Gaming...Vista 64 v XP 64

hello all..traditionally it has well been assumed and to an extent[MINIR OR MAJOR IS 4 U TO DECIDE]proved that vista is much more of a resource hog when compared to XP..........so if all the tests and reports r right........a rig witha XP 64 must give a better output than a rig with a VISTA 64 right...........{EVERYTHING ELSE REMAINING THE SAME}.........and finally will Dx10,10.1 work on a XP 64.......if u have a 9600m GT............

 

A 9600M GT (128bit), less than a desktop 9500 GT cannot run games in direct X 10, let alone 10.1.

hope this helps.

 

Well.i currently have a 9600m GT and my DxDIAG shows Dx10 installed...........besides i played Gears of WAR 1 in DX10...Hey ARom...fell free to correct me......am i going wrong somewhere?...........

 

you can play some DX10 titles, but what ARom meant, is to play fluently *above 60FPS always*

i assume you're hovering around 30-40 in gears

 

Yes .i get like 45 in gears.........but again..Does XP 64 support DX 10........NOT CONSIDERING THE FRAMERATES

 

nope, only Vista does

 

But weren't there people who posted sayin that a tweak was available whereby you could make Dx10 run in XP as well?

 

Yes, with 0% success rate so far. Some of those 'tweaks' can actually permanently screw up your Windows installation or worse, are catalysts for trojans or rootkits. Don't believe the hype, there is no feasible way to get DX10 to work on XP.

 

Hey. Thanks a ton Inferno. So the best way to exercise DX10 is on a Vista platform Right? If so is is it also true that u need a higher rig to run Games on Dx10 than on 9.0c?

 

erm, i thought the tweak ALLOWED people to play DX10 only games, such as Halo 2 and shadow run, but not Make DX10 effects work (in your Case, Multisampling)

 

OH! i think Inferno will have something to say about that.

 

DX10 cannot be implemented in Windows XP. It's not Microsoft being jerks, it's just the way the subsystem was written, you'd have to entirely re-write XP to get DX10 to work. And they have, they named it Vista.

And yes, DX10 is more demanding than DX9, so to play at the same settings and framerate, but switching render modes will require a better computer.

 

This is false... My 8700m GT at stock settings (roughly the same as a 9600m GT) played Bioshock quite well in DX10. (not at 60fps, but 40ish at 1440x900 and quite playable)

DX10.1 is only a revision which makes certain things standard which were once optional in DX10.

Also, the memory interface (which is what he means by being 128-bit) only affects how well it can interact with onboard RAM. This is important for gaming above 1280x1024 (or 1440x900wide) or high AA or other texture-ram-hungry applications, but intentionally not included in mid-range GPUs as a waste of money.

DX10 games depend on how WELL the game is written for DX10. Note the drivers and support has gotten a LOT better.

 

Keral Panic What platform do u use? Vista 64,vista32,XP64,xp32

 

on my old laptop Vista32 ultimate
on this one.. check the sig.. Vista64 Ultimate

 

Have you ever tried running bioshock on 9.0c and compared the frame rates with it running on DX10?Is there any difference in the texture and graphics also?

 

Bioshock ran about 10fps faster in DX9.
The textures were cleaner in DX10 and the water particles looked noticeably better in DX10 than DX9 to my eyes.
Keep in mind please that these were with earlier drivers.

Note you could turn off DX10 extreme textures and close that 10fps gap and keep the nice particles. (it was still DX10, just using the lower textures of DX9.

I liked the DX10 version of bioshock better than the DX9 version as I felt it was smoother playing as well.

 

i dont think that Extreme textures lower the FPS, its a lil bit about DX10 path

 

Running in dx.10 is not feasible going forward with a 128 graphics card. It's going to be bogged down by the textures, and everything else will just be a mess (choppyness, slowdown) with special effects, physics etc...

If someones asking me if purchasing an operating system to run games in dx.10 with a lower-midrange graphics card is a good idea, I say it's no.

 

/sigh
The thing is, the real-world test says you are wrong, and new mid-range cards have advanced far beyond their starting points.
I remember the days when everyone was saying how horrible the 8700m GT was... and yet 1+ years after I purchased it, it was soundly beating the best of the previous generation at 1280x1024 or so and competing with the new 9xxxm mid-range series.

As long as you are realistic about what perfomance you expect to see from such cards, they do just fine.

The eliteism of "9800m GTX SLI or you can't do anything" bugs me as it isn't anywhere near the truth. These GPU setups are nice, but are not necessary for reasonable gaming.

Having access to all of Microsoft's OS's due to partnership, I'd have to say that Vista64 is my favorite windows workstation/consumer OS so far, provided you have the baseline hardware to run it, and no "must have" apps which won't run under it. (I haven't found anything so far)
Note I do not have a beta of Windows7 yet to compare...

I'd also like to point out that DX9 works just fine in Vista32 and 64.

Don't get me wrong... I am not bashing XP64, but as long as the OP is not expecting miracles, I think they will be pleasantly surprised with Vista64 and even DX10 performance provided they pick up up-to-date drivers and keep the resolutions and options down to mid-range levels.

 

Keral Panic u say u need a baseline hardware for running vistaX64.

My RIG
Centrino 2 Technology
T9400 Core (2) Duo 2.53Ghz
Storage: 500Gb(2*250 GB) 5400 RPM
PC2 6400 DDR II 4 GB,Blue Ray Drive
Nvidia 512 mb 9600m GT are my specs enough to run a Vista 64,besides if i shift to a vista 64 is is absolutely certain that my rig can recognise the entire 8 gig of RAM?.....thanks

 

it probably will recognize all 8 gigs, and about the baseline, your CPU is wonderful and can handle the OS with ease

 

Hey Brainer thanks a ton......one last thing a kit of 8 GB DDR II PC26400 800Mhz on newegg costs 750 bucks. Now am obviously not gonna spend that kinda money. Are you aware of any other place where i can pick up the same configuration for something cheaper?

 

Well, Newedd is supposed to be the cheapest place xD

but.. why would you need 8 gigs anyways? arent 4 sufficient for you?

 

Well you are right, 4 gigs are more than enough, but future proofing i guess and GTA 4!

 

GTA 4 won't use four let alone eight gigs.
Get 8 when you need 8, at that point it will cost 50 bucks.

 

GTA 4 wont use above 2.5 gigs, 4 is a great option

 

As noted by others, your system wil be just fine in 64-bit Vista.

A 64-bit memory addressing scheme can address up to 16 Exabytes!!
(that's over 16 billion GB)

However, your motherboard and windows have other limitations.

Windows Home Basic will use 8GB
Windows Home Premium will use 16GB
Windows Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise will use 128GB.

Note, that it not only recognizes the full 8GB, but will actually USE that much.

Note that most games are likely written in 32-bit code, so windows64 will run in x86-emulation-mode for those programs, which means it will likely only use a 4GB chunk (actually two 2GB chunks) for that program.