Last edited by some_random_panda (2007-03-20 00:16:26)
Since you have no clue I'll ignore that. Notice something weird about the total available graphics memory? I've already researched now anyways and have come to learn that this is just another reason Vista will ultimately leave XP far behind in the gaming market.The#1Spot wrote:
I think you are more on the lines of bragging about your system rather than needing help since theres already a thread similar to this.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-20 00:46:32)
Last edited by Drykill (2007-03-20 03:21:33)
Yup I know ...thats why I said visual performance...not gaming...but its just strange they topped it out a 5.9Drykill wrote:
That graphics score is just for 'Desktop performance for Windows Aero' which isn't very demanding hence the reason a 7600 gets full marks on that one.
Your disk space sucks.Kmarion wrote:
Anyone on right now running the combination? If so what is your total graphics memory showing as? It's under your Cpanel>System>performance information. You should see something that says view and print report.
It should look like this.
http://i12.tinypic.com/2mnku2a
TIA
It's complicated..lol. I recently wiped them.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Your disk space sucks.Kmarion wrote:
Anyone on right now running the combination? If so what is your total graphics memory showing as? It's under your Cpanel>System>performance information. You should see something that says view and print report.
It should look like this.
http://i12.tinypic.com/2mnku2a
TIA
Turns out same asjoker3327 wrote:
Do you all not think its strange that the Graphics score tops out at 5.9 so according to the Vista score a 7600GT will give the same visual performance as a 8800 GTX.. !!
Will check this out later at home...I have Vista Ult (32bit) running an 8800GTX see what it says....
have you noticed a speed increase in your network connection....mine has !!
XP Pro DL tops out about 280 - 300
Vista DL tops out about 350 - 400
Now that is some jump! and a good one lol..
It must just be Vista then. I see for some reason you are still on DX9 .joker3327 wrote:
Turns out same asjoker3327 wrote:
Do you all not think its strange that the Graphics score tops out at 5.9 so according to the Vista score a 7600GT will give the same visual performance as a 8800 GTX.. !!
Will check this out later at home...I have Vista Ult (32bit) running an 8800GTX see what it says....
have you noticed a speed increase in your network connection....mine has !!
XP Pro DL tops out about 280 - 300
Vista DL tops out about 350 - 400
Now that is some jump! and a good one lol..
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/9392/jokerct8.jpg
Last edited by joker3327 (2007-03-21 07:46:34)
thats why i took back the first PC i just bought for one that was running XP.....i couldnt do shit. i didnt want a $1400 paper weight......joker3327 wrote:
call me spineless...but I'm dual booting with XP pro as I have major problems connecting to the Internet with Vista...everything is setup ok both my xp machines connect no problem via the router...everything is set to auto...my router assigns an IP address to the Vista bitch but it just says no network available...
unless I have an XP machine connected...then it seems to find the other machine then connect.. I can then turn the other machine off and it will stay connected...but as soon as I shut down and restart it "forgets the network was there"
Stumped....
Thats why not upped to DX10 yet ...too busy pulling my F**kin hair out lol
thats the exact same system i have...i just need to install my Vista...
At first I did have some problems with Bf2 and Vista. The game was incredibly choppy and felt like I was only getting 3fps. On XP I can play all high settings with a decent fps but on Vista the settings had to be lowered slightly to get a playable fps. Fraps was showing 45ish fps on Vista yet the game was still choppy. First thing I tried was closing windows sidebar and guess what, the choppyness went away. After closing the sidebar before playing, Bf2 became very playable on Vista and felt even smoother than XP. This was done using the 100.65 drivers. I tried the 101.41 beta drivers but they didn't seem as good as Bf2 had a worse fps and was choppy again. I still use XP for playing games though as it allows me to use the higher settings and isn't choppy like Vista can be.siciliano732 wrote:
thats the exact same system i have...i just need to install my Vista...
do you have problems with vista and bf2?
Notice how you having just 2gb RAM also gives the same subscore as Kmarion's 4gb?joker3327 wrote:
Do you all not think its strange that the Graphics score tops out at 5.9 so according to the Vista score a 7600GT will give the same visual performance as a 8800 GTX.. !!
That's memory speed, not capacity.aardfrith wrote:
Notice how you having just 2gb RAM also gives the same subscore as Kmarion's 4gb?joker3327 wrote:
Do you all not think its strange that the Graphics score tops out at 5.9 so according to the Vista score a 7600GT will give the same visual performance as a 8800 GTX.. !!
4 gigs out performs 2 gigs, especially in a 64 bit environment. So that sub score is based on DDR2 800 (PC2 6400), 4-4-4-12. Microsoft just does not think so .cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
That's memory speed, not capacity.aardfrith wrote:
Notice how you having just 2gb RAM also gives the same subscore as Kmarion's 4gb?joker3327 wrote:
Do you all not think its strange that the Graphics score tops out at 5.9 so according to the Vista score a 7600GT will give the same visual performance as a 8800 GTX.. !!
Depends what you're doing. If you're not using enough data to fill those 4GBs (or rather, more than would fit in 2GB) it won't provide a speed benefit. It'll only help for some tasks or lots of multitasking.Kmarion wrote:
4 gigs out performs 2 gigs, especially in a 64 bit environment. So that sub score is based on DDR2 800 (PC2 6400), 4-4-4-12. Microsoft just does not think so .cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
That's memory speed, not capacity.aardfrith wrote:
Notice how you having just 2gb RAM also gives the same subscore as Kmarion's 4gb?
nas > than fillin' yer rig up with a bunch of big drives.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Your disk space sucks.Kmarion wrote:
Anyone on right now running the combination? If so what is your total graphics memory showing as? It's under your Cpanel>System>performance information. You should see something that says view and print report.
It should look like this.
http://i12.tinypic.com/2mnku2a
TIA
One of the 500 is an external. I have 800gb internally (3 drives). Two 150 Raptors in raid 0 and a 500 gig for all my movies/music/image. Still a 5.9 on the speed with plenty of room, I'm happy. I had an opportunity to get a WD 500 gig drive for 100 bucks, why wouldn't I? ..lol You are looking at the drive right after I formatted it. I assure you typically I have more than 30 gigs of space used . I have more than that just on my iPod.jsnipy wrote:
nas > than fillin' yer rig up with a bunch of big drives.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Your disk space sucks.Kmarion wrote:
Anyone on right now running the combination? If so what is your total graphics memory showing as? It's under your Cpanel>System>performance information. You should see something that says view and print report.
It should look like this.
http://i12.tinypic.com/2mnku2a
TIA
