Figured this out... this is odd.

Another Vista topic, and I don't wanna get into a fight with this one .

So I'll keep this simple.

I'm noticing that on the games that improved 10-20%, not only improved because they are dual core and my machine is dual core, but they also improved because my ram is overclocked...

I tried normal clocking my ram and I got less improvement versus xp.

Could this be the secret? Is Vista better at memory management and at ddr speeds? Perhaps it's optimized to run higher ddr/2/3 speeds better?

If anyone wants to try this, be my guest, but you need overclocking ddr800 ram, and if you don't have it and kill your ram, or ***, I'm not responsible.

 

Insulting remarks are not allowed here at NBR. They add no value to any discussion here. Leave them out of your posts.

 

Yes sir. I'll be sure to give everyone happy hugs and kisses from now on

I'm being serious...

 

Hmm, interesting. Which games have you tried this with? Anyway, I'd read it as a hint that the opposite is the case. If Vista was *better* at memory management, then surely slower memory wouldn't affect it so much. Instead, from what you're saying, it seems to be hindered *more* by this than XP is.

Of course, the obvious answer could simply be that Vista consumes more memory. So slower memory means more time wasted on memory accesses.

Just guessing here though.

But which games run better for you under Vista? And how big is the difference with normal vs overclocked ram?

 

i have xp home and vista rtm ultimate on my laptop partitions. even though i m pleased with vista performance so far, gaming is one of the area of vista that has not yet impressed me. but i accept this since ati is not quite there yet with the driver and some kinks must still be working out on vista part.

my games: codII, aoe2, wow - performing better under xp, still

cheers ...

 

Me thinks I have a general rule of thumb here (very general). Vista seems to run better with the more higher end stuff (obviously), but what I'm hinting at is it gets more of a performance boost than XP on a similar (high end) machine. However, performance seems to degrade faster than XP as you move toward the other end of the spectrum, it seems like XP runs on a constant slope and Vista has something of an exponential curve. I haven't bothered to understand the dynamics of this yet, and this would be only my first impression so don't hold me to it. Further investigation appears necessary (which would be much easier if I had a copy of vista to work with at the moment).

 

You could say that. The only valid technical explanation I can think of is that Vista is simply much more demanding than XP (which shouldn't come as a surprise).

Basically, if a system is "fast enough", the performance difference is negligible. (It doesn't really matter whether you run Vista with 1GB RAM on a 2.4GHz Core Duo, or if you run with 4GB on a quad-core at the same clock speed. Both are powerful enough for Vista to run without any problems, so any performance difference is pretty small).

But if you get down below the amount of resources Vista needs, things slow down radically (Don't know if exponentially would be mathematically correct, but definitely much faster than the linear "plateau" for "fast enough" systems.)

Of course, that's nothing unique to Vista. Any OS (and application, in fact) suffers from the same. If you're below the minimum requirements (that is, what the software *actually* needs to run decently), performance will be terrible. Once you've got a sufficiently powerful system, it no longer matters so much.

Try running XP with 128MB RAM. Or try running Oblivion with an underclocked FX 5200.

The only "problem" with this explanation is that it only explains why Vista performs *worse* on low end systems, and why the difference gets smaller on higher end systems.

It doesn't explain the supposedly *higher* performance in some games. Then again, it doesn't necessarily have to. The two may be entirely unrelated.

 

where is his insult? actually, i think your post is more inflammatory and couched in an implied threat..what did i miss? are you a mod? or wannabe? not hatin, just askin

 

I have edited it...that's why you do not see it.

 

Yeah chrisyano is a forum mod. You can tell because he can mod other people's posts. Which is indicated on the bottom of the first post in this thread.

 

Chrisyano is one of the most respect worthy mods here. As much as they say I try to cause trouble, I really respect him for the job he does as a mod based on this rule system.

 

k, thanx.. this is to fill out 10char