DX9C (with the exception of Hellgate London, which is both ugly and a horrible game) and the few games that I have seen in DX10 don't jump out at me as being better than their DX9 counterparts. I am sure they look better, but I didn't notice the difference. I think the blood splatter looked better in Crysis, but I didn't see any other differences.

I may take a look at newer comparisons, but I don't see a need to as I will buy Vista with any new computer that I build (so I will have DX10 available regardless). I based my "grind to a halt" comment on the fact that my roommates laptop did just that when he installed Vista on it (It came with XP) I reinstalled XP on it and it ran fine. It was likely that it didn't have enough RAM to run Vista well compared to XP, but then I can't add RAM to my system either because I have a S939 system with DDR memory.

I don't have a major problem with Vista, and I still don't see why you think I do. I don't like that it requires even more resources than XP which was already a resource hog, but other than that it seems like a fine operating system. I don't have it because it doesn't appear to be a worthwhile upgrade.

Originally posted by: apoppin
my ears were burning

i stand by what i said .. and i did not single anyone out

it just makes little sense to me IF you upgrade your HW and buy lots of games - many many hundreds of dollars a years .. and don't upgrade the OS. Back in '07, Hellgate: London PROVED DX10 looked a HELL of a LOT better AND ran FASTER than on DX9c

- there is a REAL difference - unless you refuse to look .. and clearly you won't; you cling to your XP security blanket and show links from when Vista beats XP. The ONLY time XP was superior to vista was wheb the graphics drivers for Vista were f-dUp; 2 year ago! There is nothing i can say to you. DX9c is nice .. sure.
:roll:

You do seem to try hard to incite colorful responses. I don't really like Windows XP to be honest, but it works adequately for what I use it for. I prefered Windows 98 to be honest, since it was less of a resource hog and was also adequate for my purposes. So I wouldn't call it "clinging to a security blanket". It is more that I don't see enough benefit to switch to Vista, especially with only 2GB of RAM. $100 is still $100 that I could be spending on something else.

I agree that Hellgate London looked like crap on my machine. Enough that I could not finish it it was so ugly. The boring gameplay helped with that too. But one bad game isn't enough for me to put the time and effort into running a new OS on my old system.

Also I never showed any links to anything. I was basing my argument on memory from when I updated my system and was researching whether it would be worth it to switch to Vista. It did not appear so at that time.

Mark, I had no intention of attacking you either, so please don't use your attacking style of prose with me. I honestly don't feel it is appropriate. If you felt that I offended you in any way, then I sincerely apologize for that. I have no intention to offend anyone.

I stick by my side that using XP is not a stupid thing to do. If you already have it, it does not appear to be much of an upgrade moving to Vista. I haven't seen much in the short time that I have used Vista that would cause me to think that I really want to switch.



As for using dual GT295's with XP, I wouldn't suggest it. It would eat up all of your available memory addressing within the operating system. Vista 64 would surely be a much better solution (and perhaps XP 64)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: chizow
Oh right, I actually thought you had experience based on your "everything grinds to a halt in Vista" comment, along with some of the other comments you made that are common misconceptions perpetuated by Vista-haters. Makes more sense knowing you don't actually have Vista, you're basing your comments on your roommate's machine.

I wouldn't expect to see any difference in COD5 btw, being a DX9 title and all. Crysis does look good in either DX9 or 10 but there's still a decent different, particularly with shadows, water and particles. If that's all you're basing your comparison on, Crysis and a DX9 title its not surprising you don't think there's much difference, but there's many more DX10 games that do look much better than DX9. Again, just look at a list of DX10 games, then check out the side-by-side comparisons on HardOCP or PCGH, if you're truly interested.

I honestly had no intention of starting a flame war. I know that is difficult to avoid in the Video forum, but it was by no means my intention.

I understand that my experience is limited with DX10, but I haven't had a problem with the visuals on DX9C (with the exception of Hellgate London, which is both ugly and a horrible game) and the few games that I have seen in DX10 don't jump out at me as being better than their DX9 counterparts. I am sure they look better, but I didn't notice the difference. I think the blood splatter looked better in Crysis, but I didn't see any other differences.

I may take a look at newer comparisons, but I don't see a need to as I will buy Vista with any new computer that I build (so I will have DX10 available regardless). I based my "grind to a halt" comment on the fact that my roommates laptop did just that when he installed Vista on it (It came with XP) I reinstalled XP on it and it ran fine. It was likely that it didn't have enough RAM to run Vista well compared to XP, but then I can't add RAM to my system either because I have a S939 system with DDR memory.

I don't have a major problem with Vista, and I still don't see why you think I do. I don't like that it requires even more resources than XP which was already a resource hog, but other than that it seems like a fine operating system. I don't have it because it doesn't appear to be a worthwhile upgrade.

Originally posted by: apoppin
my ears were burning

i stand by what i said .. and i did not single anyone out

it just makes little sense to me IF you upgrade your HW and buy lots of games - many many hundreds of dollars a years .. and don't upgrade the OS. Back in '07, Hellgate: London PROVED DX10 looked a HELL of a LOT better AND ran FASTER than on DX9c

- there is a REAL difference - unless you refuse to look .. and clearly you won't; you cling to your XP security blanket and show links from when Vista beats XP. The ONLY time XP was superior to vista was wheb the graphics drivers for Vista were f-dUp; 2 year ago! There is nothing i can say to you. DX9c is nice .. sure.
:roll:

You do seem to try hard to incite colorful responses. I don't really like Windows XP to be honest, but it works adequately for what I use it for. I prefered Windows 98 to be honest, since it was less of a resource hog and was also adequate for my purposes. So I wouldn't call it "clinging to a security blanket". It is more that I don't see enough benefit to switch to Vista, especially with only 2GB of RAM. $100 is still $100 that I could be spending on something else.

I agree that Hellgate London looked like crap on my machine. Enough that I could not finish it it was so ugly. The boring gameplay helped with that too. But one bad game isn't enough for me to put the time and effort into running a new OS on my old system.

Also I never showed any links to anything. I was basing my argument on memory from when I updated my system and was researching whether it would be worth it to switch to Vista. It did not appear so at that time.

Mark, I had no intention of attacking you either, so please don't use your attacking style of prose with me. I honestly don't feel it is appropriate. If you felt that I offended you in any way, then I sincerely apologize for that. I have no intention to offend anyone.

I stick by my side that using XP is not a stupid thing to do. If you already have it, it does not appear to be much of an upgrade moving to Vista. I haven't seen much in the short time that I have used Vista that would cause me to think that I really want to switch.



As for using dual GT295's with XP, I wouldn't suggest it. It would eat up all of your available memory addressing within the operating system. Vista 64 would surely be a much better solution (and perhaps XP 64)

there is no "attacking style"

You put down Vista as "not worth it" and blind your eyes to anything anyone says to the contrary because your mind is shut; i provide the FIRST example of a DX10 game that LOOKS and RUNS better on Vista than XP and you shoot it down as "boring gameplay"; Hellgate's gameplay was anything but boring - repetitive, perhaps

i just wanted to point that out. There is no offense intended aimed at your choice to not spend $100. But you are telling me there is no difference in what i can clearly see .. as well as what every Vista owner on a decent PC sees over XP - the ones that have actually upgraded; not the naysayers who really do not know.

 

[evolucion8]

Didn't Far Cry 2 and Assassin Creed had better performance when the DX10 path was used? Vista was usable after the SP1 and has a more robust memory management. I configured the services and startup stuff to use only between 37 and 43 processes during normal usage, and never exceeds the 600-900MB RAM usage threshold. I can have my PC on for days and the performance will be the same, something that cannot be said with XP which after a few days, it would start doing cache trashing and disk trashing with nothing open except utorrent, programs also starts faster, boots pretty much the same, but I can tell that the Vista file copying sucks, sometimes it won't update the status, or show the file transfer speed, or would simply display Non Responding, specially if you start doing the file copy and close the window where you are moving the files. But anyways, using a GTX295 or HD 4870X2 with Windows XP will not untap the power of those cards in DX10 and the memory addressing issue, XP 64 Bit is a joke, but Vista 64 isn't (Completely though)

 

[Blazer7]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You put down Vista as "not worth it" and blind your eyes to anything anyone says to the contrary because your mind is shut; i provide the FIRST example of a DX10 game that LOOKS and RUNS better on Vista than XP and you shoot it down as "boring gameplay"; Hellgate's gameplay was anything but boring - repetitive, perhaps :

Maybe he sees better than you, maybe he's more open minded that you are and maybe Hellgate is boring to him. Its all a matter of perspective and IMHO not worth debating at least to such an extend.

i just wanted to point that out. There is no offense intended aimed at your choice to not spend $100. But you are telling me there is no difference in what i can clearly see

Again, the same here.

.. as well as what every Vista owner on a decent PC sees over XP - the ones that have actually upgraded; not the naysayers who really do not know.

Now you're out of line. Have you bothered to read BFG's post? Many of us naysayers have many good reasons to stay away from Vista. I personally would love to migrate to Vista and get the chance to feel what it's like with all these sparkling DX10 features but for me it's clearly not worth it. I'll definitely lose more than I will gain simply because my rig has other far more important uses besides gaming. Do you honestly believe that all of us XP users do not want to upgrade? Well we do. No one wants to get stuck with an old OS, not when M$ wants to pull the life support on it. The bottom line is that it's not an easy decision to stick with an old OS but for many of us out there Vista is not an option.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Blazer7

Originally posted by: apoppin
You put down Vista as "not worth it" and blind your eyes to anything anyone says to the contrary because your mind is shut; i provide the FIRST example of a DX10 game that LOOKS and RUNS better on Vista than XP and you shoot it down as "boring gameplay"; Hellgate's gameplay was anything but boring - repetitive, perhaps :

Maybe he sees better than you, maybe he's more open minded that you are and maybe Hellgate is boring to him. Its all a matter of perspective and IMHO not worth debating at least to such an extend.

i just wanted to point that out. There is no offense intended aimed at your choice to not spend $100. But you are telling me there is no difference in what i can clearly see

Again, the same here.

.. as well as what every Vista owner on a decent PC sees over XP - the ones that have actually upgraded; not the naysayers who really do not know.

Now you're out of line. Have you bothered to read BFG's post? Many of us naysayers have many good reasons to stay away from Vista. I personally would love to migrate to Vista and get the chance to feel what it's like with all these sparkling DX10 features but for me it's clearly not worth it. I'll definitely lose more than I will gain simply because my rig has other far more important uses besides gaming. Do you honestly believe that all of us XP users do not want to upgrade? Well we do. No one wants to get stuck with an old OS, not when M$ wants to pull the life support on it. The bottom line is that it's not an easy decision to stick with an old OS but for many of us out there Vista is not an option.

Many see thru eyes blinded by irrational hate for Vista; don't forget that

i would say the people who actually *tried* Vista are more "open-minded"

Yes, i read BFG's post and i asked for further clarification
- from him

If you are NOT a GAMER, then i am not discussing Vista with you at all
- it is worth it to most gamers .. gamers that spend money on HW upgrades and spend a lot of money to get their games looking perfect

 

[Blazer7]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Many see thru eyes blinded by irrational hate for Vista; don't forget that

I agree with you here. I know many that don't wanna hear about Vista but have no personal experience on the subject

i would say the people who actually *tried* Vista are more "open-minded"

Yes, i read BFG's post and i asked for further clarification
- from him

Unfortunately I don't have to ask anyone for clarification on many of the things BFG mentioned. I discovered most of them the hard way.

If you are NOT a GAMER, then i am not discussing Vista with you at all
- it is worth it to most gamers .. gamers that spend money on HW upgrades and spend a lot of money to get their games looking perfect

I am a gamer but there're other things that I use my Pc for and like so many others out there I'm kinda stuck between real life and the need for speed... If Vista were capable of fulfiling my other needs too I would have gladly upgraded my rig but since the OS can't handle it there is no point.

I just hope that W7 will be what I need because M$ will pull the plug on XP sooner or later. In fact I believe that they would have done so already if it weren't for the small adaption of Vista by companies and the growing netbook market.

 

[KIAman]

I dual boot Vista Ultimate 64 and XP 64. After trying out Vista for over a year, I hate it with a vengeance. Games work better, more stable and faster in XP, period. The only debatable feature I lose is DX10 of which only 1 mainstream game I play utilizes.

Once there is a supply of games that is designed for DX10+, I will jump to whatever OS is required.

Also, what is this "visual experience" that people are claiming Vista magically provides? The transparencies? The plugins? Really, if you leave the computer on 24/7 like I do, it's irritating to find the video cards stay at operational speeds, temps and power draw, all the time.

The good news is that that Windows 7 looks promising for a DX10+ OS. Gaming comparison on differing OS and hardware.