this game and vi$ta [Archive]

Pages : [1] 2

Dirthead

05-26-08, 12:11 AM

How this game running with vista Sp1?

Also any updates/patches for this game? I have a decent rig and tried the demo,and it seemed pretty laggy and not sure if i should buy this game or not.

m3dude

05-26-08, 01:23 AM

20 to 30% slower than xp with same settings.

evox

05-26-08, 01:58 AM

20 to 30% slower than xp with same settings.
Spreading FUD again, are we?

nekrosoft13

05-26-08, 02:40 AM

what ever you do don't lisen to m3dude, mailman or anyone with joe in their name

crainger

05-26-08, 02:44 AM

Listen to me. Everything I say is Bible.

Wolfhound

05-26-08, 04:48 AM

How this game running with vista Sp1?

Also any updates/patches for this game? I have a decent rig and tried the demo,and it seemed pretty laggy and not sure if i should buy this game or not.

To give you an idea, see my sig, in this system at High settings DX10 gives 35fps with no lag, Vista Home Premium SP1 x64

Lfctony

05-26-08, 07:33 AM

Loreman

05-26-08, 09:57 AM

Spreading FUD again, are we?

Actually I dual boot both Win XP and Vista Ultimate 32Bit.

After your rash comment I did a little benchmark on Crysis with identical save game scenes on both installs.

There is still a significant frame drop going from XP to Vista with identical graphics settings.

In some cases up to 15 to 18 FPS.

Lfctony

05-26-08, 11:12 PM

Actually I dual boot both Win XP and Vista Ultimate 32Bit.

After your rash comment I did a little benchmark on Crysis with identical save game scenes on both installs.

There is still a significant frame drop going from XP to Vista with identical graphics settings.

In some cases up to 15 to 18 FPS.

BS... There's like one FPS difference in Crysis. And that was when Crysis first came out. I doubt you have that even now, that one FPS difference. I've checked too... There is no difference...

Loreman

05-27-08, 02:36 AM

BS... There's like one FPS difference in Crysis. And that was when Crysis first came out. I doubt you have that even now, that one FPS difference. I've checked too... There is no difference...

I am pretty sure it would differ from system to system, for example, you run one 8800GTX, I am running 2 in SLI.

Depends on graphics settings too, if you are maxing your CPU in XP, it might not change much in Vista. I am sure that SLI performance is a fairly big factor, and that's not even mentioning that SLI in Vista feels awful with a very noticeable chugging effect that just is not present in XP.

Also would depend on the save game location. I picked a few where the CPU was not so much a factor. There are so many variables.

One thing I can say with certainty and that is that across the board on a lot of newish games the performance in Vista is still lagging behind XP. Again that could be an SLI factor, even though SLI is still clearly working in both XP and Vista.

Anyway, who cares, if your happy with Vista keep using it. I didn't like the performance so I choose only to use it for testing. Others love it, and I couldn't care less. All I care about is accurate performance.

m3dude

05-27-08, 04:16 AM

Lfctony

05-27-08, 06:34 AM

you have no idea what your talking about honestly.

Hm, sure. Whatever you say mate... 3 guys posted after you flaming you for posting crap, and I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about. Yeah, ok... :headexplode:

wrathofgod

05-27-08, 08:39 PM

BS... There's like one FPS difference in Crysis. And that was when Crysis first came out. I doubt you have that even now, that one FPS difference. I've checked too... There is no difference...

Gotta go with Loreman on this. I also see a significant improvement in FPS in XP over Vista 64 playing Crysis.

I pretty much only use Vista 64 for the editor. It's more stable in Vista 64 (using 32 bit version of editor).

grey_1

05-27-08, 09:31 PM

m3dude

05-28-08, 12:51 AM

Gotta go with Loreman on this. I also see a significant improvement in FPS in XP over Vista 64 playing Crysis.

I pretty much only use Vista 64 for the editor. It's more stable in Vista 64 (using 32 bit version of editor).

as do 90% of the people who play crysis. hell go browse crymod forums and see how many people agree. but i guess they are all spreading fud too according to tony. its a worldwide fud conspiracy!!!!!!

Bman212121

05-28-08, 03:20 AM

DX9 I am running exactly as it does in XP Pro X86 - Using 175.63 driver set.

DX10 - Lol, nope.

EDIT: Loreman, just noticed you're using 32 bit. Most everyone I chat with are having the same Vista experience I am, however we all use 64 bit. That could be a big factor.

That is most likely the case is that it has something to do with DX9 versus DX10.

@Loreman: Do you have a 680i or 780i board with 4GB of ram? There is an issue with DX10 + 4GB ram + SLI that basically cripples the FPS. If you take any one of those items out of the equation it will perform better. (It has something to do with a few hotfixes in Vista. If you install SP1 it automatically installs one of the hotfixes) Turning off SLI when using DX10 I can actually run the benchmark. If I run the benchmark in Vista 64 with DX9 SLI I get pretty decent fps on my system.

Loreman

05-28-08, 09:18 AM

That is most likely the case is that it has something to do with DX9 versus DX10.

@Loreman: Do you have a 680i or 780i board with 4GB of ram? There is an issue with DX10 + 4GB ram + SLI that basically cripples the FPS. If you take any one of those items out of the equation it will perform better. (It has something to do with a few hotfixes in Vista. If you install SP1 it automatically installs one of the hotfixes) Turning off SLI when using DX10 I can actually run the benchmark. If I run the benchmark in Vista 64 with DX9 SLI I get pretty decent fps on my system.

2GB of ram. FPS isn't crippled, just less. I find this is a general theme across the board with Vista, not just in Crysis.

I actually like Vista in terms of the interface, and it is better to do pro audio apps on it than XP (well it will be when they sort out the drivers, if ever, which I feel is the real issue with Vista), just gaming performance is down fairly consistently. Even when the frames show as being the same, Vista seems to be so more jerky and shuddery than the equivalent in XP.

I wish it was better, I would use it all the time.

Yaboze

05-28-08, 09:31 AM

Runs fine here, Vista x64 Ultimate. I run it in 32-bit DX9 though (sometimes DX10).

The 64bit Crysis client doesn't seem as stable.

Lfctony

05-28-08, 12:38 PM

as do 90% of the people who play crysis. hell go browse crymod forums and see how many people agree. but i guess they are all spreading fud too according to tony. its a worldwide fud conspiracy!!!!!!

BTW, I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way. No hard feelings or anything, just making healthy conversation. You know that mate, yes? :)

3DBrad

05-29-08, 12:32 AM

DX10/veryhigh motion blur in Vista is simply awesome, however, Vista does run a bit slower.

Even XP tweaks cannot give you DX10/Vista motion blur. :(

jeffmd

05-29-08, 01:10 AM

ive been running crysis in vista64 now (@very high), and its running alot better then back when crysis first came out. Can't really use my monitors native res, but 1280x720 is pretty damn smooth.

m3dude

05-29-08, 03:25 AM

DX10/veryhigh motion blur in Vista is simply awesome, however, Vista does run a bit slower.

Even XP tweaks cannot give you DX10/Vista motion blur. :(

if u mean object motion blur, u can get that in dx9 on xp.

q_renderer=3
r_motionblur=5

i think thats it. u might need q_shaderpostprocess=3 as well.

jeffmd

05-29-08, 03:46 AM

m3dude, I think it was shown that the shader used for blurring in dx10 mode seemed just plain look better (atleast when screenshoted). Its a different shader, but no in what it blurrs, only how it looks.

m3dude

05-29-08, 09:51 AM

that may be, there are some improvements dx 10 brings that cant be replicated in dx 9. more accurate hdr and lighting, no object materialization, and built in foliage aa to name a few.

Toss3

05-29-08, 04:43 PM

Performs exactly the same. :)