Bioshock faster on XP than Vista?

dave343

dave343

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Messages
1,869
I currenty have Vista running on my laptop. Asus M51Sn with a C2D 1.66, 3GB Ram, and G 9500m GS 512mb DDR2 (512mb dedicated).

I tried Bioshock the other day and I had to put all the settings to low to obtain a decent frame rate. The 9500m GS is more than capable I know, but it's the 512mb of DDR2 that's killing it. My question is, if I installed XP on the laptop, would Bioshock run any better? I know there are some performance hits when running games on Vista, so I'm hoping XP would allow me to run the game on Medium? 1024/768. thanks.

Specs of Geforce 9500m GS are 450mhz core, 950mhz shadrers, 800mhz ram. Was told it has appox 22gb mem bandwidth.
 
you should just get more ram, since you need it anyway. . . how did you manage to find a laptop with less than 1gig these days?
 
Sry, should have been more specific; the Video card has the 512mb DDR2 dedicated, the Laptop has 3GB DDR2 667.
 
I noticed no difference in performance for Bioshock, on an opty175/1900xt rig, going from Xp to Vista. If there is a fps difference, it is a small one.

My guess is that you would, at best, pick up a couple of frames per second going to Xp. I don't know for sure, because the same settings yielded performance close enough that I could not tell a difference between Xp and Vista. So, I did not bother to actually bench the game.
 
did they ever fix that awful mouse accel problem, or is that aspect still a terrible port?
 
I am pretty sure its DX9vsDX10 performance issues. But you should really get more RAM,I saw a graph comparing 512 vs 1GB and 512mb was 3x slower and 1GB ram.
 
I don't think you would have a substantial increase in fps, but I do believe you would gain a little bit. Are you running with DX9 on vista?

recursive said:
did they ever fix that awful mouse accel problem, or is that aspect still a terrible port?
Click to expand...

It's still there as far as I know.
 
KillaChaos said:
I am pretty sure its DX9vsDX10 performance issues. But you should really get more RAM,I saw a graph comparing 512 vs 1GB and 512mb was 3x slower and 1GB ram.
Click to expand...

OP's post states the he has 3GB of RAM and 512MB of dedicated video RAM.
 
I've tried running Bio in DX9 in Vista, can't say for sure if it is DX9, I would think so from what it's telling me but I'll only believe it forsure running the game under XP. So yeh, under DX9 in Vista it's still not the greatest. It's basically a 8600gt in my laptop, except I have DDR2 at 800mhz. I guess it's not worth a total OS reinstall then? I wouldn't see a substantial fps increase?
 
Just put - dx9 at the end of the shortcut target box and it'll run in DX9 mode. You can spot the difference in quality between DX9 and DX10. The water effects look much better in DX10 mode.
 
I want to blame it on crappy laptop drivers. I bought bioshock when it first came out, and it was not playable for me at low settings. Waited 3 months later, installed new drivers, and bam, I was able to max everything out.

So yeah, if switching to DX9 doesn't work, wait a few months till third parties put out better drivers for the 9xxx mobility series.
 
In almost all instances, games run just a bit slower in Vista, just by 1 to 4 frames. Not really worth installing XP to get the extra perhaps 1 or 3 frames.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top