Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

branhield

Windows XP 3d performance..?

Recommended Posts

i have got the impression that 3d applications would run at slower framerates on win XP than on other platforms..i have seen several posts like "my apps run slower on windows xp than they did on win2k"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes it''s because of the stock video drivers that come with XP - for a lot of cards they run as software only, until you get the latest drivers for your card.

Also, Service Pack 1, I heard, resolves an issue where OpenGL runs only at 60 FPS in fullscreen (or rather, the lowest refresh rate your monitor supports).

I''m not sure how accurate any of this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have had no problems with GL or D3D on XP vs. 98. Quite the contrary, the games/apps "feel" faster (because XP is more "solid" - just a feeling)

As Waverider says, just keep your drivers up to date. You can also find patches for that 60hz thing that doesn''t require SP1.

And yeah, TWEAK your XP for even better performance.

www.annoyances.org

www.tweakxp.com

2DNow - Specializing in yesterday''s technology today!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
It depends on whether or not your program requires a lot of memory. If you''re shuffling a lot of memory around, then 98 will run faster than XP, simply because of the way the kernel operates.

XP should be slightly slower than 98 or even Win2K just because of the extra overhead that it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if u have a major speed difference between the 2 OS''s then something is wrong.
eg video/motherboard drivers installed incorrectly

true winXP requires more memory than win98 to run.

example win98->win2000. when i upgraded from win98 to win2000 (on the same machine with 64mb)
UT ran fine in win98
UT ran slow as hell in win2000 the harddisk was continually grunting + groaning (once i got 128mb though it was ok)
win2000 uses about 80mb just when u turn it on.
-(how they expected anyone with 64mb to use it is a joke)
winXP is more of a memory hog than win2000, i wouldnt run winXP unless i had 256mb



http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/kea/kea.html
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/gotterdammerung.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I heard Win 2000 is the slower one of all operating systems for running anything related to DirectX or OpenGL. Of course 98 is the ultimate in speed. XP when it comes to running games is almost on par with 98. Dont forget XP feels cluncky, because of all the fancy GUI stuff, not like we need skinable Windows, or pop menus that fade in and out etc... But since MAC OS and X Windows and others offer customizable desktops, might as well follow the trend and let Windows people do it to. The problem all these skinable desktops are cluncky...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hehe, we had in school p2 300mhz with 64mb ram and ran win98,win2000 and winXP on it. xp was actually quite fast (together with officeXP)...

but.. the other classes one room above us.. they had ... p4 2giga with 128 or 256mb ram..

well, you can feel how we felt (as we had to work at those pc''s the whole day..)

at least, the installation of win2000 took about 3 hours, or 4. most the time filling some progressbars. we eat a lot during this morning:D "teacher, we''ll be back in half an hour, we''ll go to search some food, windows is still installing" "okay"

"take a look around" - limp bizkit
www.google.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by ANSI2000
From what I heard Win 2000 is the slower one of all operating systems for running anything related to DirectX or OpenGL. Of course 98 is the ultimate in speed. XP when it comes to running games is almost on par with 98.


From what I''ve experianced Win2K is just as fast, if not faster than Win98 at running games and has the added advantage of the kernel not blowing up in your face with the first crash.

WinXP took an instant dislike to my RAID setup and will never been seen on this computer in an offical OS capactiy again (I have it as VMWare installed to test apps).

Even if I wanted to run win98 now I probably couldnt, memory management is flakey @ 256Meg, just about handles 512Meg and it would die screaming at 1Gig (I''m sure I run it with 768Meg before now and it took ages to boot and I had no resources left after boot for some crazy reason)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my school they run win2k on machines with incredibly low ram (I dont know the exact number, but 64 at the most). The best is the way you can''t compile/run your projects (which are simple exercises in this or that, just console) with iExplore open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by DarkHamster
In my school they run win2k on machines with incredibly low ram (I dont know the exact number, but 64 at the most). The best is the way you can''t compile/run your projects (which are simple exercises in this or that, just console) with iExplore open.


Ahhh, Mac flashbacks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites