Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4870 (xp or vista, 32bit.64bit)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 20, 2008 9:07:38 AM

hi all
i finaly have enough money to get a 4870, however, i am not sure weather it is worth upgrading my os in order to get the best perfomance, i currently have xp 32bit, and have read a couple of forums that suggest 64 bit is better. I also get the impression that vista is better.

?'s
1. will an upgrade in os give me that much preformance gain?
2. is 32bit or 64bit better for the 4870?

thanks to all replies in advance

More about : 4870 vista 32bit 64bit

a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2008 9:26:06 AM

Well, that depends...really,

How much ram do you have?
Do you plan on adding more(if less than 4gigs)?

If you have less than 4 gigs the switch to 64bit isnt really necessary, however if you do have 4gigs and would prefer to have all 4 available 64bit would work for that(my reason for switching to Vista64 when I upgraded).

If you have say 2gigs of ram, You really do not need to switch to 64bit. Although switching to Vista is really only needed IF you want to use DX10. Some people will say its not worth it....I did to see what the big deal was....Its nothing special but its nice to have it available since my card supports it....

Also remember Far Cry 2 comes out tomorrow and supports DX10.1 IF your impressed by that sort of thing...I would be if I had a 4000 series card....
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2008 9:46:02 AM

Oh as to performance....in Crysis I get the best results running it 32bit DX9. Although 32bit DX10 is still acceptable Just a few FPS slower.

Warhead only has 32bit at the moment, and runs better in DX9(I can get away with Enthusiast settings or Very High) In DX10 the ice levels run in the single digits...on anything but mainstream(read medium) for me. I found out about switching in the forums and it solved the Ice Levels issue.

The only other DX10 game Ive played is Assassins Creed, and actually prefer DX10 to DX9 its very close almost identical but it just seems better in DX10(could be in my head though).

Oh and I forgot WIC, its not much different either....so I just play in DX10
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2008 10:58:45 AM

Using Vista x64, a 9600GT and an E6600 and playing Crysis I found that:

  • High settings at 1440x900; 32-bit was slightly faster than 64-bit (usually <2FPS)
  • Low settings at 800x600; 32-bit was 20-30% faster than 64-bit (we're talking 90+ FPS in both cases here though).
    a c 358 U Graphics card
    October 20, 2008 2:19:03 PM

    1. If you really want DX10, then you'll need to buy Vista (might as well buy the 64-bit version if you are gonna install 4GB or more of system RAM).

    2. Win XP if you already have can you wanna save some cash.

    I've played Crysis on Win XP and it looks fine to me. I suppose I not a fanatic about all the extra eye candy in DX10.
    October 20, 2008 4:43:12 PM

    thanks for the help guys, ive decided to stick with xp 32bit and 2gb or RAM for now. Will probably upgrade in 6 months or so when more games use dx10 and also upgrade to 4gb of ram.

    Any one else have an opinion?

    October 20, 2008 4:57:30 PM

    Also you should know that using the Vista DX9 rendering path when using AA, games tend to run faster than using XP DX9 rendering path. I would not use this as a primary reason to upgrade to vista, but if you're already planning to do it, then it's just another plus in it's favor.

    With that being said, absolutely get Vista 64, the 32-bit version was only made as legacy support for those frugal people that can't be bothered to get moderately recent software and hardware (A64 have been out since 2003 and by recent software I'm talking about properly coded 2005-2006 software). These people are the reason why progress is being hindered, but I have my hopes up that Windows 7 will be the last 32-bit OS.

    Note: Also from what I can tell on preliminary tests, after using latest ATI Hotfix, Far Cry 2 is actually running smoother in DX10 than DX9. Just something to keep in mind.

    http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=10&artpage=3693&articID=869
    October 20, 2008 5:24:44 PM

    dx10 and vista suck.The difference in visual quality is very small and there is usually no difference between dx9 and dx10 except in few games,and the difference in performance is very noticeable.Maybe this will change with dx10.1 or dx11 but for now I think upgrading is not worth it
    October 20, 2008 5:37:28 PM

    To the neophyte poster above, please show some intelligence and run some tests with the latest drivers, you'll see that the performance drops were not because of Vista, but because of incomplete drivers and those issues have been fixed long ago.
    October 20, 2008 9:08:01 PM

    Quote:
    To the neophyte poster above, please show some intelligence and run some tests with the latest drivers, you'll see that the performance drops were not because of Vista, but because of incomplete drivers and those issues have been fixed long ago.

    Okay,idiot,what the hell are you trying to prove.First of all I never said that only vista was the problem,I said dx10 and vista,because,as we all now, you can't have dx10 without vista.Second dx10 impacts the gpu more than dx9 does because
    of the way it processes the graphics with much more detailed surfaces and no driver can change that because it's a hardware and not a software issue.Of course ,in theory,the image quality should be much better then dx9,but that's not the case in reality.I'm not trying to say that there is no difference between dx9 and dx10,but the difference is very small or unnoticeable EXCEPT in few games.There is no point in upgrading from xp to vista if you don't use dx10,for gaming that is.So far 95%,if not all, of the games run smoother on dx9 and xp than dx10 and vista.
    October 20, 2008 11:08:12 PM

    I'm assuming you took offense because I used the word neophyte to describe you, if you knew what it means then you'd know it's not an insult, so get a grip. Now the scenario that you haven't considered is a Vista DX9 render path, which provides better performance when AA is used than an XP DX9 render path. It is fact, don't argue.

    I am frankly very tired of people that either haven't used Vista at all or used it before the proper graphics drivers were released, yet they keep spreading FUD all over the OS. I'm not saying it is vastly superior compared to XP, but it is a pretty good 64-bit OS with good driver support and decent performance, something that at times is left to be desired from XP 64.

    I would suggest that before you try and engage in an intelligent discussion with me about Vista that you inform yourself properly, because right now you're just one more from the uneducated masses that keep spewing poison over Vista without any justified reason.
    a b U Graphics card
    October 20, 2008 11:25:21 PM

    @ackomacko: Actually my friend, you've been somewhat deceived. The reason DX10 doesn't look any better is not because the render path is a failure, it is entirely due to the implementation. The implementation is affected by hardware capabilities too. Developers are simply porting DX9 code to DX10 and using it as a sales device. Look at some of the early DX9.0b games and tell me they look alot better than what DX8 games did. Again, implementation. DX9 was too taxing on cards when it came out, DX10 is the same, DX11 will probably follow suit.
    !