8800GTX problem

[cquence350z]

I am having issues this week with my EVGA 8800GTX. I installed the latest driver on the evga website. Im running Vista 64, and have 4 gigs of RAM. I play CS:S and consistantly get around 150ish fps and the past week, If I was to play for more than 30 mins, my fps drops to like 30-40fps. It looks like either it is getting too hot or something. My graphics get so choppy. What could be the problem? Too much heat? or some other program is causing it to drop like this?

[Seinken]

Heat is the only issue I can think of, mine throttles when I'm on the road and when the heat hits 70 the frames instantly drop to unplayable levels.

[cquence350z]

can anyone recommend a good cooler for my GTX? And is there instructions lieing around somewhere on how to remove the stock cooler? And where to put the paste on? I was looking at this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835109136 what do you think about this?

[ratbuddy]

First off fire up RivaTuner and make sure the fan is running at a good clip..

You can also log the temperatures with the nvidia control panel -> monitor temperature levels. That'll let ya know how hot it's getting..

[cquence350z]

will a reformat solve this problem?

[Maverick0984]

Um, to both the OP and Seinken, it should be able to take 70C w/o blinking...

If yours is crapping out at 70C you have something seriously wrong.

[cquence350z]

actually...rivatuner shows only 60-62*C under load. So I dont know what the problem is.

[technoViking]

yah that is very weird....

when i had the 6800gt it wouldn't start throttling/killing fps until it hit 120C so 60-70C shouldn't be any issues.

my 8800gt gets to aboutg 65C on load and I don't have any issues either.

Are you running cs source on the 28" or the 22"?
Maybe its running out of ram?

[cquence350z]

Im running CS:S on my 28" I have 4 gigs of 1066mhz ram. Dont think I would run out.

[technoViking]

no I'm not talking about that type of ram i'm talking about graphics ram on your 8800gtx,
You may need more than 768MB to handle a 28" LCD at very high resolutions.

The bigger the monitor and the higher the rezolutions the more onboard graphics ram is needed from what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong) but I've heard people having to SLI 8800's so they could play on 19x12 without loosing a ton of frames on a 24" LCD.

Does this problem also happen on the 22"?
or only the 28"?

If its only the 28" then that is probably your issue, you need more graphics card ram so might need to sli which won't be cheap but I could be wrong.

[cquence350z]

It was working fine the last couple of months, until this week. Maybe it has something to do with my computer. It looks like my graphics are choking. It has happened to my 22" as well. I might have to reformat my computer. I think thats what i did before. But damn, I hate reinstalling all my programs over.

[Fhaarkas]

It sounds to me like your system is hogged. And if it's like that even on your 22", it's definitely not a running-out-of-VRAM problem.

Before reformatting (a rather serious thing to do), are you sure that there is no spyware, malware or whatever it is that bloats your system?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a 28" runs just a 19x12 resolution (and therefore has the same load as a 24")? So the next increase in load would be when you're running a 30" which starts to sport 25x16.

[technoViking]

If its happening on both monitors like Fhaakas said its not running out of VRAM, when you are dropping in frames alt tab, and check your system stats, see how much your processor is getting used.


This one time I was playing war in conflict and it was going nuts, runnning like hell, I alt tab and noticed 50% of my processor was getting used by a program that converted word to PDF format!
I simply killed that process and everything was fine.

I doubt a reformat is going to fix this problem unless it really is a virus or somthing hogging your system resources, or might just be a backgroudn program.

Nothing else makes sense:
If its not over heating, which is a cause of frame drops, then thats out
If its not running out of VRAM which will also cause frame drops, then thats out
Another odd problem is it only happens after 30 mins or so of playing, which makes it sound like a HEATING issue.
Or some other program is kicking in and stealing your resources slowly.

I realize CS source isn't that graphic intensive but at that HIGH of a resolution, it should be really working your graphics card.

[cquence350z]

One thing I did notice is when the fps start dropping and I alt tab to the desktop, and go back into my game, It goes back to normal for a little bit and does that over and over again. I did remove some spywares in my computer. I will check on my processes in a bit.

[jordon]

could just be the server you were on... also check your rates and such. i would step down resolutions and still see if it lags.. i really doubt source is ever gonna come close to using 768mb's of video ram.. probably uses a couple hundred at the very most. Im betting its something else. check out your multi-display settings too, and try single display performance for mixed monitors so your #1 gets the most gpu power. if that makes sense

[ViperJohn]

I am having issues this week with my EVGA 8800GTX. I installed the latest driver on the evga website. Im running Vista 64, and have 4 gigs of RAM. I play CS:S and consistantly get around 150ish fps and the past week, If I was to play for more than 30 mins, my fps drops to like 30-40fps. It looks like either it is getting too hot or something. My graphics get so choppy. What could be the problem? Too much heat? or some other program is causing it to drop like this?

That isn't the video card as it would have to be around 100C before it would throttle
and most will lock up before that. It sound more like an OS issue.

What could be happening is Vista is deciding it is time to index the hard drive or possibly
defragment in the background. Both will clobber anything you are doing in the foreground.

John

[cquence350z]

well i've tried closing some programs. Went into the task manager and deleted some processes that uses a lot of RAM. It did work. Today I played CS:S for about an hour and havent had issues. Gonna play more tomorrow to see if it does help or not.

One more thing...during idle...is it normal for your computer to be taking up 30-40% or your memory? cause thats what mine is showing.

[ViperJohn]

One more thing...during idle...is it normal for your computer to be taking up 30-40% or your memory? cause thats what mine is showing.

Welcome to ME-II (Vista) lol.

Viper

[Maverick0984]

Welcome to ME-II (Vista) lol.

Viper

Just because Vista uses your RAM doesn't mean that is a bad thing...comparing it to ME is ignorant.

[Immortal_Hero]

Just because Vista uses your RAM doesn't mean that is a bad thing...comparing it to ME is ignorant.

How is using excessive amounts of RAM not a bad thing? I personally agree with the ME-II statement.

@OP for a stock install of vista using 600 to 800 MB of RAM doing nothing is not abnormal.

[Maverick0984]

How is using excessive amounts of RAM not a bad thing? I personally agree with the ME-II statement.

@OP for a stock install of vista using 600 to 800 MB of RAM doing nothing is not abnormal.

Who says it is excessive? That might be your opinion, but Vista does a ton of things to improve your experience. One of which is to cache all available RAM with something. That is by no means a negative.

When people compare Vista to ME, that just tells me that they aren't considering everything in their analysis and/or don't fully understand the differences between XP and Vista.

Again, just because it is "using" the RAM, doesn't mean it is excessive or unnecessary. There are performance benefits to using that RAM that people don't seem to care about. All they are worried about is that Crysis can use 3GB of RAM if it has too...:rolleyes: If you bought the RAM, don't you want to use it?

Now, I know people are going to say Vista shows performance penalties as opposed to XP. Perhaps in FPS or your 3dmark scores. That is an entirely different issue. The usage of RAM in Vista improves things like response time and loading times for your various programs.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html - This helps explain some of it.

I must point out that I do know the difference between "Total" "Cached", and "Free" memory and am well aware that when a user says 30% of their RAM is being used, that is Total - Cached - Free = 30% Actively being used. I'm not getting confused in including the cached memory in that 30% ;). That is why I'm saying that link merely helps to explain it, and doesn't fully explain it.

It all goes into the same topic of discussion though. I really must stress that just because Vista uses more memory than XP does not at all mean anything negative.

That being said XP is, of course, meant for older systems, and Vista is, of course, meant for newer systems. I'm not arguing that Vista needs more memory, I'm arguing that that isn't a bad thing ;).

[ViperJohn]

Just because Vista uses your RAM doesn't mean that is a bad thing...comparing it to ME is ignorant.

For one I didn't invent the ME-II moniker for Vista but with the exception of Vista better
stability (nothing could be worse that Windows ME in that regard) it is accurate IMO.
Vista is an expensive, slow, DRM invested and grossly bloated piece of disk and memory
hog CrapWare.

If it wasn't for the fact the MS is forcing ME-II down the end user publics throat via the
big box builders it would have already been declared dead and mercifully buried.

Viper

PS...Thinking SuperFetch being a good thing for is almost laughable. SF is about as useful
as Vista's UAC and is the second thing any power user disables (UAC is #1). While Vista's
preloading into memory programs, app's and crap that Vista thinks you might use allows
those preloads to open marginally faster (assuming you actually do start something that
has been preloaded into memory) than when using the normal disk prefetch cache alone
that is where it ends. After that it just slows running programs, especially high memory
usage games, down as memory has to be released for their running code/maps and disk
pagefile use soars.

[Maverick0984]

For one I didn't invent the ME-II moniker for Vista but with the exception of Vista better
stability (nothing could be worse that Windows ME in that regard) it is accurate IMO.
Vista is an expensive, slow, DRM invested and grossly bloated piece of disk and memory
hog CrapWare.

If it wasn't for the fact the MS is forcing ME-II down the end user publics throat via the
big box builders it would have already been declared dead and mercifully buried.

Viper

PS...Thinking SuperFetch being a good thing for is almost laughable. SF is about as useful
as Vista's UAC and is the second thing any power user disables (UAC is #1). While Vista's
preloading into memory programs, app's and crap that Vista thinks you might use allows
those preloads to open marginally faster (assuming you actually do start something that
has been preloaded into memory) than when using the normal disk prefetch cache alone
that is where it ends. After that it just slows running programs, especially high memory
usage games, down as memory has to be released for their running code/maps and disk
pagefile use soars.

Memory has to be released and reloaded for new programs, correct. But it already had to be loaded regardless in XP. So not much, if anything, has been sacrificed. It is much quicker to wipe memory, then load it.

Marginally faster is your opinion as well. If I can feel the difference, which I can, that is more than "marginal" in my eyes.

Even though you may not have invented the moniker, you still perpetuate it, so you are just as at fault as those whom invented it ;).

Superfetch is a good thing, if people are disabling it because they feel they need the cleared memory, they are missing out. Everything you have said is your opinion and you are entitled to that, but I have no reason to believe any of it, as I personally haven't experienced it. The theory is extremely plausible and I do see load time decreases in programs I frequent. It is just the math behind the madness :-/ RAM access time < HDD access time. Sure some programs will get caught in between, but it isn't psychic. The point is to increase performance for the majority.

To each is own, but I still feel comparing it to ME is completely unfair, just because a few people have experienced issues. Sometimes a bit of that is simply user error :-/

If you want something to disable, then disable Search Indexing :)

[ViperJohn]

Memory has to be released and reloaded for new programs, correct. But it already had to be loaded regardless in XP. So not much, if anything, has been sacrificed. It is much quicker to wipe memory, then load it.

Marginally faster is your opinion as well. If I can feel the difference, which I can, that is more than "marginal" in my eyes.

Even though you may not have invented the moniker, you still perpetuate it, so you are just as at fault as those whom invented it ;).

Superfetch is a good thing, if people are disabling it because they feel they need the cleared memory, they are missing out. Everything you have said is your opinion and you are entitled to that, but I have no reason to believe any of it, as I personally haven't experienced it. The theory is extremely plausible and I do see load time decreases in programs I frequent. It is just the math behind the madness :-/ RAM access time < HDD access time. Sure some programs will get caught in between, but it isn't psychic. The point is to increase performance for the majority.

To each is own, but I still feel comparing it to ME is completely unfair, just because a few people have experienced issues. Sometimes a bit of that is simply user error :-/

If you want something to disable, then disable Search Indexing :)

I perpetuate the ME-II moniker because it fits Vista accurately. The person that did come up
with it committed no fault at all. He just did Vista justice.

You like ME-II and are willing to living with it but there were a lot of people that liked ME as
well even though it was a POS too lol.

BTW is you disable Disk Indexing on ME-II right away your disk searches will be pain
fully slow in perpetuity. After you have loaded all or the bulk of your programs let ME-II idle
all night. It will index everything while you are snoozing and be done when you wake up then
you can disable Disk Indexing and still have quick disk searches.

Viper


Viper

[Maverick0984]

I perpetuate the ME-II moniker because it fits Vista accurately. The person that did come up
with it committed no fault at all. He just did Vista justice.

You like ME-II and are willing to living with it but there were a lot of people that liked ME as
well even though it was a POS too lol.

BTW is you disable Disk Indexing on ME-II right away your disk searches will be pain
fully slow in perpetuity. After you have loaded all or the bulk of your programs let ME-II idle
all night. It will index everything while you are snoozing and be done when you wake up then
you can disable Disk Indexing and still have quick disk searches.

Viper


Viper

Sigh, some people will never learn.

[ViperJohn]

Sigh, some people will never learn.

Nothing to learn. One of us knows when they have their hands on a good OS and the other
only thinks he does or simply deludes himself into thinking he does lol. There is a reason why
businesses and the IT industry as a whole are staying clear of ME-II in droves.

Just curious but what was your first computer??? Mine was an original IBM XT so I have been
in this OS game for a heck of a long time now.

Viper

[dipspit]

@OP Your sig indicates your card is an evga card. I'd seriously look into replacing the card if it continues to have these problems. When did this issue start? Has it always been like this, or is it a recent incident? Has anything changed on your system?

Viper has done nothing but reiterate well documented and acknowledged faults/drawbacks of the new operating system. I'm not sure why you're so adamant in defending an operating system, but don't have any reservations on calling someone, who is known here to be very knowledgeable, ignorant and saying he'll never learn. I think you're out of line.

Do you think PC Magazine would rate Vista the worst product of 2007 for absolutely no reason? Do you think the fact that the majority of enterprises are refusing to upgrade to it is a sign of any significance?

[Maverick0984]

Nothing to learn. One of us knows when they have their hands on a good OS and the other
only thinks he does or simply deludes himself into thinking he does lol. There is a reason why
businesses and the IT industry as a whole are staying clear of ME-II in droves.

Just curious but what was your first computer??? Mine was an original IBM XT so I have been
in this OS game for a heck of a long time now.

Viper

Well, I'm disappointed you brought it to that level, but my first PC was a 386 running DOS. I'm 23, employed as a software engineer and a recent graduate in computer engineering. Including DOS I've worked with Windows 3.1, NT, 98, 2000, 2003 Server, XP, Vista, OS9, OSX, Fedora, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, and various other things. I know a thing or two about these new fangled things myself :p I know my age puts me early in the 386 game, but nonetheless I was there. Started at an early age.

I'm not questioning your experience, because frankly it isn't relevant. I'd hoped this wouldn't have been brought to that.

@OP Your sig indicates your card is an evga card. I'd seriously look into replacing the card if it continues to have these problems. When did this issue start? Has it always been like this, or is it a recent incident? Has anything changed on your system?

Viper has done nothing but reiterate well documented and acknowledged faults/drawbacks of the new operating system. I'm not sure why you're so adamant in defending an operating system, but don't have any reservations on calling someone, who is known here to be very knowledgeable, ignorant and saying he'll never learn. I think you're out of line.

Do you think PC Magazine would rate Vista the worst product of 2007 for absolutely no reason? Do you think the fact that the majority of enterprises are refusing to upgrade to it is a sign of any significance?

Ignorant was a carefully chosen word. It isn't an insult, IMHO. I know very well who Viper is within the confines of these forums. Just because someone has a certain 'status' within a certain range, his forte happens to be graphics cards AFAIK, doesn't mean they are infallible within all aspects of the industry.

Businesses haven't switched to it because it isn't a "business" OS. Regardless of the Business label placed on one of its flavors. Your everyday business doesn't need the bells and whistles it provides. In addition to that, how many businesses hopped off the 2000/2003 bandwagon and switched to XP before SP1 and SP2 came out? The argument that businesses aren't using it yet really has no grounds because the transition has been identical to previous OS's.

If you think I've been out of line, then perhaps you've taken some things I've said out of context. I've been extremely careful as to not provide anything negative and only continue a discussion in a respectful manner. TBH, Viper, if anything, has been the one out of line. Now questioning what my first computer was and now mocking my arguments by referring to Vista as ME-II on purpose, going out of his way to do so.

Your comments specifically had no merit to the discussion and have now turned the thread into something deviant.

[ViperJohn]

Well, I'm disappointed you brought it to that level, but my first PC was a 386 running DOS. I'm 23, employed as a software engineer and a recent graduate in computer engineering. Including DOS I've worked with Windows 3.1, NT, 98, 2000, 2003 Server, XP, Vista, OS9, OSX, Fedora, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, and various other things. I know a thing or two about these new fangled things myself :p I know my age puts me early in the 386 game, but nonetheless I was there. Started at an early age.

I'm not questioning your experience, because frankly it isn't relevant. I'd hoped this wouldn't have been brought to that.

TBH, Viper, if anything, has been the one out of line. Now questioning what my first computer was and now mocking my arguments by referring to Vista as ME-II on purpose, going out of his way to do so.

Your comments specifically had no merit to the discussion and have now turned the thread into something deviant.

The reason I asked what your first computer was, was to determine if I was having a convo
with a young kid with little or no experience and that is all.

About 3 days after I got my first Alpha version of Vista I had a new name for it and that was
~hitsta. Would you prefer I still use that? Vista was crap then and it still is (well it is improved
crap now). I do not call Vista ME-II to mock you. I call it that all the time in all forums posts
where ever I go. I do it to because that is what Vista deserves to be called and no other
reason.

Considering your education, training and credentials I am simply amazed that you can sit there
and honestly try defend the poor excuse of an OS that Vista is.

Viper

[jordon]

viper owns

[atm743]

That isn't the video card as it would have to be around 100C before it would throttle
and most will lock up before that. It sound more like an OS issue.

What could be happening is Vista is deciding it is time to index the hard drive or possibly
defragment in the background. Both will clobber anything you are doing in the foreground.

John

i agree with this.

i had diskeeper auto defrag on and it would drop my fps ALLOT. my bud has vista and when his comp idles out of no where it decides to read or write with the hdd and it sounds like a old ass gateway having a hart attack *gargle gargle gargle*

[Mustanley]

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, CS:S problems. I don't have an answer for you but I remember g0dM@n (http://www.ocforums.com/member.php?find=lastposter&t=538770) had the same problem with his GTX. You might try PMing him to see if he ever found a solution.

[Maverick0984]

The reason I asked what your first computer was, was to determine if I was having a convo
with a young kid with little or no experience and that is all.

About 3 days after I got my first Alpha version of Vista I had a new name for it and that was
~hitsta. Would you prefer I still use that? Vista was crap then and it still is (well it is improved
crap now). I do not call Vista ME-II to mock you. I call it that all the time in all forums posts
where ever I go. I do it to because that is what Vista deserves to be called and no other
reason.

Considering your education, training and credentials I am simply amazed that you can sit there
and honestly try defend the poor excuse of an OS that Vista is.

Viper

I just feel people give Vista a bad rap because of particular driver issues and whatnot, that frankly, are not its or Microsoft's fault. Then these particular issues circulate and poison the minds of individuals who don't know any better and believe whatever http://www.randomgeekwebsite.com tells them to believe.

Obviously, I'm not saying you are one of said people, but regardless most of the opinions on Vista are uninformed, "I heard this" rumors based on no testing of their own. I do not think it is a "poor excuse" of an OS nor do I think it is at all in the realm of ME. People are quick to forget the slow transition from 98SE->XP or 2000->XP. XP had all the same complaints and all the same driver issues pre SP1/SP2. To me this is all the same thing, all over again.

What people don't recognize is what Vista is trying to accomplish. XP is 6+ years old and thus, is built for slower, older technology. If you are able to improve your experience at the cost of some RAM, then I'll be the first to jump on that train. That is the benefit of technology. If people expect Vista to run on 200MB of RAM, then they are absolutely nuts. Last I checked, OSX wasn't exactly "resource light" but Apple enthusiasts swear by it. Obviously it uses less than Vista, but it does use quite a bit more then XP. This is the transition OS's are going and you can bet your bottom dollar that MS's next personal desktop OS isn't going to go backward towards XP. People just aren't used to things like this yet.

People compare Vista to an OS that has had 6 years to mature. Of course there are going to be bugs, but writing off the entire OS is ludicrous. If that had been done the first time this happened, we'd all be running Windows 95.

Keep in mind, this discussion began with me saying Vista actually using the RAM it is given is a good thing. It had nothing to do with Vista as a whole. If 15 years from now, you still want to be on an OS that runs on 200-300MB of RAM, then have fun with XP for the next 15 years. It is the end of the line in that regard.

viper owns

If you have nothing useful to ad, don't bother posting.

i agree with this.

i had diskeeper auto defrag on and it would drop my fps ALLOT. my bud has vista and when his comp idles out of no where it decides to read or write with the hdd and it sounds like a old ass gateway having a hart attack *gargle gargle gargle*

It is the Windows Search Indexing, that has been mentioned, that is running during those times.

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, CS:S problems. I don't have an answer for you but I remember g0dM@n had the same problem with his GTX. You might try PMing him to see if he ever found a solution.

Yea, I suppose it has gone a little off topic. My apologies to the original poster. I'm curious to what the status of his problem is. Last he posted, it seemed as though he had hacked and slashed his way to a solution. Although, removing legitimate processes is just placing a band aid on the underlying problem.

[Immortal_Hero]

There are a couple of things that are obvious to me right off:

Either some background process, a driver problem, or an overheating problem.

Does the issue only exist in CS:S or all games. If it is only CS:S then it has to be a compatibility problem between the game, OS and/or drivers.

For the couple of weeks I ran Vista I saw the same thing happen. It was b/c the HDD was crunching and all the background processes causing PF usage to kick in to store the game files. If it turns out to be the OS background problem you have a few options:

1. Deal with it.
2. Disable the processes.
3. Go to a different OS.

What drivers are you using? Have you tried reinstalling the drivers/game?

If the primary purpose of this box is to game I see no reason to run Vista. No matter how you slice it Vista uses more resources PERIOD. Yes these resources MAY be helpful for some apps but when gaming they will only hinder performance. Until there are games that yield better performance, better looks, or are required to use DX10 I will not recommend Vista as a gaming OS. If you want a "better" Windows experience then use Vista if you want the most performance out of your hardware then XP is for you.

If you can’t see that Vista is going to be just like ME then you must be blind. MS is already talking about its next OS due out sooner than later (early 2009 I believe). IMO Vista offers you nothing at this point other than poorer performance and DX10.

[Maverick0984]

There are a couple of things that are obvious to me right off:

Either some background process, a driver problem, or an overheating problem.

Does the issue only exist in CS:S or all games. If it is only CS:S then it has to be a compatibility problem between the game, OS and/or drivers.

For the couple of weeks I ran Vista I saw the same thing happen. It was b/c the HDD was crunching and all the background processes causing PF usage to kick in to store the game files. If it turns out to be the OS background problem you have a few options:

1. Deal with it.
2. Disable the processes.
3. Go to a different OS.

What drivers are you using? Have you tried reinstalling the drivers/game?

If the primary purpose of this box is to game I see no reason to run Vista. No matter how you slice it Vista uses more resources PERIOD. Yes these resources MAY be helpful for some apps but when gaming they will only hinder performance. Until there are games that yield better performance, better looks, or are required to use DX10 I will not recommend Vista as a gaming OS. If you want a "better" Windows experience then use Vista if you want the most performance out of your hardware then XP is for you.

If you can’t see that Vista is going to be just like ME then you must be blind. MS is already talking about its next OS due out sooner than later (early 2009 I believe). IMO Vista offers you nothing at this point other than poorer performance and DX10.

If you think Windows 7 will actually be released when they say it will, then you haven't been paying attention to their previous OS's. :beer:

Also, it isn't "early 2009" but actually 2010 that is the planned release date :-/

Another comment in regards to the claim Vista is acting "just like" ME. Take this note.

Windows ME released: September 14, 2000
Windows XP released: October 25th, 2001
Windows Vista released: Limited: November 8th, 2006, Worldwide: January 30th, 2007
Windows 7 Expected release: 2010

This means the lifespan of was ME just over 1 year. The lifespan of XP has been 6 years, and the lifespan of Vista will probably end up being around 4 years.

Before Vista was ever released, 4-5 years was the period that Microsoft was quoted as saying was the optimal lifespan of an OS. They admitted that XP had been the sole choice for far too long and would correct that. Seems to me, like they are merely holding to their previous claim on how long they want their "up to date" OS in circulation. Seeing that ME was current for 1 year, and Vista looks to be current for at least 4, I really don't see how a new OS coming in maybe 2010 mirrors ME whatsoever.

[Immortal_Hero]

Well OP good luck! I'd start a new thread as no one is going to join this Vista war.

[Maverick0984]

Well OP good luck! I'd start a new thread as no one is going to join this Vista war.

I think he's gone :-/

[cquence350z]

Well I have tried uninstalling my driver, downloaded different drivers. Still the same. How come EVGA.com and Nvidia.com have different drivers? I might look into going back to XP Pro. 32bit or 64bit?

[Maverick0984]

Well I have tried uninstalling my driver, downloaded different drivers. Still the same. How come EVGA.com and Nvidia.com have different drivers? I might look into going back to XP Pro. 32bit or 64bit?

Did you use Driver Cleaner?

While it isn't a Vista problem persay, installing XP might fix the problem, but it would be the same as reinstalling Vista, ie. a format+reinstall of any OS. If you decide to go back to XP Pro, it would have to be 64bit. Only around 3.25 GB of your 4GB RAM will be usable in 32bit.

[ViperJohn]

I just feel people give Vista a bad rap because of particular driver issues and whatnot, that frankly, are not its or Microsoft's fault. Then these particular issues circulate and poison the minds of individuals who don't know any better and believe whatever http://www.randomgeekwebsite.com tells them to believe.

What people don't recognize is what Vista is trying to accomplish. XP is 6+ years old and thus, is built for slower, older technology.

Oh come on Mav now you are either in complete denial or are a MicroSoft plant in the forums. While XP is older (and that doesn't mean worse especially in this case) saying XP is slower that Vista is ridiculous. That flies in the face of common knowledge, user experience and about every test compare ever made between Vista and XP.

I never heard of that website you mentioned and Vista issue's are 100% MS's fault. They coded the damn thing. They also caved in and DRM infected it to the point it slows it in virtually everything you do with it.

The driver and compatibility issues come largely from Vista's new driver model and protected mode kernal which the driver writers can no longer access directly...at least if they want to get WHQL and use a Windows Logo on their products. The whole purpose of Vista's highly touted protected kernal (by MS anyway) was to improve security but that is a joke now since the hackers cracked that before RC2 was even released. Now it only inhibits the development of good, fast drivers.

The only reason the hackers, cracker, worm, bug, virus and trojan writers have not descended on Vista in droves yet is thankfully Vista's uptake has been so slow there isn't enough copies out yet to make it worth their time or get enough fun out of screwing with it.

BTW if you consider the fact that there are something like 300% more computers in end users hands compared to when WinXP was released Vista's uptake has been a total disaster marketing/sales wise...and that is with MS forcing it on an unsuspecting public through the big box builders. At least Dell had the balls to tell MS to stuff it and they will allow buyers to get XP instead of Vista for now (not that Dell had much choice since Vista stuck a knife into the box sales).

What MS was trying to accomplish, and make no mistake about it, when it created Vista was to increase MS's bottom line (which is the purpose of any company) and to take more control over what you can do with your computer (which is bad) and nothing more. With the exception of running DX10, DRM infested Hi-Def audio/video and a lot of "puff and fluff" Vista brought almost nothing new to the table while what was already on the table WinXP can run faster/better in almost all cases.

The MS 'taking control over/taking control away from' what you do with your box is going to expand in their next OS. You see a take of that with Vista64 now and unsigned drivers. It's not for your protection as all a driver writer needs to get signed and be easily usable in Vista64 is an annual payment to MicroSoft. RivaTuner is a classic example of that.

With MS's next OS that control can/will be extended to all programs, drivers, applications, games, you name it. If the writers do not pay MS you will not be able to run them. Your ability to run anything can/will be disabled/enabled with simple behind the scene (read hidden as best MS can) auto updates that you will have no control over and it will all be done in the name of "Security for You" instead of "Fatten MS's Wallet". That is what OS monopoly is all about and MS wrote/writes the book (and the law if they can get away with it) on that.

Viper

[ViperJohn]

Well I have tried uninstalling my driver, downloaded different drivers. Still the same. How come EVGA.com and Nvidia.com have different drivers? I might look into going back to XP Pro. 32bit or 64bit?

nVidia writes the drivers so they will always lead the OEM's and the drivers they post on
their websites.

32bit XP unless you are running more than 4mb of memory. Actually you will not get the
use of the full 4mb with 32bit XP but the 32bit drivers are better developed as 64bit XP
was never intended for the home user.

Do disable Disk Indexing on XP.

Viper

[Maverick0984]

Oh come on Mav now you are either in complete denial or are a MicroSoft plant in the forums. While XP is older (and that doesn't mean worse especially in this case) saying XP is slower that Vista is ridiculous. That flies in the face of common knowledge, user experience and about every test compare ever made between Vista and XP.

I never heard of that website you mentioned and Vista issue's are 100% MS's fault. They coded the damn thing. They also caved in and DRM infected it to the point it slows it in virtually everything you do with it.

The driver and compatibility issues come largely from Vista's new driver model and protected mode kernal which the driver writers can no longer access directly...at least if they want to get WHQL and use a Windows Logo on their products. The whole purpose of Vista's highly touted protected kernal (by MS anyway) was to improve security but that is a joke now since the hackers cracked that before RC2 was even released. Now it only inhibits the development of good, fast drivers.

The only reason the hackers, cracker, worm, bug, virus and trojan writers have not descended on Vista in droves yet is thankfully Vista's uptake has been so slow there isn't enough copies out yet to make it worth their time or get enough fun out of screwing with it.

BTW if you consider the fact that there are something like 300% more computers in end users hands compared to when WinXP was released Vista's uptake has been a total disaster marketing/sales wise...and that is with MS forcing it on an unsuspecting public through the big box builders. At least Dell had the balls to tell MS to stuff it and they will allow buyers to get XP instead of Vista for now (not that Dell had much choice since Vista stuck a knife into the box sales).

What MS was trying to accomplish, and make no mistake about it, when it created Vista was to increase MS's bottom line (which is the purpose of any company) and to take more control over what you can do with your computer (which is bad) and nothing more. With the exception of running DX10, DRM infested Hi-Def audio/video and a lot of "puff and fluff" Vista brought almost nothing new to the table while what was already on the table WinXP can run faster/better in almost all cases.

The MS 'taking control over/taking control away from' what you do with your box is going to expand in their next OS. You see a take of that with Vista64 now and unsigned drivers. It's not for your protection as all a driver writer needs to get signed and be easily usable in Vista64 is an annual payment to MicroSoft. RivaTuner is a classic example of that.

With MS's next OS that control can/will be extended to all programs, drivers, applications, games, you name it. If the writers do not pay MS you will not be able to run them. Your ability to run anything can/will be disabled/enabled with simple behind the scene (read hidden as best MS can) auto updates that you will have no control over and it will all be done in the name of "Security for You" instead of "Fatten MS's Wallet". That is what OS monopoly is all about and MS wrote/writes the book (and the law if they can get away with it) on that.

Viper

Just because Vista takes a penalty in 3dMark06 doesn't mean it is slower in 100% of everything :-/ Vista "feels" quicker to me, much like a Raptor "feels" quicker than a 7200rpm disk. When I say some things are wrongfully blamed on Vista/MS that is actually quite true. Alot of incompatibilities are simply driver issues from 3rd party companies who either refuse to write correct drivers and/or don't recognize there is a problem. XP had the same driver issues for a while. Microsoft can't write their drivers for them as well. Sure the playing field has changed with the new driver model, but it has happened before...

XP was built for older technology, today's PC's didn't exist then, that is a fact, there is no arguing that :-/

Instead of thinking conspiracy theory, I tend to give MS a little more credit for what they have attempted. Sure it is easy to scream "MS wants more money and needs every company to pay them for their signature." However, the #1 problem for BSoD's in XP was poorly written drivers. This is MS's way to try and combat that. Sure, it comes back and bites some of us power users, but it is more meant to provide more stability to the novice users who would have otherwise installed something silly. Which, anyone who has done any tech support for less than knowledgeable individuals knows this is quite common.

Should it have been a carefully hidden option that we could disable and *stays disabled*? Sure, of course, that much hurt them. Obviously there are rudimentary methods to do this right now but none of them are permanent AFAIK. At the end of the day though, it hasn't affected my experience that much. CoreTemp comes to mind, but the vast majority of my programs are unaffected.

Of course MS is in the game to make money. Just like any business. However, I think it is incredibly cynical to think they are over there at Redmond, twiddling their thumbs, thinking "how can we screw over everyone in the world?"

I think it is probably time to just agree to disagree. You certainly aren't going to change my mind, and I doubt I'm going to change yours. This isn't going anywhere.

[cquence350z]

Im still having problems....its feels like my graphic card is choking. its like struggling to get past 50. It jumps from 50 to 170. it produces laggy graphic. I might have to try going back to XP Pro. I only have the 32bit version though. Should I?

[Maverick0984]

Download CPU-Z if you don't already have it.

Open it, go to the "mainboard" tab, and report back what you have for "link width". It should say x16 followed by "max supported" x16.

[cquence350z]

Download CPU-Z if you don't already have it.

Open it, go to the "mainboard" tab, and report back what you have for "link width". It should say x16 followed by "max supported" x16.

Both say x16.