Windows 7 gaming

[thilanliyan]

http://www.pcper.com/article.p...=682&type=expert&pid=1

 

[error8]

GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: error8
GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

Depends if you are willing to deal with the Nvidia driver instability to get that extra 10-15%, under Win7.

 

[exar333]

There seems to be a HUGE range in FPS for the 4870x2 cards; the difference between the min and max is very large. Is this normal for the AMD card? The GTX 295 sometimes had slightly lower max frames, but significantly better minimum and average FPS.

Thoughts? I haven't used either of these cards, so I don't have first-hand experience with either.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8
GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

Depends if you are willing to deal with the Nvidia driver instability to get that extra 10-15%, under Win7.

Thanks for the troll comment here.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8
GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

Depends if you are willing to deal with the Nvidia driver instability to get that extra 10-15%, under Win7.

Thanks for the troll comment here.

How is that a troll comment? The review site stated that Nvidia drivers caused instability under Win7.

When I had Win7 installed on my laptop (8600gt video), the display driver frequently crapped out.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8
GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

Depends if you are willing to deal with the Nvidia driver instability to get that extra 10-15%, under Win7.

Thanks for the troll comment here.

How is that a troll comment? The review site stated that Nvidia drivers caused instability under Win7.

When I had Win7 installed on my laptop (8600gt video), the display driver frequently crapped out.

Here are some exceeprts from the article:

After days and days of testing, the results are actually LESS exciting than I'd hoped they would be; but I think in the end that is a good thing. Performance for all seven graphics cards we tested was at least CLOSE when comparing Windows 7 and Windows Vista results. In a few cases, especially with Far Cry 2, the NVIDIA driver you can download today is simply not up to the quality we expected from the GeForce-giant. Even in other games, where the average frame rate would only drop 5% or less, the difference was notable at least to us in graphs if not in real-world experiences.

Other than that, using Windows 7 was terrific - fast, reliable (only one crash during a game resolution change over 378 tests) and nice to look at as well.

I will offer one note, that doesn't apply to just Windows 7, but Vista as well: game loading times with the AMD graphics cards and Catalyst 9.3 driver were much, much higher than those with any NVIDIA GPU and associated driver. As an example, our Call of Duty: World at War save game would load in about 12-15 seconds with NVIDIA's cards but that same load time took 30+ seconds with AMD configurations.

So we are talking about a 5% loss in framerates, with a 4-month old driver, in a beta OS? That's not "instability", and what about the long load times with the AMD card, it's like a fanboy to gloss over that. I'm sure that is not "instability" though, it's a "feature".

I have used a GTX260 and GTX285 on Win7 with zero issues (not that this means it is "rock-solid" by any means).

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

So we are talking about a 5% loss in framerates, with a 4-month old driver, in a beta OS? That's not "instability", and what about the long load times with the AMD card, it's like a fanboy to gloss over that. I'm sure that is not "instability" though, it's a "feature".

I have used a GTX260 and GTX285 on Win7 with zero issues (not that this means it is "rock-solid" by any means).

See, you could have easily made your point without the accusation of "troll comment".

I'm inferring from your comment, "That's not "instability", and what about the long load times with the AMD card, it's like a fanboy to gloss over that. I'm sure that is not "instability" though, it's a "feature"." that you believe me to be an ATI fanboy... or maybe I'm reading that wrong. It would be funny, though, if you did intend to imply that, considering all 3 operational PC's in my house have Nvidia graphics.

It's good to see that you are not having Win7 - Nvidia driver issues. When I was researching the issues with the 8600GT in my laptop, I came across a bunch of complaints across the web regarding unstable Nvidia drivers for Win7. ATI seems to have fewer complaints in that regard, sort of the inverse from the Vista situation.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8
GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

Depends if you are willing to deal with the Nvidia driver instability to get that extra 10-15%, under Win7.

Thanks for the troll comment here.

How is that a troll comment? The review site stated that Nvidia drivers caused instability under Win7.

When I had Win7 installed on my laptop (8600gt video), the display driver frequently crapped out.

It is a trollish comment. Why? Because it's pretty much a given that any drivers out for Win7 is a beta driver at this point. Win7 hasn't even hit release candidate status yet much less hit gold master status. Now, granted Vista and Win7 share a lot so that minimal work is needed to get a Vista driver working in Win7 but there are differences and these differences need to be ironed out.

There is also the fact that Win7 is in beta and there may still be significant bugs that are causing the instabilities and not the fault of the drivers itself. As Win7 gets more stable so should the drivers for it.


I currently have a 4870 512MB card. My last card was an 8800 GTS and the one before that was 1900XT. No fanboyism. Just my opinion.

 

[chizow]

No major surprises here given they're essentially the same OS. PCGH and FiringSquad have also done comparisons in the past showing very little difference in gaming performance between Vista and Win7. I'd expect any performance variances to decrease with unified Win7 and Vista driver releases.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8
GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

Depends if you are willing to deal with the Nvidia driver instability to get that extra 10-15%, under Win7.

Thanks for the troll comment here.

How is that a troll comment? The review site stated that Nvidia drivers caused instability under Win7.

When I had Win7 installed on my laptop (8600gt video), the display driver frequently crapped out.

Here are some exceeprts from the article:

After days and days of testing, the results are actually LESS exciting than I'd hoped they would be; but I think in the end that is a good thing. Performance for all seven graphics cards we tested was at least CLOSE when comparing Windows 7 and Windows Vista results. In a few cases, especially with Far Cry 2, the NVIDIA driver you can download today is simply not up to the quality we expected from the GeForce-giant. Even in other games, where the average frame rate would only drop 5% or less, the difference was notable at least to us in graphs if not in real-world experiences.

Other than that, using Windows 7 was terrific - fast, reliable (only one crash during a game resolution change over 378 tests) and nice to look at as well.

I will offer one note, that doesn't apply to just Windows 7, but Vista as well: game loading times with the AMD graphics cards and Catalyst 9.3 driver were much, much higher than those with any NVIDIA GPU and associated driver. As an example, our Call of Duty: World at War save game would load in about 12-15 seconds with NVIDIA's cards but that same load time took 30+ seconds with AMD configurations.

So we are talking about a 5% loss in framerates, with a 4-month old driver, in a beta OS? That's not "instability", and what about the long load times with the AMD card, it's like a fanboy to gloss over that. I'm sure that is not "instability" though, it's a "feature".

I have used a GTX260 and GTX285 on Win7 with zero issues (not that this means it is "rock-solid" by any means).

he must refer to this: only one crash during a game resolution change over 378 tests. And he assumes that crash was in the nvidia driver because AMD "just works"

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: akugami

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8
GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

Depends if you are willing to deal with the Nvidia driver instability to get that extra 10-15%, under Win7.

Thanks for the troll comment here.

How is that a troll comment? The review site stated that Nvidia drivers caused instability under Win7.

When I had Win7 installed on my laptop (8600gt video), the display driver frequently crapped out.

It is a trollish comment. Why? Because it's pretty much a given that any drivers out for Win7 is a beta driver at this point. Win7 hasn't even hit release candidate status yet much less hit gold master status. Now, granted Vista and Win7 share a lot so that minimal work is needed to get a Vista driver working in Win7 but there are differences and these differences need to be ironed out.

There is also the fact that Win7 is in beta and there may still be significant bugs that are causing the instabilities and not the fault of the drivers itself. As Win7 gets more stable so should the drivers for it.


I currently have a 4870 512MB card. My last card was an 8800 GTS and the one before that was 1900XT. No fanboyism. Just my opinion.

A good point about the actual fault of the instability may be due to the OS, rather than the driver. Following your logic, nobody should be offended, then, by a negative comment regarding one party's driver.

I sometimes forget what an "armed camp" atmosphere this forum has.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

People switched from using XP? This is an outrage.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8
GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

Depends if you are willing to deal with the Nvidia driver instability to get that extra 10-15%, under Win7.

Thanks for the troll comment here.

How is that a troll comment? The review site stated that Nvidia drivers caused instability under Win7.

When I had Win7 installed on my laptop (8600gt video), the display driver frequently crapped out.

Here are some exceeprts from the article:

After days and days of testing, the results are actually LESS exciting than I'd hoped they would be; but I think in the end that is a good thing. Performance for all seven graphics cards we tested was at least CLOSE when comparing Windows 7 and Windows Vista results. In a few cases, especially with Far Cry 2, the NVIDIA driver you can download today is simply not up to the quality we expected from the GeForce-giant. Even in other games, where the average frame rate would only drop 5% or less, the difference was notable at least to us in graphs if not in real-world experiences.

Other than that, using Windows 7 was terrific - fast, reliable (only one crash during a game resolution change over 378 tests) and nice to look at as well.

I will offer one note, that doesn't apply to just Windows 7, but Vista as well: game loading times with the AMD graphics cards and Catalyst 9.3 driver were much, much higher than those with any NVIDIA GPU and associated driver. As an example, our Call of Duty: World at War save game would load in about 12-15 seconds with NVIDIA's cards but that same load time took 30+ seconds with AMD configurations.

So we are talking about a 5% loss in framerates, with a 4-month old driver, in a beta OS? That's not "instability", and what about the long load times with the AMD card, it's like a fanboy to gloss over that. I'm sure that is not "instability" though, it's a "feature".

I have used a GTX260 and GTX285 on Win7 with zero issues (not that this means it is "rock-solid" by any means).

you know, it's funny that they mentioned that. titan quest loads a LOT faster now that I'm using the gtx 260. twimtbp at work, an evil conspiracy, or nvidia just focused on optimizing load times?

 

[will889]

No issues with 7 / 260_216 / 9600GT here.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
People switched from using XP? This is an outrage.

Win, comment is win.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
People switched from using XP? This is an outrage.

So what makes you still keep it?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
People switched from using XP? This is an outrage.

So what makes you still keep it?

Don't some games actually run better with DX10 vs DX9? FC2?

 

[imported_Redmist]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
People switched from using XP? This is an outrage.

So what makes you still keep it?

Don't some games actually run better with DX10 vs DX9? FC2?

every game I have played in DX10 mode runs slower than DX9 EXCEPT FC2, that seems to be the only game that makes sense of DX10.

whenever I read up on DX10 I was always under the impression that its supposed to have better looking visuals and utilize more cpu and other resources so the game would run better and look better but it seems all games in DX10 mode have sun rays and run like shit.


at least crysis is running good now on my new system but since crysis has been released I'm on my 3rd computer now.... it only took 2 years for the hardware to catch up to this wonderful world of dx10

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Redmist

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
People switched from using XP? This is an outrage.

So what makes you still keep it?

Don't some games actually run better with DX10 vs DX9? FC2?

every game I have played in DX10 mode runs slower than DX9 EXCEPT FC2, that seems to be the only game that makes sense of DX10.

whenever I read up on DX10 I was always under the impression that its supposed to have better looking visuals and utilize more cpu and other resources so the game would run better and look better but it seems all games in DX10 mode have sun rays and run like shit.

I wonder, what are the games that run like shit on dx 10? I've played both Crysis and Warhead, FC2, Burnout, WIC and quite about any dx 10 title and they all run fine, as long as I don't crank AA at 8X or something like that.

The only game that ran crappy was Stalker, but that game has serious issues. Also, I've played Crysis on both dx9 and dx10 and I didn't noticed any performance loss. It ran bad in both situations.

It's normal for a dx 10 game to run horrible, if you have something like a 8600 GT, but with your GTX 285, I don't think it's a problem.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8
GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

Depends if you are willing to deal with the Nvidia driver instability to get that extra 10-15%, under Win7.

Thanks for the troll comment here.

How is that a troll comment? The review site stated that Nvidia drivers caused instability under Win7.

When I had Win7 installed on my laptop (8600gt video), the display driver frequently crapped out.

Here are some exceeprts from the article:

After days and days of testing, the results are actually LESS exciting than I'd hoped they would be; but I think in the end that is a good thing. Performance for all seven graphics cards we tested was at least CLOSE when comparing Windows 7 and Windows Vista results. In a few cases, especially with Far Cry 2, the NVIDIA driver you can download today is simply not up to the quality we expected from the GeForce-giant. Even in other games, where the average frame rate would only drop 5% or less, the difference was notable at least to us in graphs if not in real-world experiences.

Other than that, using Windows 7 was terrific - fast, reliable (only one crash during a game resolution change over 378 tests) and nice to look at as well.

I will offer one note, that doesn't apply to just Windows 7, but Vista as well: game loading times with the AMD graphics cards and Catalyst 9.3 driver were much, much higher than those with any NVIDIA GPU and associated driver. As an example, our Call of Duty: World at War save game would load in about 12-15 seconds with NVIDIA's cards but that same load time took 30+ seconds with AMD configurations.

So we are talking about a 5% loss in framerates, with a 4-month old driver, in a beta OS? That's not "instability", and what about the long load times with the AMD card, it's like a fanboy to gloss over that. I'm sure that is not "instability" though, it's a "feature".

I have used a GTX260 and GTX285 on Win7 with zero issues (not that this means it is "rock-solid" by any means).

you know, it's funny that they mentioned that. titan quest loads a LOT faster now that I'm using the gtx 260. twimtbp at work, an evil conspiracy, or nvidia just focused on optimizing load times?

I thought this was a strange observation as well. Usually you don't hear about driver optimizations improving load time. This might be something that will likely be resolved either on AMDs or Microsoft's side before the official W7 launch. I really can't see AMD being OK with long load times for their video cards. Definitely interesting.

Hopefully Nvidia gets their act together and actually does release updates drivers in April. They will be under a lot of pressure to have quality drivers after the Vista debacle.

 

[dadach]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8
GTX 260 C216 kicks 4870 1 gb in the nuts in both vista and windows 7, in this review.

Depends if you are willing to deal with the Nvidia driver instability to get that extra 10-15%, under Win7.

Thanks for the troll comment here.

why did you quote the second post then?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Hopefully Nvidia gets their act together and actually does release updates drivers in April. They will be under a lot of pressure to have quality drivers after the Vista debacle.

What Vista debacle?

The only issue I encountered with Nvidia drivers and Vista was the 1st 180 release, which decreased performance on my 8800GT. Other than that, the drivers have been good. Of course, I don't game a whole bunch...

I read more people complaining about the ATI drivers, but I've set up several PC's recently with ATI video, and didn't have driver issues either, except for having to use the alternate DVI output (or whatever it's called) in Catalyst.

 

[alcoholbob]

Power consumption is higher on nvidia cards because the clockrates aren't throttling down during desktop use.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
Power consumption is higher on nvidia cards because the clockrates aren't throttling down during desktop use.

I had completely forgotten about that!