Is my rig that dated?

[techboie]

UT3 XP

12x10 MAX 4x AA: Nice and smooth
12x10 MAX 8x AA: Decent and playable

UT3 Vista

12x10 MAX no AA: Occasional FPS drop into the 50s
12x10 MAX 4x AA: Frequent drop into the 50s and rarely into the 40s
12x10 MAX 8x AA: Not enjoyable

Farcry 2 Vista

Runs smooth at 1280x1024 VHigh. FPS are fine even at UHigh but game is not smooth then.

Now is this happening because I only have 2GB RAM in Vista and upgrading to 4GB will solve it or is my PC not good enough to run Vista effectively?

EXPERIENCE ON ANOTHER PC

Q6600 @ stock
AFAIK for gaming a C2D E7300 @ 3.5GHz >= Q6600(barring in few titles)
9600GT OC
4GB RAM @ stock
Win XP

Undercover runs really nice and smooth, flawless, but smoother than it runs on Vista for me. Yeah, I confirmed, everything maxed out at 1400x900 2x AA.

COD5 too runs flawless on this machine in XP whereas FPS shows that in Vista on my hardware it may be just okay.

Is my PC suffering from:

Lack of 2GB RAM
Vista
Lack of a fast CPU
Two or more of the above

 

[vj8usa]

My guess is that you'd see a noticeable improvement from adding more RAM. 2GB is enough for regular desktop use in Vista, but not for gaming. I remember even TF2 would start stuttering on my machine back when I had 2GB RAM in Vista. Once I upgraded, it was buttery smooth again. Also, you might as well upgrade to 6GB if you do upgrade, considering how cheap DDR2 is nowadays.

 

[techboie]

I doubt any game uses over 4GB even in Vista. Does it?

 

[yh125d]

Yes. WoW + vista alone can use like 4gb. Crysis used about 2.5gb for me

 

[AstroManLuca]

I wonder if it has to do with video drivers or game programmers coding their games to be much better on nVidia than on ATI? That's possible... nVidia seems to be a bit more popular than ATI and also they push all that "way it's meant to be played" crap so it wouldn't surprise me. Because a 4850 should beat a 9600GT easily.

Either that or games are taking more advantage of quads. Probably a combination of those two factors and the RAM issue as well.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: techboie
I doubt any game uses over 4GB even in Vista. Does it?

You don't have just the game running - you also have the OS, antivirus, device drivers, etc.

 

[zerocool84]

I have the computer in my sig and it runs UT3 just fine on Vista max everything 2xAA 16AF 12x10

 

[cusideabelincoln]

14x9 is a bit less demanding than 12x10. Also Windows XP does have less overhead than Vista. And finally the quad core would make a difference if background applications are running.

But you should certainly add some RAM to your Vista machine.

 

[techboie]

I am talking about 4x or 8x AA and that too only occasional FPS drops.

 

[Concillian]

Vista with 2GB is the issue. Why is there any question about this?

Vista + games = upgrade from 2GB to 4GB.

 

[mhouck]

I don't see where it says that it's Vista x64. Rember if its only 32bit you are going to see the full benefity of 4GB. Just something to consider.

If you are clocked at 3.5 I think your CPU is fast enough already. What sort of clocks are you looking to hit?

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Concillian
Vista with 2GB is the issue. Why is there any question about this?

Vista + games = upgrade from 2GB to 4GB.

Most games will run fine under Vista with 2GB, so long as you're not running over 1680x1050. Numbers posted by users in the PC Gaming forum back this up. But, having said that, as cheap as DDR2 is, I'd pick up more out of principle.

To the OP, there is a problem with frame rates dropping into the 50s? Last I checked, that was still more than playable.

 

[techboie]

50s in COD4 seems smooth but in UT3 it breaks the silkiness.