- Joined
- Aug 5, 2002
Have to disagree with that at least with my results. In Vista, DX9 and DX10 are withing 1FPS of each other.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Crysis Demo Links...
- Thread starter PhysX
- Start date
Have to disagree with that at least with my results. In Vista, DX9 and DX10 are withing 1FPS of each other.
Greetings!
Not with an ATi VPU.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2002
Talking about the 2900XT that I had running 850/975 with Crysis, they where so close that it made no difference. Onlything that made a difference was 32-bit and 64-bit which 64-bit was faster yet I had crashing issues with it.
Greetings!
I dont have an ATi card to test, so I just relied in the articles:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=5
http://www.techspot.com/article/73-crysis-performance/page6.html
And, it seems Anjow performance increased in DX9.
I get better performance in Vista32 than Vista64, the same happens with the Fudzilla guy (I know, not a good source) and there was also a discussion in the TweakGuides forum that Vista 64 was slower.
Then, there are reviews that show Vista64 faster than Vista32.
It truly puzzles me.
PS: You tried it in XP32?
Congratulations, then.
I dont have an ATi card to test, so I just relied in the articles:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=5
http://www.techspot.com/article/73-crysis-performance/page6.html
And, it seems Anjow performance increased in DX9.
That puzzles me.
I get better performance in Vista32 than Vista64, the same happens with the Fudzilla guy (I know, not a good source) and there was also a discussion in the TweakGuides forum that Vista 64 was slower.
Then, there are reviews that show Vista64 faster than Vista32.
It truly puzzles me.
PS: You tried it in XP32?
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2002
XP is faster that Vista surely by a good few points. I personally haven't tested it but just seeing what settings people are running with res and settings.
Greetings!
Regarding Vista64 vs. Vista32 performance:
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=468&pgno=0
Regarding Vista64 vs. Vista32 performance:
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=468&pgno=0
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
I don't see how Xp is any bit faster when benches show across the board that on an equal field against Vista that there is extremely minor differences. Perhaps at High, Vista is utilizing some Dx10 features. Hard to say.
The site you linked above in this quote was conducted very poorly. However I do like the other links you posted on 64vs32 but, even you mentioned that there are sayings on the contrary going for 64bit performance.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ USA
I don't know what to tell you, but XP32 runs much faster than Vista64 on my computer with the same settings using either a 7950GT or 8800GT. Also in Vista there is this horrible mouse lag of 0.25-0.5 seconds that makes the game practically unplayable.
Greetings!
If time allows, will bench with the new released WHQL nVidia drivers.
Not here.
If time allows, will bench with the new released WHQL nVidia drivers.
- Thread Starter
- #291
here is some video this guy made of his remake of a wow map or.. .area..
http://files.filefront.com/WoW2+LM+AlphaTeaser1+HQwmv/;8994302;/fileinfo.html
pretty well done
or.. .area..http://files.filefront.com/WoW2+LM+AlphaTeaser1+HQwmv/;8994302;/fileinfo.html
pretty well done
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ USA
No. Why on earth would you want to spoil the story on a $50-$60 game you haven't played yet?
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
Is this lag within the game itself only or all around in windows as well?
- Thread Starter
- #295
No. Why on earth would you want to spoil the story on a $50-$60 game you haven't played yet?
cry-alex "crytek guy" says that is only to give you some kind of an idea what the story started off like.
