Printable View
It appears that SP3 increases FPS for Crysis. Not sure about other games but few members @ incrysis.com and overclock.net reported very nice boost. I didn’t try this yet so can’t confirm. However I will do so tonight.
Here is the link to get SP3 downloaded from MS update
http://www.techmixer.com/download-wi...indows-update/
And here is the original thread at overclock.net
http://www.overclock.net/windows/264...nce-boost.html
Anyone dare to try it? Just make a restore point …….just in case
Less reason for me to switch to Vista.
...and what does sp3 include that increases the performance? weird.
i tried it, altho it was a slightly different method. I had the actual regfile which i imported myself, but it updated fine..no problems whatsoever! cant comment on crysis as i dont own the game or vista so..
wouldnt this thread fall under the guidelines about crackz n stuff.
I don’t see how. Since when MS patches consider to be crackz;) It seams that allot of people report improved performance across the board for all games not just Crysis. I will test this my self with benchmarks of the games prior and after patchQuote:
Originally Posted by strange|ife
SP3 is officially out?
dont have crysis, downloadin it now as i post anyways...
i'll post back if i notice any improvements :up:
lol im already playing DX9 very high via autoexec.cfg tweak @ 1680x1050 with no AA, and very high = 8xAF with Q6600 + 8800GT SLI
heres my autoexec:
Attachment 68050
basically i just copy n paste every sys_xxx.cfg's very high commands ... i find this way the easiest, that way its definitely very high regardless of what i set in game
yeah i just checked :
r_TexMaxAnisotropy was set to 8 for some reason
what he saidQuote:
Originally Posted by mad_skills
lol i activated (since i change mobo often i dont activate until i have 2 :) ) my win xp just for dis
Weird, what could possibly cause a speed increase, seems really strange to me.
Because it's not Vista. Gotta see the logic in that :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
I meant like as in XP SP2 vs SP3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
And it's not only 1 or 2 guys reporting speed boosts, is more weird. :p:
But why is no1 posting a before & after shot or do I have to do the job myself? I mean if you're going to test SP3 in Crysis cuz of a plausible speedboost OF COURSE you begin running a bench before installing it and afterwards it's installed...
I mean who cores about if a person is saying it runs now 30-35 fps and used to run below 30 fps before, I mean where what when how? lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by hecktic
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad_skills
Yeah, I wonder what software differences were made that there would cause a game performance increase.
MS FPS HAX ............BAN....Quote:
Originally Posted by MuffinFlavored
is the download of sp3 legit? besides what are the changes?
SP3 is still in closed beta, Thous its sorta like what happened to the Windows Live Messenger thread. But WLM9 is under a lot more rules and hopes then SP3.
So from Technical Point of view, yes, SP3 is counted as Warez.
From a User Point of view, No it doesn't matter as much as the WLM9 thread did.
PS. I'm running Build 3244 of SP3
ah i seeQuote:
Originally Posted by Warboy
Ok for me it didn't do anything. Crysis bench exactly the same. However i have a very tweaked and fully updated XP sp2 OS
The only thing sp3 did is break my find target and search functions. I made a restore point and i reverted to my previous settings. This still might help some people that do not have fully updated sp2
But i have tested 167.27 XG drivers. I don't know how but they increased my CPU bench from 50 to 70FPS and lower my GPU bench from 77 to 53 fps. I found this very weird. I benchmarked twice. I played MP and the quality of 167.27 is amazing. I find that i have better FPS in close combat with them and a bit worse when flying a heli.
Also setting sound in DXdiag to Basic acceleration got rid of the choppiness especially with explosions, game is supper smooth right now
your right poor choice of words, but still its a leak, its all good though i just felt like being a :banana::banana::banana::banana:.Quote:
Originally Posted by railer
and wasnt very effective at it.
at any rate i had bad times with the beta version of sp2, so i think ill wait till the final is out in a few months or less. Im looking more towards SP1 for vista though, more needed than sp3
I say this is BS, a performance increase NOW...after all these years??:rolleyes:
Please someone try the bench with non-MS apps and rename the executables...then we maybe will see some difference.
the speed boost is from the tweaks to the addressing system, they made it the same as 2003 and vista but without the supper fetch and ready boost so it works without the excess slag that vista has
and if dx9.0L is in there it can utilize the unified shader better witch would also increase performance
Just got the sp3 build and definately an improvement. 1600x1200 with high settings was skipping for me with sp2. sp3 its very smooth.
DX9.0L is 100% as DX9.0c. Only difference is the Aero GUI parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
I still call it BS.
People have different results. i didn't get any fps increase, but i think it was smoother. what i think also might happen is that this patch updates dx sound dll's. Sound could very much effect performance. Could be that this patch brings better compatibility to certain sound cards. Has to be something that it changes, to many people reported gains......
I did a quick comparision now between SP2 and SP3 in AM3, SPi, Everest, Crysis, 3Dmark05 and PCSX2 PS2 emulator.
In all except one scenario I saw a boost, the rest I saw either par or a difference less than ~0.1%, ie what I'd call within error margin of different runs. To my suprise it was PCSX2 (my fav benchmark :D) that was the only app that showed a boost but only when CPU/system performance (internal res set to 512 x 512) was compared as when I compared GPU performance (internal res set to 1024 x 1024) it showed the exact same FPS as in SP2, 95 FPS.
In PCSX2 CPU/system performance comparision with low quality, internal res set to 512 x 512, it was a ~8.2% boost (119 vs 110 FPS if comparing fraps value, loaded the save state at least 5 times in both SP2 and SP3 to be sure the FPS difference would be constant):
SP2:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9...4cpufk2.th.jpg
SP3:
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9...4cpunq0.th.jpg
Those who get an FPS boost in Crysis I'm guessing it's either due to better quad core utilization or better shader utilization but since I don't own a quad or a 8800 card for that matter it's nothing I can confirm myself.
I have screenshots of all the results but since the difference in scores and fps is so low I don't see any reason to show them all except this one above ^.
thanks for taking time for this, nice info there:up:
hear hear, thank u RPGWiZaRD :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint
is this build 3244?
No, its not beta, its Release Candidate 1. I have official RC1 version of SP3. But you're right, its not public one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warboy
This maybe a dumb question, but will sp3 be free when released or is it only on newly purchased xp software?
any direct download or torrent link?
what is this anyway? 'service pack 3 release candidate 3'?? or release candidate one?
Just read the first post in this thread man.
You'd only have to follow this link:
http://www.techmixer.com/download-wi...indows-update/
It's v3244.
Free, this aint Apple :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie3dfx
If Microsoft did that, I would throw my hard drive out the Window, and vow to never run a .exe again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint
Damn, it didn't click enough for me to run crysis bench before and after.
technically speaking, its still "a beta"Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasparz
but the current test release is a RC1, but we still gotta troubleshoot it and debug it and such.
I just tried installing it using the method suggested in the first post. My system crashes about half way through the actual installation. I tried it twice and same result. My system is rock stable proved through P95 and hours of playing Crysis. I may just try the default clocks once but I need to first make sure my BIOS has a save function.
Anyone else crashing while installing?
I had registry error but this fixed it. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/873148
Installed it perfectly fine minus an address error after the reboot (msoobe.exe or something). Everything ran fine (those who have the modded uxtheme.dll for custom msstyles will have to get it fixed again after the install).
Issues: Source games gave me tearing issues, even with vsync on. Bottom third of my screen was about 2-4 pixel skewed to the right. Until I can find some real benefits, I'm uninstalling the beta as I type this.
Probably just going to wait until SP3 is in its final release.
well i tried it messed up pc just uninstalled all fine now
what is the size of the service pack?
SP3 for x64?
its not 70 mb? is it?
If its only 70MB its a joke.
This SP give me texture problems in Crysis and freezes on 3DMark06, Source games no problem, but no extra FPS
E6400
8800GTS
2GB
Windows now 50MB more hungry and is a little bit slower the system. But maybe is from the BETA, its not final.
You sound just like those stupid Apple comercials with the pot-head Apple dude. He'll end up just like the Dell dude I'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
:rolleyes: :horse:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
lol pot head apple duQuote:
Originally Posted by iadstudio
lol hahaha n1 du, how bout that nerdy looking bill gates look alike aka. John Hodgman
that commercial is funny in a way that its stupid
Hrmm, I believe I did post something to indicate that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gam3Ra
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...58#post2478858
...before going "it feels faster" on me...please read up on the Kernel Mode Cryptographic Module and what function it has. (this is what's eating that extra RAM)
I know RPGWIZARD did an excellent post, but I'll have to be very convinced that this is not only a MS trickster to get us to install the nasty stuff from Vista (read Kernel Mode Cryptographic Module/Driver Polling/"DRM related" crap) before I plug it in.
Driver and application optimization to trick he buyers is not really something new these days, so I definately need more empirii before I buy this...
Gaining performance by adding a such a heavy cryptographic function like that is just not happening in my world...:rolleyes:
Wasn't that also found in win2k?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint
Do you mean jump in memoryusage, or?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
Maybe I don't understand the concern you have. From what I know Kernel Mode Cryptographic Module uses FIPS 140-1 which is suppose to be the lowest security level (1-4). What am I missing? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint
Well, I think Vista is using 140-2 now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
With Vista and 2008 server they have added three new modes in the CNG; CBC, CCM (Counter with CBC) and GCM (Galois/Counter Mode) of wich CCM and GCM uses the AES-128 Algorithm.
The first thing that comes to mind when thinking about Vista "features" and AES-128 algoritms is of course that the HD content sent to video devices has to be encrypted with AES-128.
Allow me to quote from Gutmann's page.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00..._cost.html#cpuQuote:
In order to prevent tampering with in-system communications, all communication flows have to be encrypted and/or authenticated. For example content sent to video devices has to be encrypted with AES-128. This requirement for cryptography extends beyond basic content encryption to encompass not just data flowing over various buses but also command and control data flowing between software components. For example communications between user-mode and kernel-mode components are authenticated with OMAC message authentication-code tags, at considerable cost to both ends of the connection. The initial crypto handshake is:
driver -> application: cert + nonce
application -> driver: RSA-OAEP-SHA512( nonce || key || seqNo1 || seqNo2 )
In this step the driver supplies its certificate to the calling application via DxgkDdiOPMGetCertificate() and a 128-bit nonce via DxgkDdiOPMGetRandomNumber(). This is either a COPP or an OPM certificate, with COPP being the older Windows XP content protection and OPM being the newer Windows Vista one. There's also a third type of fleur-de-lis certificate that the driver uses if it has a UAB (User-Accessible Bus). The certificates contain a 2048-bit RSA key which is used to encrypt a 40-byte payload containing the nonce provided by the driver, a 128-bit session key, and two 32-bit initial sequence numbers (they start at random values), the first number is for status messages via DxgkDdiOPMGetInformation() and the second for command messages via DxgkDdiOPMConfigureProtectedOutput().
Once the keys are set up, each function call is:
in = OMAC( nonce || seqNo || data )
out = OMAC( nonce || seqNo || data )
(I've used conventional bits-on-the-wire notation for this, the values are actually fields in a structure so for example the sequence number is provided in the ulSequenceNumber member). This is very similar to the protocol used in SSL or SSH (in practice some steps like cipher suite negotiation are omitted, since there's a hardcoded set of ciphers used). Finding SSL being run inside a PC from one software module to another is just weird.
Needless to say, this extremely CPU-intensive mechanism is a very painful way to provide protection for content, and this fact has been known for many years. Twenty years ago, in their work on the ABYSS security module, IBM researchers concluded that the use of encrypted buses as a protection mechanism was impractical.
In order to prevent active attacks, device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware every 30ms for digital outputs and every 150 ms for analog ones to ensure that everything appears kosher. This means that even with nothing else happening in the system, a mass of assorted drivers has to wake up thirty times a second just to ensure that… nothing continues to happen (commenting on this mechanism, Leo Laporte in his Security Now podcast with Steve Gibson calls Vista “an operating system that is insanely paranoid”). In addition to this polling, further device-specific polling is also done, for example Vista polls video devices on each video frame displayed in order to check that all of the grenade pins (tilt bits) are still as they should be. We already have multiple reports from Vista reviewers of playback problems with video and audio content, with video frames dropped and audio stuttering even on high-end systems [Note I]. Time will tell whether this problem is due to immature drivers or has been caused by the overhead imposed by Vista's content protection mechanisms interfering with playback.
CNG features:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb204775.aspx
..there is not enough info available today regarding the content of the SP3 for XP, but rest assured that MS and allies can't let the XP users (now that they have prolonged it's life due to ppl's recent to Vista) sit and "be without" those fantastic "features" Vista provides to software and media makers.
IC,Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint
What's going to happen eventually if performance decreases at all or have issues with certain media applications and downloading capabilities they are going to format and only use SP2. They may not know why they are having a problem but they will know they had no problem until SP3 was installed. Making this fruitless effort IMO. With Vista you have no choice, with XP you do. We will have to wait and see how this develops.
I found a MS document dating 2002 regarding this very issue right here. It a PDF file and its worth reading. They were using Kernel Mode Cryptographic Module since windows 2000. As a matter of fact if you look on page 3 you will see:
.Quote:
Windows 2000 with SP2 FIPS.SYS was
validated for FIPS 140-1 Level 1 in Jul 2000, Certificate # 106
-
True, it has been used for SSL and such for some time now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
Going to be interesting to see what numbers we will see later on, and I don't mean "feeling" of it going "smoother" ...hehe ;)
I've tried it today and it gave me nothing in performance nor smoothness.. Maybe my system is too "old" to notice any improvements...
I restored my PC back to SP2 as I have loads of custom system files which were replaced by SP3 and I didn't feel like it to mod them all over again...