Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

How Bad Is Vista?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 xXAlphaXx

xXAlphaXx

  • Members
  • 867 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carlona
  • Local time:11:37 AM

Posted 13 June 2008 - 01:58 PM

Yeah I give up with the all Anti-Vista Pro-XP stuff. No matter how many people say nuts to vista, go get XP, it doesn't matter. Micro$oft will inevitably discontinue XP altogether.

So at the moment how big of an impact would Vista have? I know it likes to keep a health diet of lots and lots of RAM but how much?

Question is:
I = gamer
Gamer= Likes to play games
Vista = eats all recourses :huh:


How well would a system configuration of the following run?

Radeon HD 2600XT Video card (512MB of GDDR3 memory)
Athelon 64 X2 4800+ Brisbane 2.5Ghz Duo core(Plan to OC to the 3.0 mark)
G.SKILL 2GB DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)


I plan to play some pretty intense games (Yeah Crysis.)

Also the processor supports 64bit processing and I'm going to blow some money on Windows Vista Ultimate x64bit version.

This is also my first time actually running a running a Multi-core processor so I dunno what it exactly is.
What I would LIKE to be able to do with it is dedicate an entire core to operating system functions (*cough* Aero *cough*) And the other core specifically to applications or divide the stress evenly over the two cores.

If their any super calculator brains out their that want to give me an average FPS on Vista ultimate with the following games it would be much appreciated:

Crysis
Halo 2
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion



Thanks in advance :thumbsup:
If I am helping you and I do not respond within 24 hours, please send me a PM. :)

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


m

#2 Sterling14

Sterling14

  • Members
  • 1,842 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York
  • Local time:10:37 AM

Posted 13 June 2008 - 03:12 PM

You'll have a tough time playing Crysis, thats for sure. you'll most likely have to play on low-medium settings, to get decent frame rate. I don't know much about Halo 2 or Oblivion really. I think you could run them at about medium settings and get good frames though.

I'm running Vista Ultimate 64-bit on 2gb of ram, and idling only uses about 30-40% of my ram. I don't like having a lot of programs running in the background unless they are necessary though. With the price of ram these day's, I'm tempted to get 4gb soon.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943

#3 xXAlphaXx

xXAlphaXx
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 867 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carlona
  • Local time:11:37 AM

Posted 14 June 2008 - 11:35 AM

Well, I'm not looking for the best graphics, I just want to be able to squeeze out a decent 30-60 fps.
If I am helping you and I do not respond within 24 hours, please send me a PM. :)

#4 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:37 AM

Posted 14 June 2008 - 06:57 PM

Not many computers can play Crysis quickly with all the eye candy turned on. Running in Vista Ultimate 64-bit on DirectX10, with an Intel Core 2 Duo X6800 running at 2.9 GHz, an overclocked 9800GTX, and 2 GB of RAM will get an average FPS of 28.8. I got the setup and benchmarks from HardOCP. The computer they use is a little better than the one you listed. Vista will automatically dedicate a core to the OS if a program uses only one core, this allows a core to exclusively process for one program and another for the OS. In multithreaded apps, like the games listed, Vista is able to shut down unnecessary OS processes, free up RAM, and spread the processing across multiple cores. Remember, in a 64-bit OS, items within memory take up more space than they would in a 32-bit OS due to memory pointers and additional padding.

3939.png

 


#5 Sterling14

Sterling14

  • Members
  • 1,842 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York
  • Local time:10:37 AM

Posted 14 June 2008 - 07:56 PM

Ya, I just got an ATI Hd Radeon 3870, paired with my Intel C2D Oc'd to 2.8ghz, with 2gb of ram. I get about 20FPS in Crysis on high settings (Not very high) at 1680X1050 resolution. It sucks and it makes the game not very fun. Once you turn the graphics down to medium, whats the sense of even playing Crysis? I don't think its that great of a game except for the graphics.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943

#6 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:37 AM

Posted 14 June 2008 - 09:10 PM

I agree, aside from the graphics, Crysis is pretty much a generic shotter.

3939.png

 


#7 xXAlphaXx

xXAlphaXx
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 867 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carlona
  • Local time:11:37 AM

Posted 17 June 2008 - 01:11 PM

I'm not a graphics junkie.

I own a mid-sized gaming LAN that tries to meet up once every weekend and donate a entire week to gaming. Yet I'm still short on luck and its cutting into the LAN tournaments. meeting time (See: Homeless) Aside from that when I get a little bit a money I am going to supply the entire warehouse with computers and lock 'em down so no one steals them. And in a matter of either weeks or months my luck is about to turn.

I decided to go with Vista because theirs no point in XP when Micro$oft discontinues it. (I'm sure everyone will hate me for it.) But yah gotta do whatcha gotta do.

Any ways... Every one their at the tournament keeps pushing for Crysis, Halo 2 and COD:4 From what I've heard it doesn't take all that much to run COD:4
If I am helping you and I do not respond within 24 hours, please send me a PM. :)

#8 Sterling14

Sterling14

  • Members
  • 1,842 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York
  • Local time:10:37 AM

Posted 17 June 2008 - 04:40 PM

Ya Cod4 isn't that bad. It looks really nice without lagging. They did a a good job optimizing it. A 2600Xt should be able to play Cod4 pretty well.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943

#9 Billy O'Neal

Billy O'Neal

    Visual C++ STL Maintainer


  • Malware Response Team
  • 12,301 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redmond, Washington
  • Local time:08:37 AM

Posted 17 June 2008 - 09:34 PM

Vista = eats all recourses sad.gif

Not if you shut Aero off....

Billy3
Twitter - My statements do not establish the official position of Microsoft Corporation, and are my own personal opinion. (But you already knew that, right?)
Posted Image

#10 xXAlphaXx

xXAlphaXx
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 867 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carlona
  • Local time:11:37 AM

Posted 24 June 2008 - 09:11 AM

Really? Vista - Aero = More like XP?

:D
If I am helping you and I do not respond within 24 hours, please send me a PM. :)

#11 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:37 AM

Posted 24 June 2008 - 08:31 PM

Aero isn't that demanding if you have decent hardware. Vista does have various enhancements that XP doesn't, but without Aero, they're not much different of the surface.

3939.png

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users