What is your view on Dx10?

uvmain said:
What game is this in? If you're using the latest drivers for Vista, I call BS. Did you test the timedemo in Vista using virtualPC under XP or something?
Click to expand...


game was rtcw...i used to play it online and had an old demo which was pretty cpu intensive
you can call bs all you like ...i downloaded the latest drivers from the nvidia site.
 
I don't really see how using such extreme FPS figures is really in any way useful anyhow. Given that that is a(n updated) Q3 engine game and the amount of stuff you can do to that to change the FPS, it seems kind of pointless a comparison.
 
Personally I think Dx10 is yet another leap in the wrong direction. For a starter it doesn't provide much new over Dx9 (yet), but I hate the fact that Dx10 is still limited to Microsoft operating system or more specifically Vista. OpenGL can offer graphics just as good, and we're not limited to using Microsoft OS (Vista).
 
Aekeron said:
I don't really see how using such extreme FPS figures is really in any way useful anyhow. Given that that is a(n updated) Q3 engine game and the amount of stuff you can do to that to change the FPS, it seems kind of pointless a comparison.
Click to expand...

it would be pointless if i used different configs and the tests had different settings.
as for the high fps ive already explained its the average..and the fps cap is at 125 and thats what i needed to maintain...185 doesnt do it...330 easily does.


i either use rtcw or css to do a cpu tests as both those games use more cpu power in online games...didnt have css installed to test with
 
Last edited:
knowledge123 said:
I do love RTCW :cool: What settings (AA/AF etc etc) & res are you running at ?
Click to expand...

the res would have been 1024*768...fairly big custom map so needed good visibility
graphics detail pretty minimum(no aa or af)...i dont play it anymore but thats what the config was set to
 
memory said:
it would be pointless if i used different configs and the tests had different settings.
as for the high fps ive already explained its the average..and the fps cap is at 125 and thats what i needed to maintain...185 doesnt do it...330 easily does.


i either use rtcw or css to do a cpu tests as both those games use more cpu power in online games...didnt have css installed to test with
Click to expand...

It's just having seen other Q3 engine games running in Vista and XP, I'd be quite surprised at those results. Not to mention that you'd need a pretty ancient rig to only get those kind of FPS (especially with the config settings you're talking about).

I've never had any problems maintaining 125 FPS in any Q3 engine game with various rigs, including seeing mid-range systerms running Vista.

Obviously, onboard graphics are a different kettle of fish.
 
memory said:
vista reminds me a bit of windows me....its not as bad but its no xp either.

*EDIT* i would be surprised if its support continued the way xp's has
Click to expand...

Thats your opinion, but IMO I think Windows Vista certainly performs better than XP, its a hell of a lot more responsive and I noticed this when the OS was still in beta, once things like indexing and system restore are turned off the OS performs better and less HDD activity. I dont understand why Vista performs so crap on some peoples machines, its as if they dont know how to set it up, I always used to have problems with XP more so than Vista, but XP was a good OS, Vista has improved on that IMO. Yes some games do have lower fps, but all the games are still as playable, Crysis has very low FPS at first in Vista but it has came a long way, same for CSS, my fps is only about 10-20fps out on that game now.
 
Aekeron said:
It's just having seen other Q3 engine games running in Vista and XP, I'd be quite surprised at those results. Not to mention that you'd need a pretty ancient rig to only get those kind of FPS (especially with the config settings you're talking about).
Click to expand...

tbh the graphics settings hardly make a difference even when set to high..but its a config from so many years ago......but like i said its about cpu power


Aekeron said:
I've never had any problems maintaining 125 FPS in any Q3 engine game with various rigs, including seeing mid-range systerms running Vista.
Click to expand...

you probably havent done many tests then and if you did there probably werent that many players around...the more players that are in close proximity to you the more your fps drop...even when not visible


Aekeron said:
Obviously, onboard graphics are a different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...

the graphics of the game arent taxing at all.....you get the same fps using a geforce 4200ti as you would using a 6800gt(using low detail)
 
willhub said:
Thats your opinion, but IMO I think Windows Vista certainly performs better than XP, its a hell of a lot more responsive and I noticed this when the OS was still in beta, once things like indexing and system restore are turned off the OS performs better and less HDD activity. I dont understand why Vista performs so crap on some peoples machines, its as if they dont know how to set it up, I always used to have problems with XP more so than Vista, but XP was a good OS, Vista has improved on that IMO. Yes some games do have lower fps, but all the games are still as playable, Crysis has very low FPS at first in Vista but it has came a long way, same for CSS, my fps is only about 10-20fps out on that game now.
Click to expand...

so how do i set it up ?

im thinking of installing it again(dual boot) as i do miss playing mahjong titans and when browsing it does look that bit clearer...i just cant take the gaming side of it seriously though.


maybe you can tell me what changes you make after an install and i'l run those tests again
 
memory said:
so how do i set it up ?

im thinking of installing it again(dual boot) as i do miss playing mahjong titans and when browsing it does look that bit clearer...i just cant take the gaming side of it seriously though.


maybe you can tell me what changes you make after an install and i'l run those tests again
Click to expand...

http://www.petri.co.il/tweaking_window_vista_performance.htm

Follow the guide, that is what I did.

Basically turning crap off like Indexing, System restore, delete hybernation file, remove some of the crap, disabling some of the services if you wish, I disabled windows firewall totally.

Some people say Windows Server 2008 is much better than Vista now, I tried it and it just fell apart.
 
memory said:
you probably havent done many tests then and if you did there probably werent that many players around...the more players that are in close proximity to you the more your fps drop...even when not visible
Click to expand...

LOL

Both myself and Aekeron have had *years* botjh playing, and administrating Q3-based games. Currently, I'm running on Vista, and whilst I do get less fps than I did in XP, it amounts to ~10, depending on the map.

If you're getting 50% cpu performance in Vista, then it's something to do with your install, not the OS itself.
 
memory said:
tbh the graphics settings hardly make a difference even when set to high..but its a config from so many years ago......but like i said its about cpu power
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. I've played a hell of a lot of Q3/Q3 engine games. I played it quite seriously for the first three years it was out and still drop into it quite frequently. Not trying to say "omg, I know the most!", but I am familiar enough with the engine and cvars to know what I'm doing.

memory said:
you probably havent done many tests then and if you did there probably werent that many players around...the more players that are in close proximity to you the more your fps drop...even when not visible
Click to expand...

See above.

memory said:
the graphics of the game arent taxing at all.....you get the same fps using a geforce 4200ti as you would using a 6800gt(using low detail)
Click to expand...

Yeah... A 4200ti isn't an onboard card though. Try maintaining 125 FPS with intel onboard graphics. Fun indeed.
 
uvmain said:
LOL

Both myself and Aekeron have had *years* botjh playing, and administrating Q3-based games. Currently, I'm running on Vista, and whilst I do get less fps than I did in XP, it amounts to ~10, depending on the map.

If you're getting 50% cpu performance in Vista, then it's something to do with your install, not the OS itself.
Click to expand...

it should depend more on how many players there are rather than the map(not saying the map doesnt make a difference).
do you have xp installed with vista ?
do you have rtcw ?
i can send you the demo and you can test for yourself.
 
I have no reason to switch to Vista right now, since XP runs everything fine.

A fancy desktop and DX10 are not reason enough to change OS for me, especially since I replace the Explorer shell with Blackbox anyway.
 
No, there's no real 'killer game' for DX10 yet.
From what I've seen most of the enhancements are very limited at best, and in some cases reduce the performance.
 
I believe XP sales will be discontinued in June this year, extended support for XP will be available from Microsoft till 2014.

I believe that Vista as an OS is un-necessary. Microsoft just wanted something new to market. There is little technical benefit to using it. Few love it or even want it. Vista will be around and supported for many years to come.

I understand that Vista's successor is currently scheduled for 2009.

Oh - and I think DX10 was just another failed attempt by Microsoft to control a market. To answer the OP question - I wouldn't be surprised to see DX10 "knife and forked" into XP at some stage.

Is this correct?

Edit: Just for info - I'm still running Windows 2000 and it is a very fine OS. However many games now will not run on it, so I am increasingly feeling the need to upgrade. This will involve a significant hardware upgrade at the same time. The upgrade will be to a (retail) version of XP not Vista. Retail to ensure I can reuse it later after the supply of legal XP OEM licences dries up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom