Who says games run badly on XP- check this out

[cipher 0]

got this yesterday

 

http://gamershq.madonion.com/products/or...p;dprid=1353877

 

6659 in 3dmark 2001

[Mooxooh 0]

1. If your post would have something to do with games, you would surely have posted it in the 'XP games' forum.

2. Right, your post has nothing to do with games, your post is about the madonion/nvidia coalition and how well their strategy worked to: a) make you believe madonions 3dmark would have something to do with real gaming performance sell you a gforce3 graphics adapter which is - at least for the current games - virtually useless, but produces, as your post shows, some madonion points.

 

 

No, XP isn't that good for gaming. Maybe direct 3d games run slightly better than on win2k, but as long as Quake III arena is still the best shooter (obviously openGL) out there, a slight performance gain in direct3d and on the other hand a rather huge performance collapse in openGL make this OS rather worthless. There are also a lot of people who need additional tools (like powerstrip) to play games with more than 60 or 75 Hz.

 

Conclusion: slightly better in direct3d

significantly worse using openGL

the 60 or 75 Hz problem

=> XP is very XPerimental

 

Kind regards, Mooxooh

[Dragon-Lord 0]

As a professional who uses OpenGL for professional uses, I can say categorically that your information regarding Windows XP and OpenGL performance is entirely incorrect. Windows XP is hands down the best OS Microsoft has ever delivered (I am running 32 and 64 bit versions). This is with professional cards and applications as well as games and consumer cards.

 

As a gamer, I guarantee that my Quake3Arena game on my fun machine hands down runs fastest, smoothest, and gibs most effectively under Windows XP than it does under Windows 98 or Windows 2000.

 

You are correct that he should have been posted in the game forum, of course.

 

But your groundless rant/flame on 3DMark/Nvidia sends the credibility of your entire post into the dumps. Pity.

 

:}

[Mooxooh 0]

maybe i shouldn't have removed the <flame></flame> tags from 1. and 2. before posting..

 

As a gamer, I guarantee that my Quake3Arena game on my machine hands down runs with about 15fps less than under Windows 2000 - using the same graphics adapter drivers as in windows 2000.

 

"Windows XP is hands down the best OS Microsoft has ever delivered..." - is that your general opinion or only in terms of '3dXPerience' ?

 

"But your groundless rant/flame on 3DMark/Nvidia sends the credibility of your entire post into the dumps."

Uhm, yes, of course, but isn't it typical for flaming that it's groundless? I mean isn't saying 'groundless flame' like saying 'it's wet outside and it rains'?

 

"...hands down...""You are correct..." Thank you

 

Have a funny day, not soo pity - Mooxooh

[EddiE314 0]

first of all, Mooxooh, calm down before you p1ss a lot of people off.

second, i had a 31fps gain in q3a in Windows XP rc1 over my crap scores in win2k/9x.

 

just because you don't like NVidia or Win XP is no reason to yell at others who have come to like them (myself included). if you don't like the thread, don't reply.

[Four and Twenty 0]

true

[Arian 0]

I got to say it I love this OS. I too got totally hacked off with win98, didnt bother with ME. So went the route of Win2k. Most of my games play ok on Win2k but not as smoothly as Win98. I say not so smoothly I found Q3 not to play as well but i think this was eother due to low screen refresh rates or slow mouse or both. Total Annihilation an oldie I know but a classic didnt like running on 2k. It often crashed out on load up and always gave the Direct X error warning.

 

With XP my games seem to ME to run as near as good as with win98. When i say as good I mean they play smoothly (Q3). I dont get the direct X error warning on Total A. I havnt even run the compatability on eiter game. They just run like this out of the box. Great !!

 

I dare say 3DMark scores may be a bit lower I dont know and I dont care. The human eye can only cope with around 45 FPS anyway. I used to go benchmark crazy but I cant be arsed now I prefer to play my games.

 

I give this a big thumbs up for games.

But thats only my personal opinion. Which im entitled too.

[DosFreak 2]

Games should not run slower/faster in XP vs 2k if you've tweaked your system right. Via drivers/Nvidia drivers/latest drivers for all hardware. All benchmarks are the same here. I think people who report slower/faster performance don't really do much with their system and do not set it up properlu.

[Arian 0]

If XP plays well without tweaking. And it does for me then it defo gets my vote.

[EddiE314 0]

in win2k i always had to install the VIA 4 in 1's, in XP i don't, i think this is the reason that XP is faster for me in d3d apps/games.

 

On an OpenGL side......

 

 

DosFreak: OpenGL is significantly faster in XP over 2ksp2 w/4in1's and hotfixes. (but all of this is for me, might not be the same for others)

 

If you have no problems with Windows 2000 then stay with it, it's a great OS with a lot of potential.

[JBrave715 0]

The only performance hit you will see from Win98 and XP is the facts that WinXP is beta and that win98 has been around for ages, developers have had a chance to fully optimize their drivers for 98, plus win98 has 90% of the userbase so they are focusing 99% on Win98 when they make the drivers. In XP the drivers are half assed 1st generation. It's a driver issue it's not because Microsoft fundamentally made WinXP worse for games then Win98.

[Dragon-Lord 0]

Agreed. I am stoked that XP is running so well in the beta stages. I look forward to the final release and the +6 months time frame when things will really be smokin'.

 

Mooxooh, you do *not* want to throw down flames with me on OpenGL. *Trust* me on this. Have a nice day and may your frames per second be high.

 

:}

[proteus456 0]

The performance problems you're seeing relate to drivers. As of now, Nvidia is the ONLY manufacturer that has properly optimized drivers for Windows XP (and 2k for that matter). Like most hardware manufacturers, they've spent their optimization resources on garbage like Win9x, and haven't learned how to write proper WDM drivers (See Creative Labs for another good example). Also note that Nvidia's drivers are multithreaded, thus have improved performance on SMP machines.

No..I don't work for Nvidia, I just don't see anyone else writing proper drivers for WinXP/2k. ATI REALLY needs to get their act together.

[proteus456 0]

Oh..I should also add. One of the things you'll start to see is P4 performance catching up, and surpassing Athelon performance. WinXp was designed and optimized for the Pentium 4 architecture, so we should start seeing real benchmarks soon to bear this out. Note that Win9x performance has little to no relation to Win2k/Winxp Performance. The sooner we get rid of all the 9x benchmarks and testing going on..the better.

[JP- 0]

Yeah but i cant see that happening any time soon

[sapiens74 0]

XP rocks! It is a lot faster in most games D3D or Open GL.

 

They said p4 would overtake the athlon at 1.7 ghz too, but they are at 1.8, soon to be at 2.0 and they still can't beat an Athlon.

 

Happens when you make an inferior product.

[EddiE314 0]

AMD's manufacturing process IS NOT superior to Intel's. They're still using .18micro architecture, while Intel has moved on to the smaller, cooler, more power/heat-efficient .13micron architecture. AMD is at least a year behind Intel, they may be making faster and faster chips, but using old technology is gonna kill them. I assume you've heard about the New P3's and new P4's...watch out!

[Brian Frank 0]

Quote:

The performance problems you're seeing relate to drivers. As of now, Nvidia is the ONLY manufacturer that has properly optimized drivers for Windows XP (and 2k for that matter). Like most hardware manufacturers, they've spent their optimization resources on garbage like Win9x, and haven't learned how to write proper WDM drivers (See Creative Labs for another good example). Also note that Nvidia's drivers are multithreaded, thus have improved performance on SMP machines.
No..I don't work for Nvidia, I just don't see anyone else writing proper drivers for WinXP/2k. ATI REALLY needs to get their act together.

I can't agree more, in fact that's pretty much what I'd say, except not as short.

Nvidia has been the best thing as far as driver support.
ATI's Radeon is supposed to be sooooo great, yet I couldn't tell you the difference between it and my Voodoo 4 4500 AGP--which is proof of the crappy drivers ATI puts out. I'm not getting another ATI card again--the company can't write good drivers for Win9x, much less Win2k/XP.

I think Intel has made some bad moves regarding the P4, and the RDRAM thing in general, but I would not ever consider them unable to bounce back. I would much rather, and do, have an SMP system with featuring Intel chips than I would AMD.
I don't see anything wrong with Intel or AMD. Both have problems to address, and if they're trying to constantly one-up each other with price cuts and faster chips, we the consumers should benefit from it, unless the product is unanimously declared to be crap by both sides of supporters--not the companies.

[DQD 0]

Um... I have been testing XP since March and I can say that with

 

v3/3000 card on a 533 celery/256 Abit VH6 mg:

WinME (IDE DISK 1)

 

Timedemo results of Demo Four

 

Q3 1.29h = 63 fps

 

XP Pro RC2 (2526) (SCSI Disk 1)

 

Q3 129h = 48 fps

 

My GF2 400 nets 61 with the same q3config on a Piii/450 192 mg Intel 815 using XPHOME RC2.

 

(640/480 all options off except Simple items, vertex, super tweaked)

 

Now I've been running Q3 since the first three room pre alpha hit internet so I'm very familar with how to tweak Q3 to run well.

 

What I can't understand is why my V3 ( 1.15 V3 Drivers) on a WinME Cel 553 runs better then my Geforce2 (12.41 drivers) on PIII450 with XP HOME RC2 using the same Q3config.cfg file!

 

I realize I'm comparing two different systems but even the duel boot V3 running ME is gets greater FPS running demo four than the V3 running XP as well!

 

 

What else can I set in XP to increase FPS? I just don't see XP better then ME on two different systems. Atleast for FPS but for "Game Play smoothness", XP is better.

 

*scratches his head and hopes anyone can make sense of what he wrote*

[EddiE314 0]

DQD:

 

1. try the 8.04's and 8.05's.

2. disable v-sync

3. turn Anti-Aliasing off

4. play around with the AGP Aperture size, i have mine set to 64

5. make sure AGP 4x is on.

6. Kill any b.ullshit processes

7. Overclock

8. wierd how you can't or barely break 60fps, try raising the refresh rate.

 

Quake 3 uses OGL, i have only seen a nice boost with D3D which is fine for me since i got a GF2MX. Try dong a comparison with 3DMark between the two systems. you'll see a performance boost with D3D, i saw a 1900 3dmark gain in 3dmark 2000 going from win2k to winxp, don't ask me why. pimpin_228 here on the boards also had a similar boost in performance also.

 

I assume your settings are 4.5 x 100MHz, see if you can raise the fsb to 133, that will give you 600MHz, a little more ram couldn't hurt, 256 is pretty good and it's what i use in XP. Bandwidth is the key to a fast system. I got more suggestions, but try these simple ones first

[DQD 0]

Thanks for the tips! I'll try that on my PIII450 with the G2. It would be excellent to get the G2 humming faster on XP HOME RC2!

 

 

I'm still puzzled as to why would XP Pro RC2 still have less FPS using a V3/3000 on the same system that duel boots to WinME? Maybe the default V3 XP drivers aren't very good and I should replace them with the earlier W2K drivers.

 

Since both the XP Home and XP Pro are duel boot with WinMe and since WinME is faster for both V3 and G2 cards on my systems, wouldn't any hardware or bios tweaks make WinMe faster too? Does XP take advantage of those tweaks where WinME would not?

 

The reason I bought the G2 is because of nVidia's XP support where 3dfx, now defunked, has none.

 

Still confused I guess...

[DQD 0]

Ok I updated my XP HOme RC2 with the 8.05 12.42 nVidia drivers and Q3 gained 9 FPS so I'm upto 64 on my PIII450 with the G2 MX400. Taking vsync off lost 1 FPS though. After up[censored] Q3 from 1.29f to 1.29h I gained 2 FPS so now I'm upto 65 FPS under XP which is just as good as the WinME partition.

 

My MB is an SE440bx-2 Intel board and there is no setting for AGP 2X or 4X! ARRGH! The Appeture was set for 64 already. It seems my MB is the reason for the G2 not performing as good as others post and not XP as I thought.

[EddiE314 0]

think of it this way, you're getting the same framerate in XP as ME, plus XP is built on the nt kernel, personally i couldn't ask for more, besides no Activation.

[oaydin 0]

rofl , who said AMD's manufacturing is 1 year behind the intel ???

guyz remember

when intel couldn't put out 1.13GHZ PIII with 0.18 micron

AMD is still running with it n they will go up to 1.7 ghz with 0.18 micron

ALSO remember the long pipeline of P4 , it exists not bc it's the design of future, but it's a design that can give more GHZ numbers to sell cpu right. Don't u remember when a P4 downgraded to 1ghz gives worse results than 1GHZ PIII

THIS IS NOTHING BUT ONLY A PROVE THAT SHOWS AMD HAS BETTER SILICON N MANUFACTURE QUALITY

I don't say 0.18 is better or such

of course 0.13 is a way better

will run cooler

will overclock better

n the day AMD will start with 0.13 process

Intel will blow away again

In my side there is nothing to discuss about cpu performance or quality between intel n AMD,

Only problem for AMD was mobo n such support

having via as only partner for beginning n going that good

is just like a miracle

new mobos, 0.13

n AMD will keep giving best performance for cheaper again

[cipher 0]

well now that the 20.XX Nvidia drivers are coming this week, and which are heavily XP/ GeForce3 optimised, AND now that ive fixed my low 5v problem on my Epox, i will repost a 7000+ 3dmark score

 

Come one guys- keep spewing that XP is slower in games, & ill keep posting benchies that blow you away