There's a reason why you can't utilise 4GB, that's because you are running on outdated OS. If you can't utilise DX10, you are wasting it. Personally, I prefer XP is an OS. It's stable, it's fast, it's less resource hungry. But if you are building an updated gaming rig, Vista is the only way to go, whether you hate it or not. From your post, I can tell that you have minimal experience using Vista. So I'm not sure whether it's fair for you to comment about Vista.
I have 3 rigs running Vista (Which is about to just 1 soon). Don't be so quick to judge. If vista isn't where it should be today, then you won't need 4GB of ram and therefore XP is still the king of gaming. The SSE4 on penryns is another example. It supposedly helps with encoding. But the algorithms the benefit from it are so slow that nobody in their right mind would use it. All benchmarks showing penryn handing conroe their rear were made with both cpus using the incrediably slow exhaustive search algorithm. I own a penryn. But unlike others I won't let my judgment be clouded and flat out defend the products that I own to make myself feel better. I know exactly what's going on here and my final answer is buy what's good for today because tomorrow is everchanging.
Actually with some games (apart from Crysis that is - Supreme Commander, World in Conflict, etc etc), 2GB is just unbearable. So again, if you want the latest and greatest, 4GB for gaming is a must (and with that x64 Vista). 4GB really is the new 2GB on XP (regardless of platform).
Oh, I definitely need 4GB even on XP. But it couldn't utilise all 4GB properly, so clearly, Vista 64 is the only choice. If you are here long enough, you would have probably known I'm not a big Vista fan, in fact, I still hate Vista.
Not much can be done. It's pretty much a lose/lose situation. Most current and upcoming titles are still cool with 2GB on XP. I'd take the lesser loss and only make the switch when I'm forced to.
I honestly feel that even 2GB wasn't enough on XP, that's why I felt the urge to upgrade to 4GB and ultimately, Vista. So I still believe 4GB and Vista is the way to go, since drivers are not really an issue, performance hit compared to XP is almost unmeasureable.
Duh, Assasin Creed looks better in DX10 and far more stable in DX 10 ..Previously running the game in DX9 mode makes the game laggy (with 3870 and 1 of my friend which running CF 3870). So i don't think anything is wrong in using Vista for gaming. Heck, been using vista quite some time too...Btw what i recommand is get a normal DDR2 800 ram (4x1gb? or 2x2gb?) as long 1 does not OC. for video card, depends on the budget. 1 can either get 4850 or 4870 ...
XP SP3 flies like the wind. Vista SP1 swims like a brick. Assassin's creed does not look better in DX10 nor did it ever stutter or lag for me in XP. Sometimes I even had fraps recording while I was playing and everyone has been wondering why the heck it's so smooth.
hmmmm unix if i get this corectly you are saying that vista is a pice of s*** and that is no point of geting it or even using it for games hmmm if i do recall corectly when windows 98 with dx6-7 came out people was saying same for it, like you are saying for vista is that ironical or what and it is also same when first XP came out it was like s*** until SP1 when you take closer look you will see that all first editions of every system inc. linux was rubish (also vista without sp1) well i think i will put windows 3.11 and use my new/old pc pentium 33 , 10Mb Hdd with 256kb of edo ram i think crysis will work on it
Nope this is far different from when win98/xp/whatever else was released. It may look slightly similar but it's a totally different situation. You don't have to use vista to play crysis.
no unix it is the same because oses have its evolution and if you recall you will say that is same thing windows 95 needed 256mb sdram to work fine, win98 needed 256-512sdram, when xp and ddr came and also needed from 256-512ddr (that is twice more than sdram 512Mb ddr=2Gb sdram) when winxp sp1 came you needed 1Gb to run all games and now here is vista who need at least 2Gb to work corectly but for games 2Gb is not enough just as same when xp was highest in os class i remember that i needed 2Gb of ddr (400) to run games fastest but when ddr2 came we needed atleast 2Gb of ddr2 (400-533) and that is twice more than ddr 1 LOL 1Gbddr2=2Gbddr1 sorry for speling errors and 4Gb for gaming is optimal solution
Gaming Performance: Windows Vista SP1 vs. XP SP3 - Game Results - OS, Software & Networking by ExtremeTech So wind and brick eh? Like I said, Vista has come a loooooong way since SP1... But we have gone a long ways out. Let's wait till the thread poster comes in with more specifics and we'll go from there.
-.-"..Man,Assasin Creed is optimize for Dx10, since it was the first DX10 game .oooh,what resolution are you running anyway? Sorta no end to the question =/..For me, both XP and Vista is just as fast
Tell that to the Vista machines I've got here. XP is faster -not just in gaming- but across the board. If that article was remotely true then Vista should be outperforming xp by a massive, epic margin with 4GBs. Ain't going to happen. If you're happy with vista then you deserve to be running it.
lol rigged huh? I've seen performance gains post SP1 so I really don't know whats up with your machines (all 4 of my vista machines that is plus the few other vista machines I've built for my friends). We'll I'll leave it at there. Perception (something that has been expressed greatly) is really something an external source cannot change. But I do suggest you look around and try it out yourself.
I'm not running that crap on my machine. XP is actually the lesser evil but vista makes it look like the saint. There's an equal number of benchmarks which show largely identical performance post vSP1. Perhaps I should be more clear about this: It's rhino diarrhea with double whipped cream.
No one is making you haha. Now don't be silly and make it into that kinda 'discussion'. Come on now. Post up some credible results. But we are going way off topic.
Believe me, if I had bookmarked them when I saw them (nothing to see here move along), I'd have posted them by now. Oh well, I can't expect you to see it my way.
