Well I have just ordered the last of my upgrades (new ram/mobo/q6600) and I am faced with one last dilemma. I have been chomping at the bit waiting for Bioshock & Crysis (1&2 months left till release) and wondering if I should make the jump to VIsta for these 2. Something tells me although I am not totally sure these games will look much better in DX10, but will probably not run as well. Native res for me is 2560x1600 and I betting I wont be able to pull it and will have to scale it back to 19x12 at least. So should I stick with XP or make the jump to vista. While I am mentioning it, would 64 or 32 bit be better? If I do jump I want to order early and get acclamated to vista before the 2 releases. Would appreciate your thoughts.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Vista or XP for BSHOC & Crysis
- Thread starter apcor
- Start date
I'm nervous about it and still not 100% decided but when I build soon I'm currently leaning towards x64.... and a big bottle of aspirin.
For example, I'll be doing level design work for Crysis and will want Photoshop... but Adobe provides no support for x64 on older versions of the software... rather it'll likely take buying a new version (latest is priced at >$600).
For example, I'll be doing level design work for Crysis and will want Photoshop... but Adobe provides no support for x64 on older versions of the software... rather it'll likely take buying a new version (latest is priced at >$600).
Might consider that but I dont want to spend my money on vista unless I will get the value out of it. This is pure gaming use. BTW Think comparing XP to 2K might be a bit harsh as I believe a majority are still on XP. I think after crysis that will change though.
Crysis and Bioshock will run DX9 at about the same speed as DX10.
Bioshock is using the Unreal 3 engine by all accounts, and if they've done a good job with it then all things being equal DX10 will be more efficient than DX9 when rendering the same things. No doubt DX10 will have additional effects which hopefuly will be entirely optional so you can select whether to just get an FPS boost from using DX10 or actually improve the graphics fidelity which I'm sure will come with it's own performance hit.
My advice would be to go with Vista 64bit, you will want more than 2Gb of System RAM before long and thats going to mean a 64bit OS, it will also give you access to DX10 so you can have the choice of more efficient rendering of DX9 effects or turning on the next generation DX10 effects.
You picked up a good CPU and a reasonable amount of RAM, most users who switch to Vista and complain of massive drops in FPS in games are ones with modern video cards but old single core CPU, this means Vista chews up some more cycles and their frame rates drop.
With a video card bottlenecked computer it's been shown the difference in performance between XP and Vista is now very small, <10% in most cases and in a few cases performance is now better on Vista, those with SLI especially can contest to this which I expect has something to do with XP not dealing with large amounts of video memory very well.
My advice would be to go with Vista 64bit, you will want more than 2Gb of System RAM before long and thats going to mean a 64bit OS, it will also give you access to DX10 so you can have the choice of more efficient rendering of DX9 effects or turning on the next generation DX10 effects.
You picked up a good CPU and a reasonable amount of RAM, most users who switch to Vista and complain of massive drops in FPS in games are ones with modern video cards but old single core CPU, this means Vista chews up some more cycles and their frame rates drop.
With a video card bottlenecked computer it's been shown the difference in performance between XP and Vista is now very small, <10% in most cases and in a few cases performance is now better on Vista, those with SLI especially can contest to this which I expect has something to do with XP not dealing with large amounts of video memory very well.
Well I just found out Crysis has been pushed back to 11/13 release date (it was 9/11 for a while) so I have a couple of extra months. I think I will stick with XP for bioshock and if I miss out on alot of DX10 features I can always replay after I pick up 2 more gigs of ram and vista.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
I am surprised at how well vista ultimate 64 runs, since I just installed it(my first 64 bit OS too). Plays my games good too.
Agreed.
But, in concept, there are certain perks to DX10
DX9:
DX10:
We'll see what it really looks like....
Of course the difference would have nothing to do with Microsoft fudging it to sell more copies of Vista...
Mr. Stryker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,221
I personally think the DirectX9 would look just as good as DX10 if they put a bit more effort to it. Then again, screenshots like those promote more marketing sales for Microsoft..
Then again, screenshots like those promote more marketing sales for Microsoft..Bioshock looks identical DX9/DX10.
Crysis has effects that look much better with DX10. You can only expect to see more of this type of differentiation in the future. I'd invest in Vista. 64-bit is a bit better investment.
I personally think the DirectX9 would look just as good as DX10 if they put a bit more effort to it.
That's partially true, but the whole point behind DX10 is that to do the same in DX9 it comes at an even greater performance cost.
As I said... "we'll see".
If you are going by what vendors say, ignore that. Crysis has NOT stated a release date other than, just this week, acknowledging that they will do so soon and it will be this year.
ANGRYEAGLE
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2006
- Messages
- 275
Anyone have any problems running any games with Vista X64? I too am looking at this option for my new build, but am a little worried about support for older apps and such. I still like to play the original Ghost Recon and IL-2 Sturmovik. Oh can't forget one of my favorites, Kelly Slater Pro Surfer.
Actually this is correct.. I'm wrong:
Originally BioShock was being built on an Irrational-modified version of the Unreal 2 Engine known as Vengeance. Since then it has been ported to Unreal 3.0 and has once again been heavily modified.
Source: http://www.bioshock-online.com/faq/
SLightly off-topic but a great example of DX10 at work. Downlaod or stream World in Conflict DX10 video and check out the particle physics and destructive environments.
So far DX 10 has equaled a few visual enhancements that can beat down the best graphics cards money can buy @ resolutions of 1680x or greater with filtering active. I had to have folks point out to me the differences in "World of Conflict" between DX 9 and 10. I didn't notice it right off actually playing the demo.
Most people do not have DX 10 capable cards and many that do have mid high end cards or lower.
I wouldn't hold my breath for full blown from the ground up DX 10 titles. Games aren't going to be made that close out 80% of the population. Most people do not have "enthusiast" rigs.
"DX 10 games" will have a DX 9 path and likely will run better on said path.
Many games are still coded to do a lot of work on the CPU because they know folks buying systems from places like Dell are likely getting average CPUs and subpar graphics cards in their systems.
If you go Vista dual boot. I do. Don't bother with x64 like I did because MS isn't pushing it and I don't see it developing without some "encouragement". Their next OS is still going to be 32 or 64 bit optional. Aka if you want poor support, or no support and shoddy drivers, buy x64. I asked them about Onecare support for Vista x64. Their answer? "There is no consumer demand for it."
"The x64-based versions of Windows XP and Windows Vista are not currently supported in Windows Live OneCare."
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/sysreq.htm
Expect to hear something like the above often if you are running an x64 OS. XP pro x64 was released in April of 2005 and here we are today still dinking around.
If you want to wait, wait for the first service pack to be released. Right now I don't see the point for most folks to buy Vista to play old DX 9 games.
Most people do not have DX 10 capable cards and many that do have mid high end cards or lower.
I wouldn't hold my breath for full blown from the ground up DX 10 titles. Games aren't going to be made that close out 80% of the population. Most people do not have "enthusiast" rigs.
"DX 10 games" will have a DX 9 path and likely will run better on said path.
Many games are still coded to do a lot of work on the CPU because they know folks buying systems from places like Dell are likely getting average CPUs and subpar graphics cards in their systems.
If you go Vista dual boot. I do. Don't bother with x64 like I did because MS isn't pushing it and I don't see it developing without some "encouragement". Their next OS is still going to be 32 or 64 bit optional. Aka if you want poor support, or no support and shoddy drivers, buy x64. I asked them about Onecare support for Vista x64. Their answer? "There is no consumer demand for it."
"The x64-based versions of Windows XP and Windows Vista are not currently supported in Windows Live OneCare."
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/sysreq.htm
Expect to hear something like the above often if you are running an x64 OS. XP pro x64 was released in April of 2005 and here we are today still dinking around.
If you want to wait, wait for the first service pack to be released. Right now I don't see the point for most folks to buy Vista to play old DX 9 games.
ThunderGod66
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2004
- Messages
- 369
I'm not sure why people are saying Bioshock will be identical.
http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/pcblowout.html
How does the DX10 version compare to the 360 graphics? And DX9?
The 360 and DX9 graphics are roughly equivalent. The DX10 graphics add a few additional features and image quality enhancements on top of this.
http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/pcblowout.html
How does the DX10 version compare to the 360 graphics? And DX9?
The 360 and DX9 graphics are roughly equivalent. The DX10 graphics add a few additional features and image quality enhancements on top of this.
Great example of pointless DX10 hype. Two independant sites examined the game, it looks essentially identical in either DX9/10 the biggest difference with DX10 is that it is slower.
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Guides/world_in_conflict_performance_guide/9.html
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/in...sk=view&id=432&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=3