Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

XP for games?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
May 30, 2002 11:21:40 PM

I read a couple recent posts here from the first 5 pages and it seems as if the general consensus is that XP is really good and fast and better than win98. However before I upgrade to XP there are some things I'm concerned about:

- XP uses more memory, right? Won't this hurt game performace for games like Empire Earth that use a lot of memory?
- XP seems to have an average of 7-10% less FPS than games and video card drivers run in win98se, why is this?
- what version do I need? I just want to run everything really fast, be able to tweak the operating system to remove all the extra garbage it installs, browse the internet, use office xp, and play games

More about : games

May 31, 2002 12:09:52 AM

Um, it depends for the memory thing. 98SE used a whopping 319 MB on my system (all other programs were disabled!!), and XP uses a mere 96MB. Plus, it has much better memory management, so in the end, you will have better memory performance. As for the 7-10% less FPS, there are a lot of variables to take into account, and this may not be true for some, etc. Finally, all you need is home edition (although Pro can be gotten for free from any of your basic file sharing softwares:) ), as pro just has multi processor support, and some extra security. Otherwise, u can mess around w/ both a lot.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
May 31, 2002 8:00:12 AM

I'd say - screw sys req, and focus on the stability.
XP is bulit on the NT/2000 core, that decreases the probability of encountring a system crash.
If ur sys is reletivly new (eg. CPU around 1 Ghz +/-, 256+ Ram, Fast HDD & GPU) u won't experince huge performance change so....go go go (IMHO)

Real men don't do backup...
...real men cry ALOT!

Linux RoxX
Related resources
May 31, 2002 12:36:37 PM

before you do upgrade, be sure to check that all your hardware/software is compatible, most recent stuff is, but not all, as for fps, I dont play many games, but got a higher 3dmark2001 score on xp (NOT with the built in windows drivers....)



If they squeeze olives to get olive oil, how do they get baby oil?
May 31, 2002 2:45:18 PM

When you load XP, yes it has a whole slew of crap. Lots more than Nt 5.0 loaded.
Once you shut off all the crap, Nt 5.1 runs just like 5.0. Except with better drivers.
Nt uses more memory. 5.0 would run with 32meg. I suspect 5.1 *would* run with 32meg, if you could get it to load and then turn off all the crap services.

Yes, Nt uses more memory than Ms-Dos. But then, it uses the memory quite a bit better, so it ends up being a trade-off. Still not Unix/Linux, but better then Ms-Dos

Yes, you *will* get a performance hit on the graphics card.
*sigh*
But the question you should ask is "will I notice the performance hit?". If you're getting *RIGHT AT* 30 frames per second (fps) under Ms-Dos, then you're going to notice the 5 fps you lose running Nt. If you're pulling 60+ fps with msdos, then the 5fps you lose with Nt will be "a drop of piss in the ocean". Nt has a stronger kernal; if you're using a geforce4 4600 with a Celeron 866, you will actually see a performance IMPROVEMENT (try it if you have an amd processor; play around with the clock/mem values with your gpu and cpu). This also goes if you're trying to play Diablo2 on a P2-266 laptop; you'll get better frame rates under Nt than Ms-Dos.

I like "professional" Nt. Home automates a whole bunch of stuff, which I would rather have control over. It's strictly a preference. If you don't care for that level of control, go with "home". Either way, you can't go wrong...

Now, I've only had experience with Nvidia. I don't have/know anyone with an ATI card, so you might find those people cussing Nt. I've used Nt/msdos 8.0 dual boot with a P2 laptop, several tbird desktops, Geforce 2 GTS, TI 200, Pro, and Ultra.


If you're sweating it, Dual Boot! Anything you don't like, swap to the other os and run it from there. Tomb Raider 5 not working under XP even *with* the Nt hack? Swap it over to Msdos 8.0 and crank through it with the save game editor. Xp just locked up on you when you shut off that last GAWD-D*MM Mickey Mouse service? Swap over to Dos8.0, and check the internet for a fix/service list.

Bottom Line: There's a work-around for anything you'd like to do. Dual-booting is easier than it sounds, but I say that only because I use System Commander to do it.
May 31, 2002 9:25:01 PM

Thanks for the great comments. I'll look into system commander because I'm also worried about incompatibilities. The problem is that I used to dual boot win98se and win2k and it wasn't very convenient, so I'll have to think about that a bit.
June 1, 2002 5:42:52 PM

I run 98 and XP on dual boot. Let me tell you there is a very noticable performance drop off when gaming. I have to admit to not tweaking XP for gaming yet, I would be grateful of advice here. I was expecting much better performance under XP for my system which is:

Athlon XP 2000+
512mb 2100 DDR
Creative Ti4600
Creative SB 5.1
60gb IBM Deskstar GXP
WinXP pro, Win98 (dual boot)

I would love to use only XP as I like the look and feel of it, also it seems very stable, but the poor gaming performance means I have to use Win 98 also.
June 1, 2002 9:38:15 PM

To what extent is it poorer?

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
June 2, 2002 7:06:21 AM

I'm sorry, but there is something wrong with what you are saying. At the very least you should be using Win98se.

<font color=red>I have a computer and it does weird stuff. please help.</font color=red>
June 2, 2002 8:35:18 AM

""I'm sorry, but there is something wrong with what you are saying. At the very least you should be using Win98se.""

I'm sorry, but there is something wrong with what you are saying. At the very least you should not be so biased. The man says the holly truth about XP performance in games.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
June 2, 2002 9:28:40 AM

I do run Win 98 SE. When I say the performance is poor, I don't mean that games are unplayable by any means. I will give an example. If I play Colin McRae Rally 2 under XP, I get noticable flicker/stutter and banding as the screen refreshes. Gameplay speed does not seem to suffer, just the refresh rates. If I play the same game under Win 98 SE, the difference is very clear, you get that kind of smoothness you would expect from a top console like XBOX or PS2. The only other way I can compare it is when my friend purchased a GF2 MX 200 32mb non DDR and I had a GF2 ULTRA DDR, all our other hardware was identical so we could see the performance difference when gaming. This difference is obout the same as it is when I switch from XP to 98.
June 2, 2002 3:43:02 PM

Hmm, you consider a driver issue could be causing this?

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
June 2, 2002 4:56:18 PM

I have tried many different driver versions. My graphics card uses Nvidia 28.32 for both Win XP and Win 98.
June 2, 2002 5:19:52 PM

and what is ur graphics card?

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
June 2, 2002 6:20:14 PM

I don't think there is a difference in "what is causing the hick-ups"; driver, or hardware, or else. The thing is that XP is not as good for gaming as 9x line, period, no matter what benchmarks or MS say, it plays ok, but that "super smart" prefetch thing (I guess) is doing those hick-ups within game play. On the other hand it is an awesome OS from MS, :>

Thank you very much.


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
June 2, 2002 6:34:09 PM

I totally agree blah. Flamethrower205, my graphics card is Creative GF 4 Ti4600. See page one on my first post.
June 2, 2002 7:20:15 PM

I run XP Pro (and used to dual boot w/ 98se) on a Quadro DCC, 512DDR, 1.2Ghz T-Bird, and runnin 23.11 drivrs as they seem to give best performance for it, and I never get that type of stuff you're talking about. And I run all sorts of games.

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
June 2, 2002 8:53:18 PM

Probably you have the best hardware setup collection for XP Pro, lucky you, hehe.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
June 2, 2002 8:55:53 PM

lol

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
June 2, 2002 9:33:44 PM

Hell I'm running 5 things in the background and playing SoF2 and it's still fast as anything else and all I have is a lowly 900mhz athlon =p.

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>
June 2, 2002 9:51:45 PM

Newer gamez are made tha way they can turn un-needed junk in XP off while running themselvez (I guess ;o)>

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
June 2, 2002 9:57:09 PM

Uh no it's not turning off what i have running in the background.

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>
June 3, 2002 5:01:38 AM

I don't think that's an OS issue. I guess you've got the newest drivers but imop they aren't the greatest. Try using some older drivers. I think I'm using 23.11 or maybe even earlier. That seems to work best for me. Granted I have a different card, but you could give that a shot.

<font color=red>I have a computer and it does weird stuff. please help.</font color=red>
June 3, 2002 5:21:17 AM

There are things, which are called “System processes”, and there are things, which are called "User processes", you can figure the rest ;) 

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
!