3-4 SP's in 3-4 years???
wow XP doesn't even even have three in 6-7 years...
At any rate. Personally if you have the money to upgrade go for it. If not then hang with XP for a bit longer.
3-4 SP's in 3-4 years???
wow XP doesn't even even have three in 6-7 years...
At any rate. Personally if you have the money to upgrade go for it. If not then hang with XP for a bit longer.
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: Nebor
That's not true. In Universe at War, you get more realistic trees and better reflective surfaces. Unfortunately this comes at the cost of about 70% of your frame rate.The DX10 programming isn't optimized at all. It is definitely prettier though.
Hg:L not only runs as well as DX9 ... it looks a hellofalot better in DX10
:Q
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: chizow
Like I said, proof is in the pudding. Show me one game in a 32-bit OS that comes close to 3GB for the game only. I've posted mine, where's yours?Originally posted by: apoppin
unproven for 32-bit games
fortunately for truth's sake, a couple of us are going to actually *test* the difference - if any - in Video Forum to see if 64-bit has any practical advantage over 32-bit in a couple of 4GB gaming system rigs. Expect results in a couple of weeks and then everyone will know for sure.
i doubt it since game devs write with the 2GB "barrier" well in mind. There are only a handful of games actually ported to 64-bit so you have to use the 64-bit "wrapper" for 99.999999999999999% of today's games
Nothing you posted comes close to "proof"
But don't worry, nullpointerus and i are installing Vista64 this weekend [or early next week] and also doing a clean install of Vista32 and will do a real comparison between the OSes for the Video forum for 4GB gaming rigs.
We'll see.
Look for a new thread this Saturday. Your comments are appreciated.
:Q
not really
Rofl, you wouldn't even know where to start or what to look for since you won't even acknowledge differences can't always be measured in FPS. As for proof, you still don't get it. I showed a SS showing a single game running in Vista 64 using more memory than it could ever hope to address in a 32-bit OS. After that its as simple as acknowledging more RAM use = better performance. But like I said, show me a single game in either XP or Vista that can come close to 3GB memory usage. Simply put, you can't.
As for your little test...AT is already planning a comparison of XP, Vista 32 and Vista 64. I'm sure it'll have its flaws but it'll certainly be more worthwhile than reading pages of your mindless rambling.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
Vista has had a lot of updates,SP won't really make any difference to gaming,video drivers for Vista have had nearly 1 years worth of improvements/updates.
Speaking as a long term Vista x64 user ,stability and gaming has been very good in my experience,I can't really afford to have any serious issues especially since I game online.
I'm also doing beta game testing too,so far Vista x64 has not let me down.
I've heard that XP64 compatibility/performance is very close to XP32 now, but when I was looking at 64-bit in June that wasn't the case. Vista 64 still has some issues, some of which are 32/64 compatibility along with the XP to Vista transition problems.
The only thing is you won't get DX10 with XP64 which wouldn't be so bad if it were a free upgrade. DX10 generally results in worst performance now but I haven't yet seen a game where the DX10 implementations don't add significant visuals. It'll take some time before DX10 becomes the norm but when that happens you'll probably have to upgrade again from XP64.
Originally posted by: Mem
Vista has had a lot of updates,SP won't really make any difference to gaming,video drivers for Vista have had nearly 1 years worth of improvements/updates.
Speaking as a long term Vista x64 user ,stability and gaming has been very good in my experience,I can't really afford to have any serious issues especially since I game online.
I'm also doing beta game testing too,so far Vista x64 has not let me down.
SP1 should be out sometime this month, its been available to the public in Beta form for a few weeks now and to a smaller focused base for a few months. It will include all of the cumulative hot fixes for many of the graphics card/game fixes, like virtual memory address use and TDR compatibility/reliability. The nice thing is that people will get all of the fixes in a single download since updaing through Windows Update doesn't always get everything, requiring some manual updating and hot fix searching.
But ya in terms of game compatibility, its been great as all of the games I've installed since upgrading to Vista 64 haven't had a problem and many have received patches enabling /largeaddressaware to further improve performance with a 64-bit OS. I'm also Beta testing a few games and the Devs clearly have XP/Vista 32/64 all in mind as they openly address and support problems for all of the OSes. A year ago they would've said "We don't currently support Vista or Vista 64 at this time etc."
In short, if you have not given Vista a fair try or haven't tried it in the past 6 months then I recommend trying it again despite anything you may have read. If it still doesn't appeal to you then you can always switch back, but you may be pleasantly surprised.
Why I chose Vista for gaming:
1. SuperFetch (This reason alone was worth it. I saw major performance increases after it "learned" my gaming habits)
2. ReadyBoost
3. Low-priority I/O
4. DX10
Now, I have read the issues people have been having with Vista and gaming and some of those stories have sounded like nightmares. However, I have yet to experience anything major. I have definitely not experienced anything which has convinced me that XP would be a better gaming experience at this point with the more mature drivers having been released.
Why I chose Vista for gaming:
1. SuperFetch (This reason alone was worth it. I saw major performance increases after it "learned" my gaming habits)
2. ReadyBoost
3. Low-priority I/O
4. DX10
Now, I have read the issues people have been having with Vista and gaming and some of those stories have sounded like nightmares. However, I have yet to experience anything major. I have definitely not experienced anything which has convinced me that XP would be a better gaming experience at this point with the more mature drivers having been released.
apoppin
Lifer
i look forward to AT's review ... eventually ... however, we are starting this Saturday; i don't want to keep hearing your unfounded FUD over-and-over.Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: chizow
Like I said, proof is in the pudding. Show me one game in a 32-bit OS that comes close to 3GB for the game only. I've posted mine, where's yours?Originally posted by: apoppin
unproven for 32-bit games
fortunately for truth's sake, a couple of us are going to actually *test* the difference - if any - in Video Forum to see if 64-bit has any practical advantage over 32-bit in a couple of 4GB gaming system rigs. Expect results in a couple of weeks and then everyone will know for sure.
i doubt it since game devs write with the 2GB "barrier" well in mind. There are only a handful of games actually ported to 64-bit so you have to use the 64-bit "wrapper" for 99.999999999999999% of today's games
Nothing you posted comes close to "proof"
But don't worry, nullpointerus and i are installing Vista64 this weekend [or early next week] and also doing a clean install of Vista32 and will do a real comparison between the OSes for the Video forum for 4GB gaming rigs.
We'll see.
Look for a new thread this Saturday. Your comments are appreciated.
:Q
not really
Rofl, you wouldn't even know where to start or what to look for since you won't even acknowledge differences can't always be measured in FPS. As for proof, you still don't get it. I showed a SS showing a single game running in Vista 64 using more memory than it could ever hope to address in a 32-bit OS. After that its as simple as acknowledging more RAM use = better performance. But like I said, show me a single game in either XP or Vista that can come close to 3GB memory usage. Simply put, you can't.
As for your little test...AT is already planning a comparison of XP, Vista 32 and Vista 64. I'm sure it'll have its flaws but it'll certainly be more worthwhile than reading pages of your mindless rambling.
since you claim to understand it, why don't you do something useful for a change? - "ridicule" is not useful ... and no i won't accept more SSs of your clogged-up 64-bit system as "proof" of anything
For someone who doesn't accept FPS as a measure of gaming performance, you should not be one to talk or criticize anyone.
But don't worry, there are at least two of us here who are willing to actually find out - and there are many more tests and benchmarks beyond simple FPS that will show any differences.
I look forward to more "pages of your mindless rambling" and criticism when we have our comparison published in Video,
not
uh ok, whatever you want to think. If I look at the system properties page it clearly says vista sp 1
Originally posted by: Mem
Vista has had a lot of updates,SP won't really make any difference to gaming,video drivers for Vista have had nearly 1 years worth of improvements/updates.
Speaking as a long term Vista x64 user ,stability and gaming has been very good in my experience,I can't really afford to have any serious issues especially since I game online.
I'm also doing beta game testing too,so far Vista x64 has not let me down.
I didn't hop onto XP until SP1 came out, and I plan to do the same with Vista, unless they do an update to XP.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: Mem
Vista has had a lot of updates,SP won't really make any difference to gaming,video drivers for Vista have had nearly 1 years worth of improvements/updates.
Speaking as a long term Vista x64 user ,stability and gaming has been very good in my experience,I can't really afford to have any serious issues especially since I game online.
I'm also doing beta game testing too,so far Vista x64 has not let me down.
SP1 should be out sometime this month, its been available to the public in Beta form for a few weeks now and to a smaller focused base for a few months. It will include all of the cumulative hot fixes for many of the graphics card/game fixes, like virtual memory address use and TDR compatibility/reliability. The nice thing is that people will get all of the fixes in a single download since updaing through Windows Update doesn't always get everything, requiring some manual updating and hot fix searching.
But ya in terms of game compatibility, its been great as all of the games I've installed since upgrading to Vista 64 haven't had a problem and many have received patches enabling /largeaddressaware to further improve performance with a 64-bit OS. I'm also Beta testing a few games and the Devs clearly have XP/Vista 32/64 all in mind as they openly address and support problems for all of the OSes. A year ago they would've said "We don't currently support Vista or Vista 64 at this time etc."
Last count was 50+ games installed,as to XP 64 well ironically I can't get some drivers for my hardware,however I can for Vista x64 so driver availability is better with Vista x64 then XP 64 in my case.
My XP 64 CD is collecting dust again.
I'm looking forward to DX11 etc down the road too,especially when we have the right hardware for it
.I thought there was a public release candidate which was optional but the final release of SP1 was not out yet? I am pretty sure that is the case. Last I was told, the final release was not supposed to come out until the end of Jan 08.
Knock yourself out. The difference is most people would've tried and tested the differences for themselves before posting page after page of ignorant crap while making an ass out of themselves.
Witcher RAM usesince you claim to understand it, why don't you do something useful for a change? - "ridicule" is not useful ... and no i won't accept more SSs of your clogged-up 64-bit system as "proof" of anything
LMAO. See the sad thing is, most people would see that SS and say "Ya, there's definitely an advantage to 64-bit" instead of continuing to mindlessly post out of sheer ignorance. Why? Because everyone has used a 32-bit system at one point and they know that there are limitations on how much RAM you can use, even if you increase it beyond 2GB. Its really as simple as observing RAM use while gaming.
You can claim its my "bloated system" at fault, but the SS speaks for itself, the game is using more memory than it could hope to in a 32-bit OS and combined with the rest of my "bloated system" (one instance of IE lol) is using more physical RAM than a 32-bit system can even address with virtual and physical memory.
Its certainly a measure of gaming performance, just not the only gauge and not always relevant when it comes to RAM and RAM use. Simply put, if someone is complaining about FPS, the first thing to consider upgrading isn't RAM, its the GPU.
But again, I've already given you clear examples and simple tests to prove the problems typically associated with RAM and hitching/stuttering don't always result in a drop in FPS.
Again, knock yourself out. I'd be shocked if you got past the most simple benchmark, Task Manager and Resource Monitor. At least Nullpointerus has a clue about how to gauge benefits of more RAM, y'know, having used a 64-bit OS and 4GB in the past and seeing the advantages.But don't worry, there are at least two of us here who are willing to actually find out - and there are many more tests and benchmarks beyond simple FPS that will show any differences.
I look forward to more "pages of your mindless rambling" and criticism when we have our comparison published in Video,
not
And not-jokes were funny like 15 years ago and in Borat.......
not :roll:
[/quote]
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: chizow
Knock yourself out. The difference is most people would've tried and tested the differences for themselves before posting page after page of ignorant crap while making an ass out of themselves.
Witcher RAM usesince you claim to understand it, why don't you do something useful for a change? - "ridicule" is not useful ... and no i won't accept more SSs of your clogged-up 64-bit system as "proof" of anything
LMAO. See the sad thing is, most people would see that SS and say "Ya, there's definitely an advantage to 64-bit" instead of continuing to mindlessly post out of sheer ignorance. Why? Because everyone has used a 32-bit system at one point and they know that there are limitations on how much RAM you can use, even if you increase it beyond 2GB. Its really as simple as observing RAM use while gaming.
You can claim its my "bloated system" at fault, but the SS speaks for itself, the game is using more memory than it could hope to in a 32-bit OS and combined with the rest of my "bloated system" (one instance of IE lol) is using more physical RAM than a 32-bit system can even address with virtual and physical memory.
Its certainly a measure of gaming performance, just not the only gauge and not always relevant when it comes to RAM and RAM use. Simply put, if someone is complaining about FPS, the first thing to consider upgrading isn't RAM, its the GPU.
But again, I've already given you clear examples and simple tests to prove the problems typically associated with RAM and hitching/stuttering don't always result in a drop in FPS.
Again, knock yourself out. I'd be shocked if you got past the most simple benchmark, Task Manager and Resource Monitor. At least Nullpointerus has a clue about how to gauge benefits of more RAM, y'know, having used a 64-bit OS and 4GB in the past and seeing the advantages.But don't worry, there are at least two of us here who are willing to actually find out - and there are many more tests and benchmarks beyond simple FPS that will show any differences.
I look forward to more "pages of your mindless rambling" and criticism when we have our comparison published in Video,
not
And not-jokes were funny like 15 years ago and in Borat.......
not :roll:
[/quote]
thanks ... i feel SO much better with your blessing.
:roll:
all we need for the benchmarking is one person with a clue - so that automatically disqualifies you as our leader. Since nullpointerous has your respect, perhaps we will see a half-way decent review after all ... i am very glad to take his advice in setting up the tests.
So ... prepare to be shocked.
For the rest of us here, Task Manager and Resource Monitor are system tools, not benchmarks
XP works well enough for me at the moment. I see no reason to upgrade until something I want to run requires Vista, and even then I would maintain an XP install for compatibility with old games. When I do switch though, I'll probably go to the 64-bit version.
I'm still firmly in the XP camp. I figure that my opinion will change sometime this year though once they get some more things ironed out. SP1 should help a lot.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter