Vista optimization for graphically intense games: User Profiles

spasshaber

Junior Member
Jul 8, 2008
1
0
0
Greetings everyone. Well, like many, I have spent several hours trying to optimize gaming in Vista. My target games include Crysis, GRID, and COD4, primarily. I have a good machine with an E8500, 2gigs of ram, and a GX29800. Even still, I like to benefit from the eye candy as much as from frame rates whenever possible, which under higher resolutions continues to be a challenge, especially with Crysis, of course. I realize Crysis has been overhyped beyond compare, but truthfully, it?s my enjoyment of the game that drives my desire to improve its performance. GRID and COD4 also have the possibility of looking spectacular with settings cranked up ? so my motivation there is pretty understandable as well.

I have researched long and hard tweaks, mods, and other possible ways to optimize my settings. In the OS itself, I have used AlacrityPC to shut off and close out any and all unnecessary services. Many services were already shut off according to Black Viper?s ?safe settings? recommendations.

I am still not pleased. I believe that once the OS loads it initially boots into resident memory many unnecessary nasties that even when shut down and/or shut off leave residual traces of their existence that hamper performance?of course, this is merely speculation, but I don?t have the sense that games run as if just after a virgin install of the OS, nice and clean, when services and other apps are turned off. I am sure that it might also have to do with the five trillion device drivers whose loading can?t be prevented, but I digress.

My question is this, and I fear it may not be easily answered: I created a new profile in Vista, one where I am back to basics, one wherein I choose ?optimize for performance? in the My Computer properties, one wherein I am now thinking of ?managing? my games. Can I safely assume that the drivers, etc. from my other profile are not loading (in part or in whole) in association with the apps loaded on my machine (which were made available to ?all users? at the time of their install)? Can I assume that I am running in essentially a ?clean? environment best optimized for gaming? Because it sure appears this way at first glance. Last but not least, can I use Black Vipers ?bare bones? services in this profile (and shut off practically every service) and be sure that I am not screwing up my main profile in any way, shape, or form?

I am sorry for the long winded question, but in all of my research listening in on discussions on how to best optimize the OS for gaming I have never seen this possibility proposed?and I thought that if it worked, others might benefit from this approach as well.
I will begin running tests with FRAPS, but I was first curious if anyone else had thoughts or ideas they might like to share.

Bottom line - 1) will creating a "clean" second User Profile for just running games be advantageous 2) can settings i.e. Windows Services, etc. be edited on an individual User Profile basis...without screwing other things up (I have way too many app-related configurations in place under the primary User Profile).

Thanks in advance for any information you might have to offer.
 

sanzen07

Senior member
Feb 15, 2007
402
1
0
Originally posted by: spasshaber
I believe that once the OS loads it initially boots into resident memory many unnecessary nasties that even when shut down and/or shut off leave residual traces of their existence that hamper performance?of course, this is merely speculation, but I don?t have the sense that games run as if just after a virgin install of the OS, nice and clean, when services and other apps are turned off.

Umm. When a service is off, it's off, the memory is freed. There aren't any 'nasties' sitting there just take up resources. Believe it or not the OS is actually designed to free memory when programs are unloaded/shut down. Crazy huh?

Bottom line - 1) will creating a "clean" second User Profile for just running games be advantageous

No.

Thanks in advance for any information you might have to offer.

Here's some: tweaking your system via disabling services is, at most, a waste of time. At worst, you will screw up your system. You will see little to no performance increase by turning off OS services. Get 2 more gigs of RAM and you'll be fine. Let the OS do it's thing.
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
Without going in too much detail, I think you don't need to worry about most of that. And you have a pretty nice system, so tweaking to the bones is not worth it. You can't really go around shutting off too many XP services without affecting other things, and I'm sure Vista is even more intertwined so don't bother.

One thing you might want to do is get some more RAM. It is so cheap and that way you can rest assured that a few things running aren't going to hurt your game performance.

Really all that those services and misc programs are gonna do is cost you a few CPU cycles and some RAM. Vista manages memory differently so the affect might even be less than XP. You got a dual core, most games aren't well optimized for them, so figure your second core can handle those tasks as they come up in the background (and with crazy scheduling you might not notice anyway).

All that I do, in XP mind you, but is just obvious stuff like I have no need to leave Firefox, Winamp, and stuff like that running when I launch a game. So that's about all I do for a "game mode".

Even if you spent all the trouble doing what you are thinking, and didn't adversely affect other parts of Vista, the performance increase would be negligble/not noticeable unless you spent hours benchmarking for it.
 

NaOH

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2006
5,015
0
0
Just keep ur computer free of viruses, adware and trojan downloaders and use your computer like normal
 

Renob

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,596
1
81
Many of my framerates doubled by reverting back to XP from Vista64

Doubled???

Please post your systems specs, and the games your FPS Doubled in.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: Renob
Many of my framerates doubled by reverting back to XP from Vista64

Doubled???

Please post your systems specs, and the games your FPS Doubled in.
Opteron 165, 8800GTS 320mb (G80), 3gb DDR400 ram

My framerates doubled in UT2004, UT3, and Mass Effect (along with probably all UT3-based games).

Far Cry, Doom 3, and Crysis were nearly the same on XP and Vista, but everything was faster and smoother under XP.

Oh, and in the Folding@Home GPU client, my points per day went from 2,500 (Vista) to 4,400 (XP).
 

desolate

Member
Jun 27, 2007
113
0
0
I didn't see any noticeable drops in frame rate going from XP to Vista 64-Bit SP1, and I happen to like Vista a whole lot better then XP. My friend used to talk bad about Vista all the time and how gaming was so much better on XP, then he actually TRIED Vista and ended up liking it. Vista is very good at managing your memory and I believe it's pointless to try and disable services. I agree with the advice of upgrading your RAM...I have 6GB and my Vista install is extremely fast and efficient.
 

Cutthroat

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2002
1,104
0
0
Here's some: tweaking your system via disabling services is, at most, a waste of time. At worst, you will screw up your system. You will see little to no performance increase by turning off OS services. Get 2 more gigs of RAM and you'll be fine. Let the OS do it's thing.

+1, DO NOT tweak Vista, you'll just screw it up.
 

RallyMaster

Diamond Member
Dec 28, 2004
5,581
0
0
Originally posted by: desolate
I didn't see any noticeable drops in frame rate going from XP to Vista 64-Bit SP1, and I happen to like Vista a whole lot better then XP. My friend used to talk bad about Vista all the time and how gaming was so much better on XP, then he actually TRIED Vista and ended up liking it. Vista is very good at managing your memory and I believe it's pointless to try and disable services. I agree with the advice of upgrading your RAM...I have 6GB and my Vista install is extremely fast and efficient.

How is it efficient if it needs 6GB of memory to run extremely fast? :confused:
 

oddyager

Diamond Member
May 21, 2005
3,398
0
76
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Originally posted by: desolate
I didn't see any noticeable drops in frame rate going from XP to Vista 64-Bit SP1, and I happen to like Vista a whole lot better then XP. My friend used to talk bad about Vista all the time and how gaming was so much better on XP, then he actually TRIED Vista and ended up liking it. Vista is very good at managing your memory and I believe it's pointless to try and disable services. I agree with the advice of upgrading your RAM...I have 6GB and my Vista install is extremely fast and efficient.

How is it efficient if it needs 6GB of memory to run extremely fast? :confused:

Thats somewhat overkill. 2 Gb is more than enough to run Vista and most apps. 4 Gbs will net you probably the best gain if you're running multiple sessions of crazy apps like ArcGIS or something.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: oddyager
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Originally posted by: desolate
I didn't see any noticeable drops in frame rate going from XP to Vista 64-Bit SP1, and I happen to like Vista a whole lot better then XP. My friend used to talk bad about Vista all the time and how gaming was so much better on XP, then he actually TRIED Vista and ended up liking it. Vista is very good at managing your memory and I believe it's pointless to try and disable services. I agree with the advice of upgrading your RAM...I have 6GB and my Vista install is extremely fast and efficient.

How is it efficient if it needs 6GB of memory to run extremely fast? :confused:

Thats somewhat overkill. 2 Gb is more than enough to run Vista and most apps. 4 Gbs will net you probably the best gain if you're running multiple sessions of crazy apps like ArcGIS or something.
I personally found that Vista would lag with less than 3gb of ram.
 

mb

Lifer
Jun 27, 2004
10,233
2
71
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: oddyager
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Originally posted by: desolate
I didn't see any noticeable drops in frame rate going from XP to Vista 64-Bit SP1, and I happen to like Vista a whole lot better then XP. My friend used to talk bad about Vista all the time and how gaming was so much better on XP, then he actually TRIED Vista and ended up liking it. Vista is very good at managing your memory and I believe it's pointless to try and disable services. I agree with the advice of upgrading your RAM...I have 6GB and my Vista install is extremely fast and efficient.

How is it efficient if it needs 6GB of memory to run extremely fast? :confused:

Thats somewhat overkill. 2 Gb is more than enough to run Vista and most apps. 4 Gbs will net you probably the best gain if you're running multiple sessions of crazy apps like ArcGIS or something.
I personally found that Vista would lag with less than 3gb of ram.

You're full of it. Vista runs fine on my parents Dell with only 1GB.
 

SPARTAN VI

Senior member
Oct 13, 2005
803
0
76
Having issues with Vista x86 Home Premium and Company of Heroes. I've been playing in XP at 1680x1050 with 8xAA (ADAA enabled, IIRC) and everything else maxed. Always held strong at 40-60fps no matter how much shit was exploding and dying.

Dual booted to Vista to see how DX10 performance was with my HD4870 and not pleased. Playing a 4 v 4 game with my buddy, comp stomp, and it was terribly laggy from the beginning.. looking at the game, it felt and played like <10fps. Choppy and input was slow, but when I pulled up FRAPS on my keyboard, I saw it was a very unstable 20fps. Dropped my settings to 1680x1050 and 0xAA, no improvement.

Rebooted to WinXP, launched an identical game 4 v 4 same map, back with my settings jacked up to the highest and back to solid 40-50fps goodness. Will troubleshoot the issue this weekend, hoping it's just driver related (remnant nvidia drivers perhaps).
 

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,382
1,013
126
Originally posted by: mb
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: oddyager
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Originally posted by: desolate
I didn't see any noticeable drops in frame rate going from XP to Vista 64-Bit SP1, and I happen to like Vista a whole lot better then XP. My friend used to talk bad about Vista all the time and how gaming was so much better on XP, then he actually TRIED Vista and ended up liking it. Vista is very good at managing your memory and I believe it's pointless to try and disable services. I agree with the advice of upgrading your RAM...I have 6GB and my Vista install is extremely fast and efficient.

How is it efficient if it needs 6GB of memory to run extremely fast? :confused:

Thats somewhat overkill. 2 Gb is more than enough to run Vista and most apps. 4 Gbs will net you probably the best gain if you're running multiple sessions of crazy apps like ArcGIS or something.
I personally found that Vista would lag with less than 3gb of ram.

You're full of it. Vista runs fine on my parents Dell with only 1GB.

I call BS. I have never seen Vista run "well" on a Dell or with less than 2GB of memory. I run 4GB of RAM and Vista64 runs slick as a whistle.
 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
This thread & review are very applicable.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=83&threadid=2205366
Read that review. ^^^

Vista runs best on 4+ GB.
(Basic users can do with 2 GB; gamers should not be running less than 4.)

End of story.

Or just believe me.
I've worked on thousands of Vista systems at work, as well as running Vista on everything from 1 GB to 8 GB at home.
 

desolate

Member
Jun 27, 2007
113
0
0
Originally posted by: RallyMaster
Originally posted by: desolate
I didn't see any noticeable drops in frame rate going from XP to Vista 64-Bit SP1, and I happen to like Vista a whole lot better then XP. My friend used to talk bad about Vista all the time and how gaming was so much better on XP, then he actually TRIED Vista and ended up liking it. Vista is very good at managing your memory and I believe it's pointless to try and disable services. I agree with the advice of upgrading your RAM...I have 6GB and my Vista install is extremely fast and efficient.

How is it efficient if it needs 6GB of memory to run extremely fast? :confused:

It doesn't, even with 2GB I found Vista to be better then XP. I'm just stating that now that I have 6GB it's now the fastest Windows OS in my opinion.
 

Marty502

Senior member
Aug 25, 2007
497
0
0
In my experience:

Vista with 512 of RAM is only for those with severe mental disorders. Shouldn't be attempted unless you're a masochist.

Vista with 1 GB of RAM is only suitable for basic tasks. Word, WinAmp (even WMP 11 is a long stretch here... not that it's a good media player anyway) And not many of them at the same time, or it gets a bit nasty. Turning down the visual candy is recommended here. And even more so if it's a laptop. Heavy tasks like Adobe Premiere become painful.

2 GB of RAM is pretty close to a sweet spot. It's the bare minimum for a gamer in Vista, and regular use will be silk smooth 95% of the time. Now you can multitask up and down and it will be fast. And you can keep the eye candy on in Vista without any problems. It already feels better than XP at this point, like desolate mentioned.

But at 3 GB of RAM it's where Vista really starts to fly. Load times became even shorter (even in Crysis load times I could tell a massive difference between 2 and 3 GB of RAM), and everything just jumps at you right away. The hard drive takes a backseat here and lets SuperFetch do it's thing. And it's phenomenal.

And I presume it only gets better with more RAM in Vista 64-bit.
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
To put it in simpler terms, take your "comfortable" amount of memory in XP, add 300-600MB to account for WDM(you have to double or triple buffer, so it adds up with high-res or multiple displays).

The upside with Vista is:

- CPU heavy apps don't hang Explorer very easily compared to XP as the UI is composited.

- Vista will actually use your free memory for caching instead of letting it sit wasted like in XP. Vista is also much smarter about not paging out minimized programs to disk.

Vista is probably the first version of Windows that I have ever used that gets faster the longer the system has been up. :D