DirectX 10 on Windows XP

Right there with ya bro.

 

Yep. A handful of DX9 games are actually faster for me under Vista x64, even with just 2GB ram. Oblivion being the obvious one that comes to mind.

 

dx 11 hurry up i want too spend more money on hardware then wait 6 months for the games that run terrible lol:bang:

 

I had no problems running DX9 games on Vista.

Some DX8 and under games however...

 

i like pie... and my directX 5 card runs directX 11 with uber h4x

 

Pillmonster was just referring to people using XP rather then Vista, dont mind the extra info... :3eyes:

 

I can run Quake 3 Arena on VISTA

 

"other" refers to lots of things for other reasons, many of those listed in "other" will have xp or something too, its just that they couldnt be specified or detected correctly for whatever reason

cause you know darn well that 99% is not using linux and mac especially on a gaming site where those users stats were taken from people who game

 

I don'T know if VISTA is the problem, but there is a lot of frame tearing, like if you turn off vsync, eventhough it is clearly ON in the drivers, even with FORCE ON same thing. might be a driver issue. Also on complex scenes there is a slowdown sometimes. Here's an example, that Kane & Lynch - the game sucked for me in VISTA, some area dropped in frame rate, where in XP, same quality settings all maxed out ran smooth as silk. Doesn't DX9 run in emulation mode so there is an overhead ?

 

I noticed that people here saying their DX9 games run fine all use VISTA64. I use VISTA32 I wonder how the SAME non 64bit game, would compare between VISTA64 and 32, I would think that it would be slower in 64 because of the non native 64bit code. hmm.

 

Lol... not true and irrelevant. Google Windows on Windows and you'll see.

 

Yes I already know what WOW is, more precisely WOW64 in this case, but i'm still wondering, why would I bother using VISTA 64 to run a 32bit game, when I can run that game faster in Windows XP (Dx9 game), DX10 games run great on my VISTA, but DX9 games somehow slow down in some areas and have frame tearing - I don't think t hat VISTA 64 will run my DX9 games faster. Unless games are native 64bit I will pass on that. I'm sticking to XP.

It is a known fact that gaming is slower in VISTA, now only have I EXPERIENCED IT, I have read about many issues, and yes if you google you will find many people have that problem in vista and even worse in SP1... Also using a heavily tweaked fat trimmed VISTA with minimal services. If i'm not mistaken, there is an overhead for DX9 games in VISTA right, some translation etc that causes the slowdown.

 

For people that read it's a well known fact that game performance(most) in Vista is on par with game performance in XP by now:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302497,00.asp is the current status!

http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72298 is a nice test that shows how well Vista performs in other areas.

Now, about the issue of so called performance loss in Vista64 vs Vista32(games). I couldn't care less if it were the case! I run Vista64 because I have 8GB of ram and Photoshop loves it. Not only Photoshop does, everything does. Swapping back and forth from games to the desktop to check mail in a paused game session is a lot faster and Windows is even better in doing what it should do and that is offer a pre-emptive multitasking environment. That's the way it is.
Because I'm not someone who enjoys maintaining 2 or 3 operating systems on 1 pc I run everything on Vista x64"and I doubt I'm missing out on a couple of crucial frames in games I play.

This was a BS thread and its turning into an even greater BS thread.

BTW. since when are FEAR, GRID, rFactor and COD4 DX10 games? No tearing and slow downs here!

 

Results will vary from game to game.

I gave an example in my post - Try running Kane & Lynch - Try Soldiers of Fotune Payback.

As to the website, yes they put the blame on drivers and claim it was ironed out - well I use the latest drivers, and there seems to be contradictions on other site - also they have tested only a handful of games. But anyways, with faster processors and GPUs it might not be an issue - Also no need for the rudeness - I don't rely on the website or their benchmark I have done my tests, using heavily tweaked systems and recent hardware /software, so how is it a BS when I'm reporting what I see and what MANY people report. or are they all "bull****ers" ?

As to you running VISTA 64, yes you have 8GB thaT's another story, 32bit is limited to 4GB but only little over 3 available.

This was a BS thread and its turning into an even greater BS thread.[/QUOTE]

 

Before I used 8GB, I used 4GB in the same config and game performance was the same! It's all the other things that make 8GB worthwhile

I don't rely on benchmarks posted on websites, I use them to prove a point! I never complained about Vista performance, simply because I never had anything to complain about, even when games were slower in Vista as opposed to running them on Vista.

I can't help it that you're a Vista basher simply because it's the popular thing to do

I guess you don't remember that before Vista hit the market, there were a lot of people experiencing problems with XP(there still are BTW, just check and see how many people running XP are seeking help). There are lots of people with systems that seem fine, having performance problems whilst others with similar systems have none. I don’t think this will ever go away, not as long as we choose to run an OS that ‘supports’ such a wide variety of hardware.

I can't say this often enough, if Vista doesn't do it for you, why use it?
What's the fun in using an OS and complaining all the time when you can use another and have nothing to complain about? If XP is so perfect for you, use it!

Now, this is a BS thread because it’s about DX10 on XP. Which is BS. It’s getting a greater BS thread because it turned into a mini Vista bashing thread which is non productive. And if me finding this a BS thread offends you that’s too bad for you

 

i like vista and i have 1 out of 60 games that will not play under vista at all no matter what atleast no ones been able to help me get it working anywhere.I thank thats a pretty good ratio, granted some might play better on xp or vista or vis versa doesn't really matter to me as long as i can get them to run smothly

 

:stewpid::stewpid::stewpid::stewpid::stewpid:

I can't read Russian, but it's hilarious that they're posting pictures of STALKER to show off DX10 on XP since...............STALKER ISN'T A DX10 GAME TO BEGIN WITH!! :wanker:


Stalker: Clear Sky will be the first Stalker title with DX10 features in the series. Shadows of Chernobyl just has DX9. :banana:

 

How do games play smoothly with a 7300GS ???
No offence meant, just curious!!

Edit: And to all the believers out there that think DX10 emulation on XP is the real thing, Use Vista and DX10 hardware and spot the differents.

 

This topic has been beaten to death. Who cares? It's not like DX10 offers any real noticable quality increase anyway. The entire point of it was to standardize graphics hardware and reduce CPU overhead. All these modifications people are trying are just wrappers which increase CPU overhead.

Also for the record there are some things that definitely don't perform as well in Vista. For instance FRAPS, when recording in Vista you lose way more performance than in XP. Also in Source stress test my XP partition averages about 50ish more FPS, even though at 400+ fps that doesn't really matter, but the difference still exists.