Printable View
http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/forum/...howtopic=12468
The most anticipated driver ever has finally been released/leaked or what ever you may like to call it.
8800 Users can now rejoice in finally having support in Vista which is not even released yet.
32 bit: http://216.69.143.19/nvidia/100series/10030_vista.exe
64 bit: http://216.69.143.19/nvidia/100series/10030_vista64.exe
Now how we will test DX10 capabilities of this driver??
It's like 0 DX10 apps available ;)
Mightbe nVidia relelased demos for DX10?
i'm gonna have to reinstall vista again to use the drivers this time
thanks
you can test the dx10 capabilities with the aero engine
aero runs on dx9 i thought?
if you don't have a dx10 card aero runs on dx9 yes
according to someone at nvnews, 3dmarks scores are higher in vista.
64bit Vista driver?
I thought we already established that VISTA 64 was at least another year away lol.
Omg Omg Omg!!!
Can somebody confirm/deny this?Quote:
Originally Posted by HaLDoL
It works. I'm using it now. I'm so excited.
yeah it works and i got a 5.9 rating for it too :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jbizzler
thanks a lot man!!
try 3dmark and compare with xp please
Vista Aero allways use DX9Ex!!Quote:
Originally Posted by HaLDoL
no, i thought aero always runs dx9, and dx10 only handles the games, including dx9 emulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaLDoL
That's not true, vista should be faster because the GUI is shut down when running games. It produces less overhead so more resources are available to games.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
The only reason dx9 games will be slower is because dx9 has to be emulated through dx10 and vista drivers aren't probably up to par with their xp counterparts
That's not logical. Vista emulates dx9 through dx10, so according to you they emulate the dx9 aero gui through dx10????Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
you can turn aero off at will.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
with DX9 card 3DMarks in 32bit vista are lower, CPU tests was higher in my case, haven't tired with 8800 yet
That simply is not true! DX9 is not emulated under Vista!!Quote:
Originally Posted by HaLDoL
Please check MSDN before stating this nonsense!
The DX10 apps in the SDK run just fine!!!!!!
If you can, bench Company of Heroes on Vista. I run rez 1920x1200, and in XP, with NOT everything quite turned up, I was lucky to get 15fps in the in-game benchmark. In Vista 64-bit, 1920x1200 EVERYTHING turned up, I get...wait for it...55 :banana::banana::banana::banana:in FPS!!!! Check my sig for hardware. You 8800 users should see some amazing things soon. And DX9 runs fine in Vista. No noticable performance, if any at all.
Just use the classic theme of Win2k for more performance.
is this really true????? hmmmm if so hey u guys over @ crytek its time for a crysis CES demo... huh?
actually you are really trading off one loss of performance for another. Having a GPU dependent GUI means that CPU has less work to do, if you switch to old (software based) rendering then the CPU gets to do work. In a seance if you get DX10 card with decent Vista drivers the improvement of WDDM over XP drivers will/should equal XP performance even with GPU based GUI running in the back. The only reason why MS is saying expect such loss performance over XP due to mostly DX9 cards and not that good WDDM based drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
OT:Quote:
Originally Posted by HaLDoL
It's been a while since i saw you here posting :toast:
Great to see you back;)
With me 3D mark01 was faster on 32Bit Vista and Super PI was lowerQuote:
Originally Posted by zbogorgon
I guess you don't know what DX10 stands for, besides most people that invest in Vista and G80 have Dual Core by now but that's irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn.
now at least those complaining about the lack of drivers for the G80 and vista can shut up. I still don't have a "need" for vista. I hope DX10 gets back ported or something.
WTF?!Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
All i did was make fair point about how some part of your PC's resources will still be used no matter what type of GUI you use and all you say i dont know what DirectX v10.0 means?
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT?!Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Sorry lol but Vista is not 30% slower than XP at any 3d apps. And if it is then you really need to try reinstalling. I have noticed so many performance gains in Vista (except synthetic) that it's not even funny. Well it is :D but you know :)
And Aero has no effect on games at all... in fact it made the transition from desktop to game that much smoother
I used to get 30 I think, now I get 65!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by phi|os
A DX10 card doesn't depend on CPU as much a DX9 card, so I guess it won't feel that "Classic Theme" - even on old hardware you don't feel it, actually you get a small increase of performance instead, I doubt the actual hardware would have problems whit that, on the other hand Vista VE might eat a small percent of performance so by disabling it you should increase at least in theory (logical one) - just google a little, the net is full of articles on DX10. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn.
i have read every article relating to Vista/DX10 i even read the whole VistaSuperSite Review page by page.Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
When i said WDDM did YOU know what i meant by THAT. Because what are you saying is bit wrong there.
A DirectX v10 generation of graphics card is too fast for the current generation of CPU's and its bottlenecked by them. So yea DX10 card is defineatly more dependant on CPU then DX9 card because the CPU's of today can not keep with it.
Also DX10 as API is only part of the performance boost you get when you upgrade to Vista, thanks to its WDDM the hardware is handled much better and efficeny increases. So as i said if you have a DX10 Graphics Card with mature set of Vista drivers you wont feel any loss of performance over XP.
Isn't ATi drivers supposed to turn aero of when 3d-apps are ran? No-one stops nvidia for doing it also...
why would you want to turn off Aero once games started?!
thanks , i will give it a try :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by HaLDoL
To stop it from taking resources?Quote:
Originally Posted by eXceededgoku
I heard long ago (over a year) that when a full-screen app starts in Vista, lots of resurces are shut down.
Regardless, CoH performance jump is HUGE, and 3DMark06 is slightly higher, but this is from XP32 to Vista64, so maybe Vista32 performs even better in 3DMark06.
It seems DX10 code initialization is huge, but gives you access to so much more. I feel so close to the GPU.
DX10 based applications will need more GPU (Graphic card) resources and less CPU, actually a big percent, normally a present High End CPU would still be to weak for a High End VGA (from the ones on market) but DX10 software + DX10 hardware should reduce Bottlenecks ( even to none ) at least in theory, I'm not talking about Duron or even some Sempron or Celeron - I'm talking about a decent CPU like E6300/E4300/ 3800+ (the lowest of Dual Core class) which combine whit a GF 8800 GTX shouldn't bottleneck and yet old speculation say they would like the one you count on. (if I believe that, even a X6800 OC'ed at 4.5Ghz shouldn't be enough :P)Quote:
A DirectX v10 generation of graphics card is too fast for the current generation of CPU's and its bottlenecked by them. So yea DX10 card is defineatly more dependant on CPU then DX9 card because the CPU's of today can not keep with it.
coming to a service pack near you.. we can only hope. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by jbizzler
Ummm let me see. so the bloody games run that tiny bit better, what did you think it would do?Quote:
Originally Posted by eXceededgoku
Yes about bloody time to. I bought windows vista on the 30th of november and had to wait this long for a driver. seems fine so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
:D Hahah...so this works on RTM only?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbizzler
ok, i completly lost the point your trying to make can you just tell me again what are you trying to prove?Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
Ok, tons of talking here, but could anybody finally do this on the same hardware:
3dmark01: WinXP 32bit vs Vista 32bit
3dmark05: WinXP 32bit vs Vista 32bit
also, offtopic:
Superpi32M: WinXP 32bit vs Vista 32bit
and Superpi1M as well, it doesn't take much time, does it? :D
why not add winxp 64 vs vista 64 and XP 32bit vs vista 64 as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlobber
Anyone know what the 'Game Performance Tweaker' in Vista (Ultimate) does ?
My guess is that it would either pause or turn off any services that GFW (games for windows) don't need.
You can still use hardware profiles like in XP to to create a Gaming profile
Windows Vista Ultimate
The best operating system ever offered for a personal PC, optimized for the individual. Windows Vista Ultimate is a superset of both Vista Home Premium and Vista Business, so it includes all of the features of both of those product versions, plus adds Game Performance Tweaker with integrated gaming experiences, a Podcast creation utility (under consideration, may be cut from product), and online "Club" services (exclusive access to music, movies, services and preferred customer care) and other offerings (also under consideration, may be cut from product). Microsoft is still investigating how to position its most impressive Windows release yet, and is looking into offering Vista Ultimate owners such services as extended A1 subscriptions, free music downloads, free movie downloads, Online Spotlight and entertainment software, preferred product support, and custom themes. There is nothing like Vista Ultimate today. This version is aimed at high-end PC users and technology influencers, gamers, digital media enthusiasts, and students.
the software based GUI is bloated like in XP the aero HW GUI is a lot faster and the gpu dont even feel it if you can run aero do it switching from aero to the classic one wont help you in fact will make vista slower... live with it vista is as fast or faster than XP......
Well I found that I was not comparing apples to apples
So New Vista VS aging XP Vista win for sure but old vista i dont, know
all attached
Edit: Just want to add two pints
Both OS used exactly same settings and drivers (XP drivers works)
ATI tool works with 32BIT Vista bit sometimes it fails to launch so you need to uninstall and reinstall rivatuner not working at all
Use 3D Mark 2006.
Promise to do it tomorrow but with the same rig 2.6GHZ Venice with Geforce 6600 DDR2Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
So i should expect bottleneck with my 3000+@2.5ghz? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
what about us non 80 people? i ran vista back in december (retail ultimate) and with the latest drivers it took 40k off my aquamark score!!!!!!!!! i went form a 95k to a 55k:( not cool. have they got a new driver out yet? also my spi 1MB went up 2sec and the minimum ram i could get it to use is 380mb off boot. thats just stupid!!!! i can't run that on 1GB ram. i need a dx10 card and 4GB before ill run vista.
so by what im reading 80's see a performance gain in vista? even non 80's with the new driver? because i might speed up my ram upgrade in order to see a speed boost at 1280x1024:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemo6600
Hmm, it seems Vista loses in Car chase while winning in Dragothic and Lobby, Nature stays the same, can 3dmark01 experts comment on that? :)
Personally I think XP have better use off CPU
@ FX57 run same resolution @ your Desktop as 3D mark (1280X1024) and close that thingy on the right (totally even the shaded part ) and your score will go past 11K
Installing 3D06 right know
Instalation failed DX error :mad:
XSAlliN,
Tom's was kind enough to publish a driver test comparison for Vista and XP, shame they done it last month and with old drivers so the article is outdated a second after it came out.
But anyway it proves my point, if you just get a mature Vista driver you should not have a performance loss.
http://images.tomshardware.com/2007/...a/percent2.gif
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007/01/17..._uk/page7.htmlQuote:
It is clear from the comparative charts that AMD (formerly ATI) has a Vista driver that maintains the same performance level as that of its Windows XP counterpart. Microsoft stated that it would not be uncommon that graphics performance under Vista would come in 5%-10% behind that running on Windows XP. Nvidia hits that target with image quality enhancements disabled but when antialiasing and anisotropic filtering are enabled it is a different story. I retested the Nvidia GeForce 7900GTX under Vista again to verify that indeed there was a 50% reduction in performance at 2048x1536 with 4xAA and 8xAF. At both 1600x1200 and 2560x1600 the performance reduction was 37%
Vista is as fast while I have an ATI card just saying game wise I don't have a problem infact most ran bearly below that of XP or better. Benchmarks in 05 and 06 are a little off what they where in XP though nothing im going to go ballistic over. I'll be getting the official release as soon as it hits the shelves.
Glad to see the G80 has drivers for Vista now though. Curious if Supreme Commander will run DX10 currently in its beta form.
I'm not sure - from what I know about Vista and DX10 - "NO" - but from Syn. point of view - "YES" - guess only time can answer that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingcarcas
PS.3000+@2.5ghz + 1950XT could bottleneck on XP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
Willingly i base my view upon the views of others around me, but only once certifiable proof is shown. When the interpretation of such proof leads me to a specific point of view i support it. Once the direction of proof changes so shall my point of view change with it.
Now if you where to run games on Vista with a 3000+ offcourse would such a CPU limit the DX10 generation of GPU's.
You can have all the efficiency of programming in the world but if you tie a donkey with your hoarse to a carriage the speed at which you will travel will be the fastest the donkey can run, not the horse's.
CPU still is the Central Processing Unit, the PC will only run as fast as the CPU is.
Of course E6600 + a DX10 card would get a better performance but the man asked:
I's sure that AMD 3000+ at 2.5 ghz + GF 8600GT wouldn't bottleneck in Vista by playing games and that's my final opinion on this subject (at least until GF 8600 GT is out ).Quote:
So i should expect So i should expect bottleneck with my 3000+@2.5ghz? with my 3000+@2.5ghz?
so does this driver work on rtm 6000 with my 8800gtx?
of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by Rattle
cool I may ahve to try it now lol
Thats right rattle feel your way to the Vista side ;)
I just hope they're right about Vista not being so dependent on CPU and i'll step-up to an 8800gts:D At 16*10 i could use the graphical power.