Low fps in vista

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Pelu

Originally posted by: mb

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Look, it should be obvious to all of you nerds that PEBKAC is the issue here. There is NOTHING that will cause that much frame drop from simply switching to Vista from XP - it's fucking ridiculous.

This.

OP, you probably f'd something up along the way. First mistake was disabling UAC.
Second, did you install all the latest drivers for everything? Do you even know how to get the latest drivers, or are you just using what came on the CD with your products?
And you don't even sound like you're sure you have SLI enabled. Make sure it is, and not just by removing one and seeing lower performance.

Also, why not use Vista 64?

What you mean by trully have the SLI enable not just remove one and seeing lower performance????

Is that even English?

 

[Pelu]

I dont know... kinda a copy-paste from above...

 

[lxskllr]

He means that there's better/more accurate ways to tell if SLI is working correctly than removing a card and seeing what happens to the performance.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Zenoth

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Look, it should be obvious to all of you nerds that PEBKAC is the issue here. There is NOTHING that will cause that much frame drop from simply switching to Vista from XP - it's fucking ridiculous.

How can it be ridiculous? Why can't just a new OS not be able to render things in game the same way like the previous one especially when the new OS is said to be entirely different and for one not based on the NT architecture. I don't understand enough about OS'es to explain with technical blabling how is that possible, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to launch a game, open the console, type in a command that lets you see how many frames per second you have and compare those results with the ones you had on the previous OS.

I and you as well just need to realize (well you need to, because I did already) that for a number of people out there the problem isn't "Between the Keyboard and the Chair" but simply that the new OS in question don't do things the same way as to make things sometimes slower (very often in my case, for gaming that is) and just not "as fast as" nor "faster" then the previous so called "dated" OS. What is so ridiculous in such a simple thing. It may not apply to many of you and it does apply to me, and since it applies to me I won't just ignore the numbers of my test results because "PEBKAC" has to be the universal cause of everything.

As they have pointed out 50% is huge drop even for Vista,I have never had that much of a drop in ANY game(95 games last count) in Vista,I think you should reserve judgement until proper facts and causes can be found,to blame Vista is just stupid without any hard facts,guess some people don't believe in troubleshooting but just like to point the finger .

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: Pelu

Originally posted by: mb

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Look, it should be obvious to all of you nerds that PEBKAC is the issue here. There is NOTHING that will cause that much frame drop from simply switching to Vista from XP - it's fucking ridiculous.

This.

OP, you probably f'd something up along the way. First mistake was disabling UAC.
Second, did you install all the latest drivers for everything? Do you even know how to get the latest drivers, or are you just using what came on the CD with your products?
And you don't even sound like you're sure you have SLI enabled. Make sure it is, and not just by removing one and seeing lower performance.

Also, why not use Vista 64?

What you mean by trully have the SLI enable not just remove one and seeing lower performance????

Have you ever opened the Nvidia Control Panel? Take a look in there. It should be enabled, but it won't hurt to check.


I highly suggest doing a clean install of Vista and do not disable any services this time. Make sure that you download the latest drivers, don't just use the ones that came on a CD.
http://downloads.guru3d.com/ is a great place to get the latest video drivers. The 177.92 drivers are fantastic.

And make sure you're using the latest chipset drivers and bios. I'm not sure which model mobo you have, but it should be one of these:
GA-M57SLI-DS4
GA-M57SLI-S4


And finally, if you are interested in upgrading to 64bit Vista, go to this website. Scroll down to the bottom and select your language under where it says 64-bit DVD. Select your country on the next page, then enter your product key on the one after that. If you qualify, it only costs $10 to get the 64bit media.

 

[LS8]

I have been running Vista for quite some time and I don't notice any performance problems.

CSS, COD4, BF2, etc all run great. I don't have a "kicker" system either. All my parts are from 2006.

 

[skace]

Whenever you reinstall Nvidia drivers it disables SLI by default, so everyone who has SLI should know how to configure it properly otherwise they probably have been only using 1 card out of their purchase since they bought it.

Also, Zenoth is off his rocker. If you lose 70 FPS, it isn't because of Vista, something is drastically wrong. It might not be something the end user caused, however by being unable to properly troubleshoot it, they become a part of the problem. Face it, several of you look for any opening to slam Vista and it's kind of pitiful. You don't even care if your information is accurate.

 

[LS8]

I would agree something else is wrong with his system. I average 190 fps in CSS Office with my "older" system. I average over 100 fps in various COD4 maps.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Your monitor is only doing 60 fps.

Much like your eye.

You're fooling yourself if you think the eye only sees at 60 FPS.

 

[Eddie313]

Well and update the fps drop was due to nvidia nforce driver they released new ones and works good. The frame rate is the same but when i go to a 40 man server i get around 120fps then hit lags for a second goes to around 20 then right back up.

So then i tested a E8400 and a msi P43 mobo with one of my 8800 GTS G92 cards.
All i can say is WOW better frame, alot better than my sli system. dont drop under 110 all the time even in a high server.

 

[styroe]

I know this is mostly fixed, but you moved from an 64 bit system to a 32 bit system. You may see a performance difference there. Also for Vista, 2gb of RAM is the minimum for system stability in 32 bit, 4gb for the 64 bit. Either way, you should take on a 1gb stick of ram, being as in the 32 bit system it seems 3gb is the max and all that the system will recognize. If you have a retail copy I would suggest an uninstall and reinstall with the 64 bit edition if you see it as a possibility (financially of course, you will need more ram). Just my two cents if you care.

 

[Eddie313]

In vista a only use 70% of ram when i'm gaming still have room.

Now that i'm gaming on a E8400 i have not a single problem anymore.

Like i said in the other post its Cpu thats where the lag is coming into play.

i have tested about 7 cpu's and boards and the intel just wins every time.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Your monitor is only doing 60 fps.

Much like your eye.

You're fooling yourself if you think the eye only sees at 60 FPS.

It's a shame people still believe that misconception.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: styroe
Also for Vista, 2gb of RAM is the minimum for system stability in 32 bit, 4gb for the 64 bit.

No. My girlfriend's computer runs fine with 2GB RAM with 64-bit Vista. She's only running 2GB because her other 2GB stick went bad.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Wow, you can see that many frames per second huh? I'm sure science will be very interested in cutting apart your eyeballs.

He's talking average frames per second.

There is probably a huge difference in minimum frames value if the average drops by almost 50%.

Gamers like to maintain at least 40+ minimum FPS, if not 60+.

Then they can't blame lag

 

[450R]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Wow, you can see that many frames per second huh? I'm sure science will be very interested in cutting apart your eyeballs.

Yeah, it's not like anything exists that's capable of displaying framerate.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
The principle here isn't to know what the human eyes can notice or not, it's that Vista is inherently slower than XP for gaming, it's very simple to understand, eagle eyes or not.

It's not that much slower. For the most part they are on par now.

 

[hdeck]

turn off the transparency in vista's ui. that will give you a good boost.

 

[ibex333]

Originally posted by: Eddie313
I was running windows xp pro X64 and just moved over to vista x86 .
Now when i was running around 160fps maxed out playing call of duty 4 on xp
And when i loaded vista i'm around 70 to 85 fps.

All my drivers are updated and running vista cert hardware.

And running SP1

I have Sli i just ran one card and my fps drop alot more so it seems that sli is working.


The system spec's are in My Sig

See, this is exactly why I advice people against using Vista for gaming, and some people here on Anandtech immediately jump on me, and accuse me of spreading FUD. I'm gonna say the same thing to you I say to other people - If you want my opinion, go back to XP, and forget Vista, because in general, gaming performance will be better on XP. Yes, there were recent patches that improved performance, but this is still NOT GOOD ENOUGH, when compared to XP. Most games, and especially older ones suffer from various problems and poor performance on Vista. This is a bit unrelated, but yesterday I was trying to play a game through Hamachi server with someone, and he couldn't play since his Vista has issues with IPX. There was a user made patch somewhere designed to address this problem, but even after installation, we continued to have problems.... I then played with several other people with no problems whatsoever. (all XP users)

All that being said, let me stress that what you will choose to do is YOUR BUSINESS. (I'm merely trying to help) If you like Vista for whatever reason, go ahead and do whatever you want. I'm done trying to prove things to people that are so obvious, they don't even need to be proven.

/a little rant in the end there, I know.

 

[BenSkywalker]

OP- Check VSync, make sure you were using comparable settings.

Jschmuck- If you happen to have a fast monitor around(CRT that can handle 200Hz or higher is ideal) download fpstest. Average person can easily see the difference between 75 and 150fps, if you can't detect any difference at all, you are likely far below then norm for optical capacity.

gonna say the same thing to you I say to other people - If you want my opinion, go back to XP, and forget Vista, because in general, gaming performance will be better on XP.

If we all thought that way, we would all still be running Win98. 2K was slower then 98, XP was slower then 2K and Vista is slower then XP. Win98 was the pinnacle of performance as far as a gamin OS goes.

 

[styroe]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: styroe
Also for Vista, 2gb of RAM is the minimum for system stability in 32 bit, 4gb for the 64 bit.

No. My girlfriend's computer runs fine with 2GB RAM with 64-bit Vista. She's only running 2GB because her other 2GB stick went bad.

Sorry, I meant more of a recommended minimum. Its not to say its not possible, but I wouldn't do it.

 

[Eddie313]

Never mind guys went with a Intel E8400 much better.....