Re: just(finally) ordered my new rig

**Tonk** · 02-25-2008, 04:42 AM

bamboo: with sp1 have you noticed a speed increase in the UI of windows itself? from what i have read, people are complaining that vista uses alot of memory, but it only uses what is available, and unused at the time (think of it as low priority in the task manager for cpu usage, just for memory usage instead) i saw a great article i want to find that had tests turning off page file with 8gb running vista 64.... i think someone here linked it idk tho, that with page file turned off, instead of 4gb of page file used, your other (normally unused) ram goes to work, it adds massive speed boosts to the overall operation of the machine (no reading from disc unless opening files)

**Bamboo** · 02-25-2008, 12:20 PM

I actually did about 3 hours of reading last week on weather or not to turn my pagefile off, and there were a lot of people saying yes or no for different reasons. For instance, some programs were listed that actually expect there to be a pagefile and if it isn't there it gets confused and runs slower. I think Photoshop was one of the ones listed.
In the end I don't really find any proof that it speeds up your system other than people saying it "seems like I might be running a little bit faster".
I agree with what you are saying about using wasted free memory while it just sits there, but I just like making sure it is not something else.
I am actually very happy with vista and it is a huge boost in speed over XP in terms of opening programs.
For instance, when I double click on my firefox and IE icon, I can hardly blink before it pops up and is already loading the web page.
My old XP pissed me off to no end having to wait 20-30 sec. to get firefox open some days (I do have a few extensions installed, so that may have been a reason) but it is almost instantaneous with Vista.

May be just me and who knows maybe SP1 reset my superfetch or something, but it does seem to take longer to actually start up windows. I used to be able to turn it on and go take a leak when I 1st woke up in the morning, and it would be fully loaded when I got back. Now, it is just finishing up or needs about 10-15 sec. when I get back (and yes, I am drinking the same amount of fluids as before

)

Will monitor that and see if it speeds up over time. I have recently started using Steam, and x-fire at startup though, so that may be part of it.

**Tonk** · 02-25-2008, 12:37 PM

the combination of steam and xfire at startup adds about 20 sec to my laptop on top of loading windows (windows loads just as fast, just the hard drive is still loading stuff)

**sc1ence** · 02-25-2008, 02:09 PM

yeah, steam and xfire both take time to load, but once loaded, are not too bad on the system.

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-25-2008, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by TOOmuchMcLovin

Maybe, but from a gaming perspective, vista is 30-50% slower at executing tasks, on the same system compared to xp

look it up hehe

For those of us with far too many forums and threads to visit, could you post a better hint?

I don't see why, during gaming, Vista's going to be taking a bigger hit. Is this DRM running in the DX10 rendering pipeline? What's accounting for this big hit?

**Bamboo** · 02-25-2008, 05:40 PM

He actually is right. I have seen a lot of sites post benchmarks that show Vista to be slower at running a lot of tasks, and a few FPS slower in games.
Here is one mention of some reviews, just click the links in the article.
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 Performance Tests

Still, the few seconds more it might take in one of those tests in programs I rarely use doesn't mean I would prefer XP over Vista.
I would rather have the programs like Firefox start up instantly when i click the icon, instead of 20 sec. later, like in XP.
Considering how much I use some programs, those few sec. with each startup saves me more time overall in the long run.

**Tonk** · 02-27-2008, 08:12 PM

i had to xfer funds to paypal, my order shipped 15 min after i placed it =D should be here tomorrow, question tho, i swapped brands of graphic card, from EVGA to MSI, the price was the same, but the MSI came with a free game, is MSI a respectable brand? which card brand to you all prefer?

**Bamboo** · 02-27-2008, 08:48 PM

yeah, review sites like MSI and it is a well known brand of motherboards and graf. cards.
I am not sure about some of the things they offer that I know evga does.
I went with evga because of their lifetime warrenty and 90 day upgrade program (which I didn't get to use because Nvidia ended up delaying the 9800GTX so long.)

What game did you get?

Let us know how the build goes!!!!!!!!!

**Tonk** · 02-27-2008, 09:08 PM

the Witcher, parts shipped overnight a few hours ago, ill be posting benchmarks tomorrow depending on how long it takes to get going (after all this i pray i dont have to rma something)

**Tonk** · 02-28-2008, 06:28 PM

new rig up and running =D installed onto my >now empty =( < raid drive without as much as a problem.. running at 800x600, updating drivers now =D it came with the full version of 3dmark06 so ill have benchmarks up in a bit... and pictures...

**Tonk** · 02-29-2008, 05:49 PM

vista rating 5.6

mmmm 8gb of ram ^^

i was interested if my low raid data rate was a drive problem or mobo problem... 72mb isnt one bit bad!

my 3dMark06 score was 11k but i need to download the latest version for it to upload to the website, no problems whatsoever

the pretty inside =D

**Tonk** · 02-29-2008, 06:10 PM

question tho... can you setup a raid 0 with three drives? 4? will it be faster than 2 drives?

Thread Tools

Display