Hi everyone,

Can anyone help me about my gaming problems on Vista x64?


I am using:
    
- Intel Q6600 Processor
- Intel DP35DP Media Series MB with 4 Giga PC-6400 DDR2 RAM
- GeForce 8500 GT 512Mb DDR2
- WD5000AVVS Sata HDD (500 Giga)
- Microsoft Windows Vista x64 Operating System
  I have problems on my games such as Assasin's Creed, Crysis, CoD4, The
Witcher, World in Conflict, Need for Speed Prostreet, Hellgate: London,
especially NBA Live 2008; they are not running smoothly. When I was
still using Windows XP before and I am not yet using those specs I
mentioned above, they are working fine in medium graphic settings, oh,
NBA Live 2008 ran smoothly on maximum settings before. And now I am
using Vista x64 with all the specifications mentioned above and it seems
that it is better before than the specs I am using now. What should be
the problem? When I change graphic settings to maximum, everything is a
mess! Even in minimum settings in NBA Live 2008 is like hell on my
machine. Can someone give me a piece of advice? I just bought my new PC
for these games. Thanks a lot.


-- 
tangster03

tangster03;812934 Wrote: 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Can anyone help me about my gaming problems on Vista x64?
> 
> 
> I am using:
> >   >   > 
  - Intel Q6600 Processor
  - Intel DP35DP Media Series MB with 4 Giga PC-6400 DDR2 RAM
  - GeForce 8500 GT 512Mb DDR2
  - WD5000AVVS Sata HDD (500 Giga)
  - Microsoft Windows Vista x64 Operating System
  > > > 
> I have problems on my games such as Assasin's Creed, Crysis, CoD4,
> The Witcher, World in Conflict, Need for Speed Prostreet, Hellgate:
> London, especially NBA Live 2008; they are not running smoothly. When
> I was still using Windows XP before and I am not yet using those specs
> I mentioned above, they are working fine in medium graphic settings,
> oh, NBA Live 2008 ran smoothly on maximum settings before. And now I
> am using Vista x64 with all the specifications mentioned above and it
> seems that it is better before than the specs I am using now. What
> should be the problem? When I change graphic settings to maximum,
> everything is a mess! Even in minimum settings in NBA Live 2008 is
> like hell on my machine. Can someone give me a piece of advice? I just
> bought my new PC for these games. Thanks a lot.

it maybe as simple as updating your video driver ...
do you know what driver your currently running....?:)


-- 
skunksmash

E2180 @ 3.2ghz
arctic cooler pro 775
4GB gskill HZ @ 1050mhz
Asus P5K premium
160GB seagate 7200
coloursit 600w psu
PNY 8800GT 512mb

skunksmash;812953 Wrote: 
> > tangster03;812934 Wrote: 
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > Can anyone help me about my gaming problems on Vista x64?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I am using:
> > > >   > >   > > 
  > - Intel Q6600 Processor
  > - Intel DP35DP Media Series MB with 4 Giga PC-6400 DDR2 RAM
  > - GeForce 8500 GT 512Mb DDR2
  > - WD5000AVVS Sata HDD (500 Giga)
  > - Microsoft Windows Vista x64 Operating System
  > > > > > > I have problems on my games such as Assasin's Creed, Crysis, CoD4,
> > The Witcher, World in Conflict, Need for Speed Prostreet, Hellgate:
> > London, especially NBA Live 2008; they are not running smoothly.
> > When I was still using Windows XP before and I am not yet using
> > those specs I mentioned above, they are working fine in medium
> > graphic settings, oh, NBA Live 2008 ran smoothly on maximum settings
> > before. And now I am using Vista x64 with all the specifications
> > mentioned above and it seems that it is better before than the specs
> > I am using now. What should be the problem? When I change graphic
> > settings to maximum, everything is a mess! Even in minimum settings
> > in NBA Live 2008 is like hell on my machine. Can someone give me a
> > piece of advice? I just bought my new PC for these games. Thanks a
> > lot.> > 
> 
> it maybe as simple as updating your video driver ...
> do you know what driver your currently running....?:)

I have updated driver of my video card.  I downloaded it from
nvidia.com.  I am using version 175.19.


-- 
tangster03

HI 'tangster03,' (http://www.vistax64.com/members/tangster03.html)

What was your old video card on xp, it might be that you have
downgraded to a lowwer end vidieo card as the 8500 is a low range
starting point video card you would be much better off with nvidea's
9600GT 512MB or better for the games you have mentioned


-- 
Mr GRiM

Mr GRiM;812982 Wrote: 
> HI 'tangster03,' (http://www.vistax64.com/members/tangster03.html)
> 
> What was your old video card on xp, it might be that you have
> downgraded to a lowwer end vidieo card as the 8500 is a low range
> starting point video card you would be much better off with nvidea's
> 9600GT 512MB or better for the games you have mentioned

Hi Mr. Grim,
I didn't changed my graphics card from XP.  I was using my Nvidia
GeForce 8500 GT 512Mb on XP.


-- 
tangster03

"tangster03"  wrote in message 
news:7c859ea58eec98b4b7aa127d89c17116@nntp-gateway.com...
>
> Mr GRiM;812982 Wrote:
>> HI 'tangster03,' (http://www.vistax64.com/members/tangster03.html)
>>
>> What was your old video card on xp, it might be that you have
>> downgraded to a lowwer end vidieo card as the 8500 is a low range
>> starting point video card you would be much better off with nvidea's
>> 9600GT 512MB or better for the games you have mentioned
>
> Hi Mr. Grim,
> I didn't changed my graphics card from XP.  I was using my Nvidia
> GeForce 8500 GT 512Mb on XP.
>
>
> -- 
> tangster03


Vista shouldn't cause such a drop in performance. ur pc ain't bad, although the gfx is a little 
slow like someone mentioned.

Verify plz the following checklist, and correct in order specified

1) sound driver is upto date
2) disk has been fully defragmented since installing these games
3) there is over 15% free disk space
4) that ur CPU isn't accidently under clocked (pressing Windows key + Pause, and check the GHZ 
is reading 2.4)
5) please post ur vista spec scores here if u need more help, it may highlight a problem. shud 
range from 1.0 - 5.9 max
6) with 4GB RAM, u can disable virtual memory (or page file). This will improve performance in 
games. Goto control panel -> system -> advanced -> performance -> page file ---- change settings 
from system managed to none. You will need to restart ur machine, and ignore the memory dump 
message on crash, nobody understands those codes anyway lol.
7) check ur monitor resolution and refresh rate is right. Also in ur Nvidia control panel, goto 
advanced, and turn down ur additional features, such as maximum texture quality which is as 
auto.
8) download rivatuner, which lets u over clock ur Nvidia graphics card with a windows user 
interface, just drag the sliders, u can easily get another 10% out of ur graphics card.




-- 
Q9450 OC'd 3.8GHz
4x 2GB 1066Mhz RAM 1:1
9800GX2 1GB OC'd 680core/1060mem
1TB SpinPoint HDD
350GB secondary HDD
2x 22" HP w2207h
TrackIR
G15 keyboard
Logitech G9 Laser Mouse
MS ForceFeedBack 2 Joystick

64 bit drivers are a bit shaky for gaming
"tangster03"  wrote in message 
news:40e0c3e395b50cee431dc7a66bf6d1b0@nntp-gateway.com...
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Can anyone help me about my gaming problems on Vista x64?
>
>
> I am using:
>
> - Intel Q6600 Processor
> - Intel DP35DP Media Series MB with 4 Giga PC-6400 DDR2 RAM
> - GeForce 8500 GT 512Mb DDR2
> - WD5000AVVS Sata HDD (500 Giga)
> - Microsoft Windows Vista x64 Operating System
>  I have problems on my games such as Assasin's Creed, Crysis, CoD4, The
> Witcher, World in Conflict, Need for Speed Prostreet, Hellgate: London,
> especially NBA Live 2008; they are not running smoothly. When I was
> still using Windows XP before and I am not yet using those specs I
> mentioned above, they are working fine in medium graphic settings, oh,
> NBA Live 2008 ran smoothly on maximum settings before. And now I am
> using Vista x64 with all the specifications mentioned above and it seems
> that it is better before than the specs I am using now. What should be
> the problem? When I change graphic settings to maximum, everything is a
> mess! Even in minimum settings in NBA Live 2008 is like hell on my
> machine. Can someone give me a piece of advice? I just bought my new PC
> for these games. Thanks a lot.
>
>
> -- 
> tangster03

BigJim;813845 Wrote: 
> 64 bit drivers are a bit shaky for gaming
> "tangster03"  wrote in message
> news:40e0c3e395b50cee431dc7a66bf6d1b0@xxxxxx-gateway.com...> > > 
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Can anyone help me about my gaming problems on Vista x64?
> > >
> > >
> > > I am using:
> > >
> > > - Intel Q6600 Processor
> > > - Intel DP35DP Media Series MB with 4 Giga PC-6400 DDR2 RAM
> > > - GeForce 8500 GT 512Mb DDR2
> > > - WD5000AVVS Sata HDD (500 Giga)
> > > - Microsoft Windows Vista x64 Operating System
> > >  I have problems on my games such as Assasin's Creed, Crysis, CoD4,
> > The
> > > Witcher, World in Conflict, Need for Speed Prostreet, Hellgate:
> > London,
> > > especially NBA Live 2008; they are not running smoothly. When I was
> > > still using Windows XP before and I am not yet using those specs I
> > > mentioned above, they are working fine in medium graphic settings,
> > oh,
> > > NBA Live 2008 ran smoothly on maximum settings before. And now I am
> > > using Vista x64 with all the specifications mentioned above and it
> > seems
> > > that it is better before than the specs I am using now. What should
> > be
> > > the problem? When I change graphic settings to maximum, everything is
> > a
> > > mess! Even in minimum settings in NBA Live 2008 is like hell on my
> > > machine. Can someone give me a piece of advice? I just bought my new
> > PC
> > > for these games. Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > tangster03 > > 

BULL....

vista is perfect for gaming there is another reason at work here.
the game you wanna play are pretty intensive & the 8500 is a terrible
card...but you say they worked well on XP...??

don't suppose you have another graphics card to hand...?

bottom line mate your rig is pretty smart apart from the GPU...
chuck that relic in the bin & grab your self an 8800 :)


-- 
skunksmash

E2180 @ 3.2ghz
arctic cooler pro 775
4GB gskill HZ @ 1050mhz
Asus P5K premium
160GB seagate 7200
coloursit 600w psu
PNY 8800GT 512mb

Another big difference is if you are using directx 10 shaders which were
not available on XP. This will be putting a big strain on your graphics
as i have done bench mark tests on company of heroes and it can lower
your frame rate as much as half with DX10 enabled try playing your games
in DX9 mode.


-- 
Mr GRiM

Rob;813723 Wrote: 
> 
> Vista shouldn't cause such a drop in performance. ur pc ain't bad,
> although the gfx is a little
> slow like someone mentioned.
> 
> Verify plz the following checklist, and correct in order specified
> 
> 1) sound driver is upto date
> 2) disk has been fully defragmented since installing these games
> 3) there is over 15% free disk space
> 4) that ur CPU isn't accidently under clocked (pressing Windows key +
> Pause, and check the GHZ
> is reading 2.4)
> 5) please post ur vista spec scores here if u need more help, it may
> highlight a problem. shud
> range from 1.0 - 5.9 max
> 6) with 4GB RAM, u can disable virtual memory (or page file). This will
> improve performance in
> games. Goto control panel -> system -> advanced -> performance -> page
> file ---- change settings
> from system managed to none. You will need to restart ur machine, and
> ignore the memory dump
> message on crash, nobody understands those codes anyway lol.
> 7) check ur monitor resolution and refresh rate is right. Also in ur
> Nvidia control panel, goto
> advanced, and turn down ur additional features, such as maximum texture
> quality which is as
> auto.
> 8) download rivatuner, which lets u over clock ur Nvidia graphics card
> with a windows user
> interface, just drag the sliders, u can easily get another 10% out of
> ur graphics card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Q9450 OC'd 3.8GHz
> 4x 2GB 1066Mhz RAM 1:1
> 9800GX2 1GB OC'd 680core/1060mem
> 1TB SpinPoint HDD
> 350GB secondary HDD
> 2x 22" HP w2207h
> TrackIR
> G15 keyboard
> Logitech G9 Laser Mouse
> MS ForceFeedBack 2 Joystick

Hi Rob,

I am at the office now so I can't tell you specifically if my processor
is under clocked but as far as I remember in the System of my Control
Panel, the processor is Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40 GHz but
followed by a hyphen ~ 2.39 GHz, also it's the same with my DirectX
Diagnostic Tool.  So is it underclocked?  And if it is underclocked, how
will I change it back to its normal clock timing.

Another thing Rob, can you help me how to use RivaTuner and how to
overclock my graphics card by 10%?  Can i change it higher than 10%?

And about disabling my Virtual Memory, is it okay I disable it?  No
harm will happen to my machine?  And that memory dump error you were
saying, it it the "Blue Screen Error Message?"


-- 
tangster03

skunksmash;813848 Wrote: 
>  
> BULL....
> 
> vista is perfect for gaming there is another reason at work here.
> the games you wanna play are pretty intensive & the 8500 is a terrible
> card...but you say they worked well on XP...??
> 
> don't suppose you have another graphics card to hand...?
> 
> bottom line mate your rig is pretty smart apart from the GPU...
> chuck that relic in the bin & grab your self an 8800 :)

Hello skunksmash,

For now I will not add any more graphic card because of the budget, but
sooner or later I will.  What do you prefer?  Considering the budget,
what graphic card is much powerful than my current card?


-- 
tangster03

Mr GRiM;813850 Wrote: 
> Another big difference is if you are using directx 10 shaders which were
> not available on XP. This will be putting a big strain on your graphics
> as i have done bench mark tests on company of heroes and it can lower
> your frame rate as much as half with DX10 enabled try playing your games
> in DX9 mode.

Thanks for the info Mr. GRiM.  :)


-- 
tangster03

Your rig is not underclocked and is perfect for playing games, you could
start to overclock your CPU and your GPU but unless you know what you
are doing you would more likely do harm then good. The only posible
reason for your poor performance would have to be your graphics card,
the only solution would be to upgrade or just dont play any of the games
you want, its your choice!!


-- 
Mr GRiM

Video cards you might want to consider are the 8800GT or the 9600GT
which are both 256bit cards and almost equal in performance and price
although the the later is a newer chip set and a bit cheaper. I myself
have a 9600GT factory overclocked for $250 AUS and I have a mate with a
8800 and they perform fairly evenly. If on the other hand you want a
card for the next gen games I would buy a 
Gigabyte N26-896H-B (Geforce GTX260, 896MB) which cost about $359 AUS
or the GTX280 which is twice that amount but is definately a good card.
Sorry I havn't mentioned ATI cards but they just dont apeal to me
lately.


-- 
Mr GRiM

Mr GRiM;813871 Wrote: 
> Video cards you might want to consider are the 8800GT or the 9600GT
> which are both 256bit cards and almost equal in performance and price
> although the the later is a newer chip set and a bit cheaper. I myself
> have a 9600GT factory overclocked for $250 AUS and I have a mate with a
> 8800 and they perform fairly evenly. If on the other hand you want a
> card for the next gen games I would buy a 
> Gigabyte N26-896H-B (Geforce GTX260, 896MB) which cost about $359 AUS
> or the GTX280 which is twice that amount but is definately a good card.
> Sorry I havn't mentioned ATI cards but they just dont apeal to me
> lately.

Thanks again for the info mate.  I will consider your replies. :)


-- 
tangster03

following Mr grims post....

the 9600GT & 8800GT would be a huge improvement over your current set
up

what res do you play at...?
:)


-- 
skunksmash

E2180 @ 3.2ghz
arctic cooler pro 775
4GB gskill HZ @ 1050mhz
Asus P5K premium
160GB seagate 7200
coloursit 600w psu
PNY 8800GT 512mb

skunksmash;813876 Wrote: 
> following Mr grims post....
> 
> the 9600GT & 8800GT would be a huge improvement over your current set
> up
> 
> what res do you play at...?
> :)

The highest resolution for 22 inch LCD monitor..  I forgot what because
I am currently at the office.


-- 
tangster03

tangster03;813879 Wrote: 
> > skunksmash;813876 Wrote: 
> > following Mr grims post....
> > 
> > the 9600GT & 8800GT would be a huge improvement over your current set
> > up
> > 
> > what res do you play at...?
> > :)> > 
> 
> The highest resolution for 22 inch LCD monitor..  I forgot what
> because I am currently at the office.

::1680x1050...

the 8800 is the king at this res & they are dirt cheap too.
though the 9600 would be fine..

& if you like team red (ATI) they will soon release their HD4650
which will perform like a 3870 but at half the price :)
::::
::::the 4850 is a super card but its power hungry
::


-- 
skunksmash

E2180 @ 3.2ghz
arctic cooler pro 775
4GB gskill HZ @ 1050mhz
Asus P5K premium
160GB seagate 7200
coloursit 600w psu
PNY 8800GT 512mb

Just one more thought about your problem, you might posibly have a virus
or something like that which could also be slowing performance or a bad
hardware driver or a program that might have conflicts with other
software. I had a problem with all my games and apps going extreamly
slow and did not detect a virus but when i went to this site that
explained to me all the windows services that I could change or disable
'Windows Vista Services Explained'
(http://www.speedyvista.com/services.php) I followed this guide and all
my problems were fixed and it was better then it ever was. Hopefully
this might be of some help to you. BRINK also does very helpful
tutorials for speeding up Vista
http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/81176-speed-up-performance-vista.html


-- 
Mr GRiM

Don't disable the swap file, there's nothing to gain from it. It doesn't
give you any extra performance, it will just give you problems if your
computer runs out of memory.

Here's why; There is no way to disable virtual memory entirely, the
effect of removing the swap file is that the system will swap to RAM
instead, effectively reducing the amount of memory available for
applications. To increase performance, set the swap file to a fixed size
(I usually set it to equal the size of my physical RAM).


-- 
mike-cow

Mr GRiM;813900 Wrote: 
> Just one more thought about your problem, you might posibly have a virus
> or something like that which could also be slowing performance or a bad
> hardware driver or a program that might have conflicts with other
> software. I had a problem with all my games and apps going extreamly
> slow and did not detect a virus but when i went to this site that
> explained to me all the windows services that I could change or disable
> 'Windows Vista Services Explained'
> (http://www.speedyvista.com/services.php) I followed this guide and all
> my problems were fixed and it was better then it ever was. Hopefully
> this might be of some help to you. BRINK also does very helpful
> tutorials for speeding up Vista
> http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/81176-speed-up-performance-vista.html
> 
> Sorry the site I found was not the one metioned but has acctualy gone
> but this one is where it was mirrored from 'Windows Vista Custom
> Services Registry File'
> (http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/customREG.htm)

I just installed the operating system.  I don't think it's a virus or
something.


-- 
tangster03

mike-cow;813915 Wrote: 
> Don't disable the swap file, there's nothing to gain from it. It doesn't
> give you any extra performance, it will just give you problems if your
> computer runs out of memory.
> 
> Here's why; There is no way to disable virtual memory entirely, the
> effect of removing the swap file is that the system will swap to RAM
> instead, effectively reducing the amount of memory available for
> applications. To increase performance, set the swap file to a fixed size
> (I usually set it to equal the size of my physical RAM).

So if I have 4 Gb of RAM, I will set my virual memory to 4 Gb also?


-- 
tangster03

tangster03;813949 Wrote: 
> 
> So if I have 4 Gb of RAM, I will set my virual memory to 4 Gb also?

That's the way I like to keep it, and I've had no trouble (yet). :)


-- 
mike-cow

mike-cow;814960 Wrote: 
> > tangster03;813949 Wrote: 
> > 
> > So if I have 4 Gb of RAM, I will set my virual memory to 4 Gb also?> > 
> 
> That's the way I like to keep it, and I've had no trouble (yet). :)

Will it speed up my system?  Increasing virtual memory can speed up the
process of programs?  What's the difference of sticking to the default
virtual memory size and increasing virtual memory size equalled to
physical RAMs?


-- 
tangster03

tangster03;814965 Wrote: 
> Will it speed up my system?  Increasing virtual memory can speed up the
> process of programs?  What's the difference of sticking to the default
> virtual memory size and increasing virtual memory size equalled to
> physical RAMs?

I don't know if adjusting the size has an effect on how windows use the
virtual memory, I just like to keep things consistent. What I DO know
though, is that setting it to something fixed will prevent windows from
doing resizing of the virtual memory, which results in less disk
operation under certain conditions.


-- 
mike-cow

mike-cow;814970 Wrote: 
>  
> I don't know if adjusting the size has an effect on how windows use the
> virtual memory, I just like to keep things consistent. What I DO know
> though, is that setting it to something fixed will prevent windows from
> doing resizing of the virtual memory, which results in less disk
> operation under certain conditions.

So what would be the fixed virtual memory size for 4GB RAM?


-- 
tangster03

hello evrybody..i have vista and a lot of games like sims2,lord of the
rings,simpsons:hit and run,warcraft3.whats the problem?


-- 
Eva Cash

Hi tangster, what was the specification ie equipment and operating
system you were using previously. As for fixed virtual memory size, I
would not start adjusting stuff until you got a better idea of why your
machine was performing below expectations. 

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer


-- 
Adrian Wainer

Eva Cash;816270 Wrote: 
> hello evrybody..i have vista and a lot of games like sims2,lord of the
> rings,simpsons:hit and run,warcraft3.whats the problem?

Hi and Welcome, I can't figure out, whether you are?

1 asking a question
2 making a statement
3 a mixture of 2 and 3 :confused:

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer


-- 
Adrian Wainer

tangster03;812934 Wrote: 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Can anyone help me about my gaming problems on Vista x64?
> 
> 
> I am using:
> >   >   > 
  - Intel Q6600 Processor
  - Intel DP35DP Media Series MB with 4 Giga PC-6400 DDR2 RAM
  - GeForce 8500 GT 512Mb DDR2
  - WD5000AVVS Sata HDD (500 Giga)
  - Microsoft Windows Vista x64 Operating System
  > > > 
> I have problems on my games such as Assasin's Creed, Crysis, CoD4,
> The Witcher, World in Conflict, Need for Speed Prostreet, Hellgate:
> London, especially NBA Live 2008; they are not running smoothly. When
> I was still using Windows XP before and I am not yet using those specs
> I mentioned above, they are working fine in medium graphic settings,
> oh, NBA Live 2008 ran smoothly on maximum settings before. And now I
> am using Vista x64 with all the specifications mentioned above and it
> seems that it is better before than the specs I am using now. What
> should be the problem? When I change graphic settings to maximum,
> everything is a mess! Even in minimum settings in NBA Live 2008 is
> like hell on my machine. Can someone give me a piece of advice? I just
> bought my new PC for these games. Thanks a lot.Oh where to start? 

The first thing you should do is undo any changes you may have made to
the page file, aka swap file. There are dozens of guides online telling
you how to disable it given x amount of RAM, put it on another drive,
set it to this or set it to that, but the fact of the matter remains
that Windows has always done a very good job of managing the swap file
on it's own. You're not going to see any performance gain disabling the
swap file. Besides, that's misleading; Windows *will always* create for
itself a swap file no matter what you do so it's best to just let it do
its thing. 

Right click on Computer and select properties. Select Advanced System
Settings and in the System Properties box select the Advanced tab.
Select Settings in the Performance menu and then again select the
Advanced tab. When it asks, "Adjust for best performance of", place a
check mark in "programs". Hit apply, then close out and never worry
about your swap file again. The swap file is *not* why you have poor
performance in games. With 4GB's of RAM, the swap file is of no concern
to you.

Your cpu is fine. That Vista reports 2.39GHz instead of 2.4 is nothing
to concern yourself over. A 2.4GHz Conroe is still more than enough cpu
to run any game you play. Even though not all of your games are
optimized for a multicore cpu, 1 core is more than sufficient. On the
games that are optimized, you're good to go. You can overclock the cpu
if you'd like, but lack of cpu strength isn't your problem. 

Neither is that Vista is forcing DX10 down your throat. For example,
CoD is a DX9 game, which Vista fully supports, it does not use DX10 in
this case. For those games that do use DX10, well, you were going to
have a problem with those anyway... I'll get to why later. A good
suggestion though would be to update your DirectX. Go here for the
appropriate installer:
http://www.vistax64.com/gaming/162064-latest-directx-update.html

Your basic problem with games is the video card you're trying to run
them on. > If you take graphics and gaming seriously, then this is not the graphics
> card for you. However, it is adequate for older, less
> graphically-demanding games and/or basic computing.'PNY GeForce 8500GT 512MB Review » Page 11 - Conclusion - Overclockers
Club' (http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/8500gt/11.htm)
You can read the full review beginning here, but ^ was the essence of
it: 'PNY GeForce 8500GT 512MB Review - Overclockers Club'
(http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/8500gt/) You'll find very
little variation between reviews on these cards. You *can* overclock the
video card, but since it has such poor cooling, you'd be running a
tremendous risk. To boot, overclocking would not get you past the basic
problem with the card: its architecture. It's only got 32 stream
processors and a 128-bit interface. Overclocking isn't going to change
that.

You're trying to play modern games on a card that was not designed for
modern gaming at a resolution which is making it choke. I'm not at all
surprised at your results given a monitor with a native resolution of
1680x1050. It's a shame really because the rest of your system is so
nice... it's just this one area that's really dragging the whole rig
down. :( You should really consider getting your video situation inline
with the rest of your components. As skunk mentioned earlier, the 8800's
are dirt cheap right now. If you really want amazing performance, the
best bang for the buck these days is the ATI 4850 or 4870. They're both
very fast and very well priced.


-- 
Fumz

Fumz;816795 Wrote: 
> The first thing you should do is undo any changes you may have made to
> the page file, aka swap file. There are dozens of guides online telling
> you how to disable it given x amount of RAM, put it on another drive,
> set it to this or set it to that, but the fact of the matter remains
> that Windows has always done a very good job of managing the swap file
> on its own. You're not going to see any performance gain disabling the
> swap file. Besides, that's misleading; Windows *will always* create for
> itself a swap file no matter what you do so it's best to just let it do
> its thing.

I do agree that windows vista does a nice job handling *when* to swap
stuff. XP was a bit annoyingingly swapping out stuff that was idle even
though memory really wasn't needed, I haven't noticed that behaviour
with vista.

While vista is better at resizing the swap file than XP ever was, I
still think it's a major annoyance. I don't like losing hundreds of
megabytes of drivespace on a whim of the OS. I've not run out of memory
a single time with my current setup, if I do, I buy more memory. :geek:

*The most important thing when running a fixed swap, is to remember
that you're doing it.*


-- 
mike-cow

On a whim? 

Vista does not increase the size of the swap file simply to annoy; swap
file size is a function of swap file usage. If the system doesn't *need*
to page a lot, it doesn't, and space is returned; however, if it does on
occasion need the space, it takes it.

Letting Windows manage the swap file, since we agree it's always been
rather good at it is a lot less annoying than trying to keep an eye on
it yourself... and for what? I've been reading about guys doing all
kinds of things with their swap files for years, never once have I seen
any of them offer any evidence whatsoever of better gaming performance.

If someone has so little RAM that they're using the swap file when
gaming, then adjusting the swap file is the least of their worries. As
long as one is forced to page while gaming, moving it, resizing it or
turning it off isn't going to change crappy game performance one bit. No
matter what you do with the swap file, it's still on a slow hard drive.
As you said, correctly, only more RAM is the answer.

Anyway, the OP has 4GB's, which is more than sufficient, so the last
thing he should do is go off on some wild goose chase messing with a
swap file that worked very good *before* he messed with it.


-- 
Fumz

I didn't intend to start a debate with my post.

I consider *all* disk activity that can be avoided as unnecessary
wearing of my drive (indexing and variable swap file are 2 excellent
example of just that). There are 2 reasons to have swap resizable, it
can be dynamically enlarged to allow the system to handle more than it
could otherwise, or it could be shrunk to save disk space. I don't use
anything that require even close to  the 4GB swap I have set, and I have
enough disk space to not need the extra space produced by shrinking it.

> Letting Windows manage the swap file, since we agree it's always been
> rather good at it is a lot less annoying than trying to keep an eye on
> it yourself...
Hehe, read my post again and you'll notice we aren't THAT much in
agreement on that particular point.

I've used a fixed swap since Windows 3.1, and I've *never* had problems
with it (except when I experimented a bit with testing if I got
performance gains when using a small swap file, which resulted in the
fact that it didn't make a difference at all). So any annoyances caused
by a fixed swap file only applies to having a too small one.

If you still think I'm full of crap, please say so, but unless you
bring up some serious proof that my logic is flawed I'll not argue more
about this.


-- 
mike-cow

It's not that I think you're "full of crap", it's that I think adjusting
the swap file is utterly pointless. Again, until someone, anyone, is
able to demonstrate that adjusting the swap file improves gaming
performance, I will maintain that doing it yourself is a pointless
pursuit. 

Your views and suggestions aren't new, I've seen countless threads that
are identical. > do it, it works great!!! *except when*...It goes on to recommend this less than perfect setup to others who don't
have an "except when"... and at least in this case, when it's completely
irrelevant as swap file usage *was never an issue* for the OP. A system
with 4GB's of RAM isn't experiencing slowdowns in gaming because of the
swap file.

While I don't really want to start an argument either, there's nothing
wrong with discussion... and frankly, I don't quite get the logic of
your last post? Your main complaint seems to be that you don't like
"unnecessary wearing" of your drive; however, I don't see how what
you've done accomplishes that? 

First, I don't understand the term unnecessary wearing? Nothing
actually touches the platters, so simply writing doesn't "wear"
anything. The wear and tear a hard drive experiences is mechanical, and
as long as it's spinning, you're never going to stop that. Second,
setting the swap file to a certain size does not stop apps from paging,
so you have not "prevented" unnecessary wearing here either. The only
thing you've prevented is letting Windows dynamically change the size of
the swap file... and that doesn't require writing, so again, I don't get
where the "wear and tear" notion comes from?

If you don't like the idea that the size of the swap is constantly
changing, well, then ok, but really, that's a pet peeve of yours as
opposed to a legitimate complaint about the functionality of Windows,
right? I mean, one can live quite well without adjusting the swap file
and never know it's size or that it's constantly changing, right?
Further, in these days of large hundreds of GB low priced drives,
worrying about a couple hundred MB is a little... hmm, well, let's just
leave it at "it's your pet peeve".

There are a lot of things that just come second nature to long time
Windows users that just don't apply to Vista. This might be one of them?
You're so used to manually setting the page yourself you never stopped
to wonder if it was worth it anymore? I mean Windows has come quite a
way since 3.1, right? I'm guilty of that too, we all are to one degree
or another. I'm not flaming you for that, or anything... we're just
talking bout Windows. :)


-- 
Fumz

Fumz;817979 Wrote: 
> 
> Your views and suggestions aren't new, I've seen countless threads that
> are identical. > > > do it, it works great!!! *except when*...> > It goes on to recommend this less than perfect setup to others who
> don't have an "except when"... and at least in this case, when it's
> completely irrelevant as swap file usage *was never an issue* for the
> OP. A system with 4GB's of RAM isn't experiencing slowdowns in gaming
> because of the swap file.
> 
While it has never happened for me in Vista, I have had trouble with
performance because of the swap file. In the end it was fixed with an
updated storage driver, but until it got released I got a huge diff in
performance by using a fixed size.

> 
> While I don't really want to start an argument either, there's nothing
> wrong with discussion... and frankly, I don't quite get the logic of
> your last post? Your main complaint seems to be that you don't like
> "unnecessary wearing" of your drive; however, I don't see how what
> you've done accomplishes that? 
> 
> First, I don't understand the term unnecessary wearing? Nothing
> actually touches the platters, so simply writing doesn't "wear"
> anything. The wear and tear a hard drive experiences is mechanical, and
> as long as it's spinning, you're never going to stop that. Second,
> setting the swap file to a certain size does not stop apps from paging,
> so you have not "prevented" unnecessary wearing here either. The only
> thing you've prevented is letting Windows dynamically change the size of
> the swap file... and that doesn't require writing, so again, I don't get
> where the "wear and tear" notion comes from?
> 
All drives have limited read/write cycles. And while the platters may
not experience wear and tear, the arm is still moving. Using your logic
a hard drive wouldn't break before the electronics fails, and that's
defenitely not true. There is a *very* obvious difference in lifespan on
disks that are placed in heavy disk activity systems (mainly servers)
compared to a regular home PC. It's a well known fact that Vista cause A
LOT more disk activity than XP ever did.

> 
> If you don't like the idea that the size of the swap is constantly
> changing, well, then ok, but really, that's a pet peeve of yours as
> opposed to a legitimate complaint about the functionality of Windows,
> right? I mean, one can live quite well without adjusting the swap file
> and never know it's size or that it's constantly changing, right?
> Further, in these days of large hundreds of GB low priced drives,
> worrying about a couple hundred MB is a little... hmm, well, let's just
> leave it at "it's your pet peeve".
> 
> There are a lot of things that just come second nature to long time
> Windows users that just don't apply to Vista. This might be one of them?
> You're so used to manually setting the page yourself you never stopped
> to wonder if it was worth it anymore? I mean Windows has come quite a
> way since 3.1, right? I'm guilty of that too, we all are to one degree
> or another. I'm not flaming you for that, or anything... we're just
> talking bout Windows. :)

Perhaps I'm overly protective of my hardware, but in my opinion it's
not unwarranted.


-- 
mike-cow

When something is "noticeable", it means just that, that it's readily
apparent that the tweak noticeably changes performance. I've seen nobody
else suggest that altering the swap file has any effect on game
performance, or for that matter, Vista performance. If it did increase
performance, I imagine it would be one of the entries in the guides here
at Vistax64, but the notorious swap file tweak is  conspicuously
abscent:
http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/81176-speed-up-performance-vista.html

With the appropriate amount of memory, games only use the hard drive to
load the maps, games don't use hard drives while actually playing the
game; that's all done in RAM. So nothing done to the swap file will give
you a performance increase because it's making an adjustment to
something that isn't used. It's like saying you noticed performance
increases in HL2 because you overclocked your floppy drive... :confused:

My logic? 

The situation you described certainly doesn't follow my logic. I never
said a word about electronics. :rolleyes: I said, "The wear and tear a
hard drive experiences is mechanical, and as long as it's spinning,
you're never going to stop that". Spindle movement up and down the
platters is also mechanical, not electronic. As long as you have moving
parts, those parts are going to break down. Hard drives break down,
that's just a fact of life. 

Does Vista use the hard drive more than previous OS's, yes, never said
it didn't. However, if you're looking for places to increase
performance, I'd probably suggest disabling indexing long before I
suggested messing with something that works really well. If you're
worried about the life span of your hard drives, l'd suggest keeping
them cool; also before messing with the page file, for the reasons
stated above.

Again though, I think you missed my point? Creating a static swap file
does not stop page file usage, it only prevents the file from being
dynamic. Because of this, not only do your concerns about not wanting
more spindle movement not make sense to me, because you haven't stopped
spindle movement, but the suggestion that you see performance gains also
baffles me? If you're forced to use the swap file while gaming, then
nothing you do to the swap file will improve performance... unless of
course you mean that instead of getting 15 fps in a game, after
adjusting the swap file, you got 17 fps? I don't think I'd notice
something like that? 

If your spindle breaks down before its life cycle, then it wasn't
because you didn't adjust your swap file, it's because of mechanical
failure, and if a part is going to break down due to mechanical failure,
changing the swap file isn't going to forestall the event.


-- 
Fumz

Fumz;818344 Wrote: 
> If your spindle breaks down before its life cycle, then it wasn't
> because you didn't adjust your swap file, it's because of mechanical
> failure, and if a part is going to break down due to mechanical failure,
> changing the swap file isn't going to forestall the event.

So reduced reading/writing of the disk will not affect its lifespan?
I'm convinced that it defenitely does just that. But you're entitled to
your own opinion even though it doesnt make sense to me.

Oh, btw... You're right in your point that apps swap regardless of how
my swapfile is set. But we already agreed on the fact that windows does
a fairly good job on that. The resizing is totally wasted diskactivity
in my opinion. If windows *only* increased the size of the swap when
needed it would be fine, but there is NO point in having it reduced,
specially since it's VERY likely that if it does increase it once it'll
do it again when I run the same app. So I set it to 4GB and forget about
it, knowing I'll not hit a total of 8GB RAM usage anytime soon, and stay
happy with my average of 7 years use on every hard drive I've bought.

I've also stated from the start that the performance gain applies to
specific conditions.. It's not like you'll get 10k extra horsepowers out
of the computer because of it.


-- 
mike-cow

Can we just leave this thread as finished as I don't think this is
really going to benefit anyone and I don't want to receive any more mail
on this topic about swap files.
Lets all just be friends and just try to help others with their
relevant problems.


-- 
Mr GRiM

Mr. Grim,

If you don't want to receive any more emails about this, or any topic,
then go to your User Control Panel and unsubscribe this thread.

Mike-cow,

I'm not sure how you can admit that you have not prevented your apps
from paging, and at the same time convince yourself you've reduced the
wear and tear on your spindles. You've done nothing to reduce spindle
activity. 

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said " reducing reading/writing
of the disk will not affect its lifespan", what I said what that you
have not accomplished any reduction.


-- 
Fumz

Let me finish by saying that mike-cow neglected to inform the OP of the
most important part of page file manipulation: *it must be done on a
fresh drive with a clean install of Windows*.

If you attempt to manipulate the page file *after* you've installed a
bunch of applications, then doing so *increases* spindle activity. In
this situation, spindle activity is increased because on a drive that's
loaded up with apps, the page file will be non-contiguous... which is
bad... in short, your page file will be split into at least two parts,
so you write to one part, Windows finds that it's full, then it must
seek to the other part(s) of the page file. It's the exact opposite of
what you want to accomplish.


-- 
Fumz

Fumz;816795 Wrote: 
> > tangster03;812934 Wrote: 
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > Can anyone help me about my gaming problems on Vista x64?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I am using:
> > > >   > >   > > 
  > - Intel Q6600 Processor
  > - Intel DP35DP Media Series MB with 4 Giga PC-6400 DDR2 RAM
  > - GeForce 8500 GT 512Mb DDR2
  > - WD5000AVVS Sata HDD (500 Giga)
  > - Microsoft Windows Vista x64 Operating System
  > > > > > > I have problems on my games such as Assasin's Creed, Crysis, CoD4,
> > The Witcher, World in Conflict, Need for Speed Prostreet, Hellgate:
> > London, especially NBA Live 2008; they are not running smoothly.
> > When I was still using Windows XP before and I am not yet using
> > those specs I mentioned above, they are working fine in medium
> > graphic settings, oh, NBA Live 2008 ran smoothly on maximum settings
> > before. And now I am using Vista x64 with all the specifications
> > mentioned above and it seems that it is better before than the specs
> > I am using now. What should be the problem? When I change graphic
> > settings to maximum, everything is a mess! Even in minimum settings
> > in NBA Live 2008 is like hell on my machine. Can someone give me a
> > piece of advice? I just bought my new PC for these games. Thanks a
> > lot.> > Oh where to start? 
> 
> The first thing you should do is undo any changes you may have made
> to the page file, aka swap file. There are dozens of guides online
> telling you how to disable it given x amount of RAM, put it on another
> drive, set it to this or set it to that, but the fact of the matter
> remains that Windows has always done a very good job of managing the
> swap file on its own. You're not going to see any performance gain
> disabling the swap file. Besides, that's misleading; Windows *will
> always* create for itself a swap file no matter what you do so it's
> best to just let it do its thing. 
> 
> Right click on Computer and select properties. Select Advanced System
> Settings and in the System Properties box select the Advanced tab.
> Select Settings in the Performance menu and then again select the
> Advanced tab. When it asks, "Adjust for best performance of", place a
> check mark in "programs". Hit apply, then close out and never worry
> about your swap file again. The swap file is *not* why you have poor
> performance in games. With 4GB's of RAM, the swap file is of no
> concern to you.
> 
> Your cpu is fine. That Vista reports 2.39GHz instead of 2.4 is
> nothing to concern yourself over. A 2.4GHz Conroe is still more than
> enough cpu to run any game you play. Even though not all of your games
> are optimized for a multicore cpu, 1 core is more than sufficient. On
> the games that are optimized, you're good to go. You can overclock the
> cpu if you'd like, but lack of cpu strength isn't your problem. Games
> are gpu limited, not cpu limited, and even if they were... it still
> wouldn't be your problem.
> 
> Neither is that Vista is forcing DX10 down your throat. For example,
> CoD is a DX9 game, which Vista fully supports, it does not use DX10 in
> this case. For those games that do use DX10, well, you were going to
> have a problem with those anyway... I'll get to why later. A good
> suggestion though would be to update your DirectX. Go here for the
> appropriate installer:
> http://www.vistax64.com/gaming/162064-latest-directx-update.html
> 
> Your basic problem with games is the video card you're trying to run
> them on. > > > If you take graphics and gaming seriously, then this is not the graphics
> > card for you. However, it is adequate for older, less
> > graphically-demanding games and/or basic computing.> > 'PNY GeForce 8500GT 512MB Review » Page 11 - Conclusion - Overclockers
> Club' (http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/8500gt/11.htm)
> 
> You can read the full review beginning here, but ^ was the essence of
> it: 'PNY GeForce 8500GT 512MB Review - Overclockers Club'
> (http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/8500gt/) You'll find very
> little variation between reviews on these cards. You *can* overclock
> the video card, but since it has such poor cooling, you'd be running a
> tremendous risk. To boot, overclocking would not get you past the
> basic problem with the card: its architecture. It's only got 32 stream
> processors and a 128-bit interface. Overclocking isn't going to change
> that.
> 
> You're trying to play modern games on a card that was not designed
> for modern gaming at a resolution which is making it choke. I'm not at
> all surprised at your results given a monitor with a native resolution
> of 1680x1050. It's a shame really because the rest of your system is
> so nice... it's just this one area that's really dragging the whole
> rig down. :( You should really consider getting your video situation
> inline with the rest of your components. As skunk mentioned earlier,
> the 8800's are dirt cheap right now. If you really want amazing
> performance, the best bang for the buck these days is the ATI 4850 or
> 4870. They're both very fast and very well priced.

Hello Fumz,

Thanks for the advices.  I just read your reply, I was very busy with
my job.  I will consider getting new good graphics adapter as soon as I
receive my salary.  Can you tell me the specs of the ATI cards you
mentioned?  and the prices as well.  Sorry man, I am not good with ATI
that is why I don't know much about ATI products.


-- 
tangster03

Fumz;818913 Wrote: 
> Let me finish by saying that mike-cow neglected to inform the OP of the
> most important part of page file manipulation: *it must be done on a
> fresh drive with a clean install of Windows*.

There are plenty of programs that can defragment the swap file, so
that's not true.

Windows resizes the swap drive when it *believes* there's a chance that
it may be needed, then shrinks it when it *believes* it's not needed
anymore. That's wasted disk activity.

And... I've never claimed that I prevent windows from swapping.

Other than that, I don't think there's more to say about this
particular subject.


-- 
mike-cow

"tangster03"  wrote in message 
news:b30ed574895eb7f9f2b1d5931fd5e768@nntp-gateway.com...

> Thanks for the advices.  I just read your reply, I was very busy with
> my job.  I will consider getting new good graphics adapter as soon as I
> receive my salary.  Can you tell me the specs of the ATI cards you
> mentioned?  and the prices as well.  Sorry man, I am not good with ATI
> that is why I don't know much about ATI products.

I went from a 8800GT to a ATI 4870 [$310Aus] & it rocks, a must faster card

tangster03;819275 Wrote: 
>   Can you tell me the specs of the ATI cards you mentioned?  and the
> prices as well.  Sorry man, I am not good with ATI that is why I don't
> know much about ATI products.

The 4850 (which I have) is less than $200. I'd recommend the ASUS
version as ASUS supplies a utility for the card to control the fan speed
which others do not. It's an excellent card, I was really debating hard
among the cards and decided on this as two of them in crossfire perform
slightly better than an nVidia GTX280 but cost much less.

So far I only have one card, and it plays Crysis on my 22" monitor
butter smooth at very high settings. I'll add another one, but so far I
haven't felt the need to as every game I play runs fantastic.

I'd also recommend a 3rd party cooler, like the Zalman 1000 for this
card as the reference cooler that everyone uses is lame and the card
gets hot. True also of the HD4870, and really about any top end card
will benefit from a 3rd party cooler.

You can find overclocked cards now too, using different coolers from
reference:
'Newegg.com - ASUS EAH4850 TOP/HTDI/512M Radeon HD 4850 512MB
256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video
Card - Desktop Graphics / Video Cards'
(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121272)


-- 
SgtBaxter

Q9450@3.4 - Asus P5Q Deluxe - 8GB Corsair Dominator @ 1066 - 2x 750GB
Seagate - Asus 4850 - CoolerMaster RealPower Pro 850W - Cosmos 1000 -
CoolerMaster V8 CPU Cooler

@'tangster03

Well i thing the swap file has small effect of the performance
especially if you have 4 gb physical memory.. The best you can do with
this is to make a partition 2~4 gb and use it only for swap file so
there is no fragment..  Also check in your bios if the option “memory
remap feature.” is enabled it this option is very good if you have more
than 3 gbs memory or run a 64 bit os
' (http://www.vistax64.com/members/tangster03.html)


-- 
asvestomix