Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 88819	2008-04-10 05:16:00	XP or Vista for Gaming	GeneralKanos (13592)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
657690	2008-04-13 09:08:00	I've just reinstalled vista (64-bit), this time making sure that I've stopped all the extra crap that my programs loaded first time around was still born. Phone home and resident spyware disabled and the like. As a result, my Vista 64-bit Business SP1 is no slower than XP on the system. It shuts down and loads faster than XP, before when I installed most programs with the default settings it was a dog. I've also killed Aero and the Sidebar - even better!	Vallis (8886)
657691	2008-04-13 10:00:00	I've just reinstalled vista (64-bit), this time making sure that I've stopped all the extra crap that my programs loaded first time around was still born. Phone home and resident spyware disabled and the like. As a result, my Vista 64-bit Business SP1 is no slower than XP on the system. It shuts down and loads faster than XP, before when I installed most programs with the default settings it was a dog. I've also killed Aero and the Sidebar - even better!Probably the most intelligent and unbiased comments I've ever heard about Vista. Good one.	Greg (193)
657692	2008-04-13 10:07:00	... most intelligent and unbiased comments I've ever heard about Vista.... Aw shucks. :blush: I was on the verge of going back to XP. But I remember what a PITA that was for the first year or two. I reverted to win 98 at least 3 times.	Vallis (8886)
657693	2008-04-13 11:40:00	Bear in mind that with x64 most apps / games are 32-bit, negating any real benefit of running a 64-bit OS. And just to clarify, 70% of THOSE games tested.. I know there's TONS of games that wont run on Vista, many semi-old games just dont work :( At least, in my recent experience of trying to play slightly aged games that'll work on the EeePC rather than the latest & greatest high-res & high sys-requirement games ;)	Chilling_Silence (9)
657694	2008-04-13 19:35:00	Bear in mind that with x64 most apps / games are 32-bit, negating any real benefit of running a 64-bit OS. ;) That's true if you have 3GB of system RAM or less with a 32-bit OS, but if you have 4GB or more, depending upon the size of your graphics memory, you will have a maximum of 3 to 3.5GB available to your system. With a 64-bit OS you don't hit that limit. Further info here: mywitsend.co.nz	Vallis (8886)
657695	2008-04-13 21:11:00	I happen to think that DX10 IQ, even if only additional to DX9 is a better visually. I cant understand this hard core stick with XP, you are only limiting your games! If the world of gaming really needs the extra 10% of XP over Vista, anyone but those with pockets of money for the latest hardware is going to be at a disadvantage to those that do, and we all know that isnt so. XP may for now be the quickest current O/S for gaming, but thats not to say its the best O/S for gaming..... my 2 cents. Vista is not "bad" for gaming its just not as good currently. DX10 is only "slightly" better visually as implemented in current games, DX9 in Vista still takes a hit over DX9 in XP. The question becomes why game in Vista if you don't have to, why accept "any" performance hit at all especially with DX10 being little more than a current marketing ploy (that some are clearly buying into lol). I suggest the following for gamers. 1. If you need a new rig and OS buy Vista for future proofing, suck up the performance hit for now with future proofing in mind (future native DX10 games). 2. If you have XP, don't even think about wasting money on Vista yet. 3. If you Dual boot like myself, well you already know the answer and probably mostly game in XP.	Battleneter2 (9361)
657696	2008-04-13 21:40:00	Bear in mind that with x64 most apps / games are 32-bit, negating any real benefit of running a 64-bit OS. ;) Not really, because you can have 1024Mb graphical RAM + virtual memory + 2GB application RAM + any memory required for the O/S and background apps, you cant do that with 32bit. Really it is the big memory configs on video cards especially with SLI\Tri and Quad rigs that is making the move to x64 necessary!.	SolMiester (139)
657697	2008-04-14 04:48:00	Lets say you have 2x 768MB Cards = 1536MB You have 2GB Memory installed = 2048 Total = 3584 Now, you're running XP because you're wanting to squeeze out every bit of performance. Windows itself will use about 300MB Memory on a clean boot. If its using anything more, then you should be closing down all the extra apps you're running coz they'll affect your speed. Name me a game that frequently uses over 1.7GB memory? Crysis using DX10 will use around 1GB Crysis in XP using DX9 will use around 1.4GB There's still not much reason to upgrade to x64. I google for: Crysis benchmark 32 vs 64 it www.yougamers.com First listing says its faster running 32-bit over 64-bit. Run Linux, compile your whole OS as 64-bit and get 64-bit games, then you'll see a nice difference. For now, I stand by my theory there is little point for the vast majority (sure, perhaps one or two users MAY need a 64-bit OS) they simply should stick with a 32-bit OS (Vista or XP) for now :)	Chilling_Silence (9)
657698	2008-04-14 06:01:00	Lets say you have 2x 768MB Cards = 1536MB You have 2GB Memory installed = 2048 Total = 3584 Now, you're running XP because you're wanting to squeeze out every bit of performance. Windows itself will use about 300MB Memory on a clean boot. If its using anything more, then you should be closing down all the extra apps you're running coz they'll affect your speed. Name me a game that frequently uses over 1.7GB memory? Crysis using DX10 will use around 1GB Crysis in XP using DX9 will use around 1.4GB There's still not much reason to upgrade to x64. I google for: Crysis benchmark 32 vs 64 it www.yougamers.com First listing says its faster running 32-bit over 64-bit. Run Linux, compile your whole OS as 64-bit and get 64-bit games, then you'll see a nice difference. For now, I stand by my theory there is little point for the vast majority (sure, perhaps one or two users MAY need a 64-bit OS) they simply should stick with a 32-bit OS (Vista or XP) for now :) Chilli, you are forgetting virtual memory space, from task manager, view, selected coloums and select Virtual memory size. Now have a look at how much memory is held virtually. The memory is also accessed via the 32bit address range, imaging how much is used by your games, better yet, check for yourself. Remember also, we now have 1024MB graphic cards available as single, dual & TRI. Thats 3Gb is graphics! If you have even 2 of these cards running, you will not even realise 2GB of system RAM. This is why Vista 64bit is the O/S IMO for not only the future, but for any serious gamer now. Oh, and a game that uses more than 1.5Gb of RAM?, Supreme Commander, check the link. 2gb barrier (www.anandtech.com)	SolMiester (139)
657699	2008-04-14 15:27:00	Ah, but the page file is *not* affecting that limit overall. Ive just restarted my familys PC now with the following SWAP file config: C: - Initial 768MB, Max = 2048MB F: - Initial 4000MB, Max = 4096MB Plus the additional 512MB memory, plus the 128MB Graphics card = Well over 4GB. Yes, its limited to 4096MB Per-pagefile, not all-up. Now why has it let me do this? Because windows reserves 4GB of private address-space (Which can include SWAP) per-application. And yeah, its not hard to make *any* app reach that limit.. Fire up Goldwave, tell it to store recordings in memory (not HDD) and just hit the Rec button, and Im sure it'll do it. So, with this in mind, please, tell me how many people that you know personally (And havent just read of online) who own 2 Cards that are 1GB each or bigger, or 3x cards that are 768MB each? They're the people who will potentially need a 64-bit OS due to less than 2GB of RAM being available to the OS, especially if they're running Vista. Yeah sure, I mean its possible, but lets be realistic here. For the 1 in a million person out there who has $ coming out their ears and can afford 3x 1GB graphics cards, a 64-bit OS is the way to go. You can apparently even make Supreme Commander reach those upper-application limits even if you play around with it, so end of the day the whole argument kinda goes to custard coz lets face it, the issue is that any 32-bit application cant address that much memory and right now there just aren't enough games out there that ARE 64-bit that will require that kind of system resources. There's no performance advantage of being able to address the additional memory from within Supreme Commander based on those benchmarks you just offered, so you're only delaying the inevitable by a few minutes longer... So, even IF you get yourself 3x 768MB Graphics Cards, 8GB Memory & run a 64-bit Vista OS, you're still going to run into problems with Supreme Commander. THIS is why there is (For now at least) no real reason to run a 64-bit OS for the better majority of the population, including the examples you've given.	Chilling_Silence (9)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9