That's one hell of a check if it drops that many frames. Same thing happened to me, which is why I'm sticking with XP until the driver situation improves.
That's one hell of a check if it drops that many frames. Same thing happened to me, which is why I'm sticking with XP until the driver situation improves.
Oddly enough other benchmarks I ran (like Lost Coast) ran faster than under XP, even with Aero Glass enabled, so it's clearly a mixed bag. I'm liking Vista ok, but I still want to get a dual boot running when I can.
Is dual boot really worth like 10 frames, honestly?
Quick zephyrs blow, vexing daft Jim.
15-20 in WoW. Plus other driver issues. It's worth it, IMO.
Agreed.
The DirectX10 homepage is fucking hilarious, they compare Halo: Combat Evolved models to Crysis models.
EDIT: In Vista, I'm getting atleast 60fps in Starcraft with a 8800GTS. I really should dual boot.
Last edited by AstroBlue; 31 May 2007 at 08:11 AM.
Quick zephyrs blow, vexing daft Jim.
i think the frame hit has something to do witht he way they reworked how the OS displays the desktop and windows. remember in XP when you would exit out of a game or window and there would be parts of your desktop missing until you either reboot or open another full screen app? Vista fixed this by the way it handles the drawing of the UI.
from the winsupersite
"Unlike other Vista user interface types--Windows Vista Standard, Windows Vista Basic, and Windows Classic--Windows Aero utilizes the graphics processor in your video card to composite and render the display. This design leads to two main advantages over the other Vista interfaces. First, the display is more reliable and seamless, with none of the weird tearing effects that mar the other interfaces. Second, by offloading the display from the system microprocessor to the GPU, Windows Aero frees the microprocessor to perform other tasks, leading to better overall performance"
Can XP run via virtualization on Vista? One cpu core should be enough to run legacy stuff.
Bookmarks