Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vista Performance

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vista Performance

    Need some help from anyone who has recently upgraded to Vista, or running a dual-boot with Vista/XP.

    Trying to figure out what is causing these massive performance drops I get. Is it Vista itself? nVidia's drivers? Incompatibilities with my particular video card?

    Anyway, been doing some tests.

    First, did a before/after test of when I installed SP1 in Audiosurf



    Essentially identical. About a 20% drop from XP.

    Also did a quick test in TF2 with my video card set at different clock speeds, to be sure it wasn't being set wrong in Vista.



    Underclocked in XP still beats the best I can get outta Vista. A massive 48% drop in performance. Also tried closing every program and non-essential service (including Superfetch, firewall, everything that wouldn't shut down the system if I disabled it) with identical results.

    I'm stumped. I've seen other benchmarks comparing Vista to XP, and they're nowhere near the massive drop I'm getting in TF2. I really love using Vista...I just love playing TF2 and other games more, so its XP until I figure this out.

    System Specs:

    AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+ @ 2.6GHz
    2GB Corsair ValueSelect
    NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS (Overclocked to 575/800MHz)
    Speakers (Creative SB Audigy)
    XP Professional SP3 / Vista Business SP1
    Last edited by Satertek; 03-07-2008, 12:40 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Vista Performance

    Could you drop about $35-45 on another 2 gigs of RAM?
    And hate to say it, but that processor is really old by todays standards.
    I remember when it 1st came out and was hot stuff, and I really wanted one, but that was like 3 or so years ago.

    As far as the memory, Vista for me uses more than a gig by itself, so it may be limiting you. What speed is that memory. Wait a sec, that is DDR1 memory isn't it, since it is a 3000+.

    LINKS

    * *


    Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.

    -Carlos A. Urbizo-

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Vista Performance

      Found this benchmark that tests a system similar to mine. It shows a 6% drop at 1280x1024. I get a 50% drop at 1024x768. Something's not right with that picture, and it's not my single core processor or my DDR1 RAM.

      Yea I'd like to get a dual-core processor, but it's not something I need. Every game I have runs flawlessly on XP at med-high to high settings.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Vista Performance

        Honestly, Vista uses a lot of RAM and yes a dual core would help out a lot. My single core 3000+ I had just made me think Vista was a joke but after buying a whole new computer with Vista Ultimate x64 and a nice dual core I can see the huge difference. I have 4Gb of RAM and Vista is using about 1.2Gb of RAM by itself. I believe more RAM will help and YES a dual core or quad core processor will help out a lot. I am even thinking about buying 2 or 4 more gigs just for the heck of it. I have not seen mine close to being maxed out yet but I am sure some more RAM wouldn't hurt none either and I know I have an almost new dual core but thought about getting rid of it for a Q9450 quad core when they come out.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Vista Performance

          OK I'm gonna flat out say I'm not planning any upgrades now, heh. Thanks, but don't even suggest it. (Any upgrade beyond a new 939 dual-core would constitiute an entire system upgrade, and mine still has some time left on it, I'll get a quad-core system with DDR3 RAM when this one falters, but it still runs every new release flawlessly; Vista isn't worth spending $1500 now vs. $500 in a year or two)

          And upgrading is just sidestepping the problem.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Vista Performance

            Then I would just stick with XP when you are gaming, and just play with Vista.
            Problem solved with no $.

            LINKS

            * *


            Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.

            -Carlos A. Urbizo-

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Vista Performance

              Originally posted by Bamboo View Post
              Then I would just stick with XP when you are gaming, and just play with Vista.
              Problem solved with no $.
              Then the problem isn't solved :p

              Driving me crazy still, lol.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vista Performance

                well, look at it this way,

                vista min system requirements:
                # 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
                # 1 GB of system memory
                # 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
                # Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

                * WDDM Driver
                * 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
                * Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
                * 32 bits per pixel

                you are roughly 2x (number-wise) the min system requirements


                the min system requirements for windows 95 was this:
                # A personal computer with a 386DX, 20MHz or higher processor, running the MS-DOS operating system version 3.2 or later, or running Microsoft Windows version 3.0 or later, or running OS/2 version 2.0 or later

                Note: Do not install Windows 95 on a computer with a B1 (stepping) chip.
                # 4MB of memory (8MB recommended)

                # At least 70MB of available hard disk space for installation

                i tried to install win95 on my old 486 that had 66mhz... 16mb ram... and a 120mb hard drive (i think it was 120mb) ( i was like 9 at the time, but im almost positive the numbers are right)

                and that ran like an absolute dog and it was roughly 3x (again: number wise) as fast as the min requirements... it would run WINDOWS fine, but there was no way in heck i would be able to play a decent game from that era (Descent rings a bell)


                my point is... min system requirements are basically just for the running of the OS, with little headroom for anything else, all of your resources are probably being spent on keeping the OS/UI up and semi-snappy

                how do you show FPS in audiosurf.. ill find mine (i run vista x64 with the system in my sig)
                powered by Windows 7

                . . . .

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Vista Performance

                  using fraps, my average fps with total max settings ( premium graphics.. 8x AA ) was 58 (i have v-sync enabled so it never spiked above an occasional 61) and it never went below 49, and that was during the loading
                  powered by Windows 7

                  . . . .

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Vista Performance

                    Originally posted by Tonk View Post
                    my point is... min system requirements are basically just for the running of the OS, with little headroom for anything else, all of your resources are probably being spent on keeping the OS/UI up and semi-snappy
                    This benchmark I can't explain though. With roughly the same system I have, they're getting 5-10% performance drops, not 30-50%.

                    That's what I'm trying to figure out. I understand faster hardware = better, but that doesn't explain a 50% drop.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Vista Performance

                      Originally posted by your link

                      COMPONENT AMD Socket 939 System
                      Motherboard ASUS A8R32-MVP Deluxe
                      Processor Athlon 64 FX-60 (2.6GHz)
                      Chipset ATI Radeon Xpress 3200
                      Memory 2GB Corsair DDR400
                      Hard drive Western Digital WD1500ADFD
                      Optical storage 16x ATAPI DVD +/- RW
                      Sound card Sound Blaster Audigy 2
                      Display Sony 19" Trinitron CRT
                      Operating system Windows Vista Ultimate, Windows XP SP2
                      the fx-60 was the CPU i drooled over when i built my last rig (amd 4400+ 2.2ghz dual core) top of the line at the time CPU from AMD (the prescott killer)

                      my only thought is it COULD be the processor that is causing the bottleneck... what is your CPU load when in game? using the task manager; what is your memory usage % at in game? pagefile usage?


                      http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
                      the fx-60 is on the bottom left picture... 3/4 the way down, with 1048 score on the benchmark
                      the amd 3000+ is on the top left picture. 2/3 the way down, with 388 score on the benchmark.. considering it is overclocked pertneer 25%, add a hundred to the score and it stil isnt quite half the fx-60
                      if i were to upgrade one thing on your system, the CPU would be it.
                      Last edited by Tonk; 03-07-2008, 12:23 AM.
                      powered by Windows 7

                      . . . .

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Vista Performance

                        Remember, I did just post an article last week about Microsoft lowering their required standards for Vista so Intel could slip some crappy parts in under the radar, and they turned out to run like crap on vista and piss a lot of people off.

                        Still, weird things happen. I actually spent most of today trying to figure out why I only score 10,500 in 3dMark06, while people with half my system score 17,000, and I still did'nt figure it out. Will work more tomorrow on it.

                        LINKS

                        * *


                        Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.

                        -Carlos A. Urbizo-

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Vista Performance

                          heh, i managed to get just over 11,000 (11,001 lol) with my new system (in sig) and was wondering what i did wrong... what you need to know is i don't think 3dmark knows if you are SLI or not... which makes a big difference because the top computer, which scored 30k+ used an ATI x2900 of all cards... but i think it was FOUR OF THEM!!!..... idk if quad crossfire is possible.. i heard it was but google showed nothing




                          what is your cpu load % while in game?
                          Last edited by Tonk; 03-07-2008, 01:13 AM.
                          powered by Windows 7

                          . . . .

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Vista Performance

                            Originally posted by Tonk View Post
                            the amd 3000+ is on the top left picture. 2/3 the way down, with 388 score on the benchmark.. considering it is overclocked pertneer 25%, add a hundred to the score and it stil isnt quite half the fx-60
                            if i were to upgrade one thing on your system, the CPU would be it.
                            May not be the quality of an FX, but it's running at the same clock speed. Point is that its a single core system, so my problem isn't that I'm not running dual-core on Vista.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Vista Performance

                              Take a look into power options and check that you are not running on half the cylinders (i.e. underclocked). Go to the Full Power plan.
                              Before you test you may want to disable the Windows Search service...

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X