Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

poor gaming performance in windows xp

Last response: in CPUs
Share

I just did a clean install of winxp and my frame rates have dropped 50 frames from where it was when i had windows 2000 pro installed...i thought that xp was supposed to be a good gaming platform....

it was 250 at 640*480
now its 202.8 fps at 640*480

the operating system runs great but the gaming totally blows a wad!! any suggestions or anyone with the same problems?
im running nvidia 21.83
geforce 2 ultra
amd athlon 1.2 @ 1403
512mb pc 2400 corsair
hercules fortissimo II
wd 60gb

More about : poor gaming performance windows

Register or log in to remove

Yeah, 200 FPS is nowhere near enough to make a game playable. Especially under an otherwise good OS.



:) 

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Related ressources
Ask the community

As long as I work for a certified M$ gold company we get all the software for free and can use it on as many machines as we like... as long as it's for the company :smile:

Nice <b><font color=green>Lizards</b></font color=green> <b>crunch</b> Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:

Have you also noticed that it isn't possible to start programs that needs direct contact with hardware ( a motherboard monitor program or SiSoft Sandra)the first 30-45 secs after the system seems finished loading XP ? It is possible to start all other kind of programs during this "latency" period.

Maybe the fast OS loading is accomplished by postponing loading several low level drivers until after the User IF is up and running.

Try for yourself.


--------------------- P4 1700 MHz ---------------------

Overcloked 1700 MHz P4 Willamette Socket 478 with stock cooling benchmarked using SiSoft Sandra. "Crippled" by a generic Antec 300W power-supply.

CPU Arithmetic.
Dhrystone ALU: 4039
Whetstone FPU/SSE2: 1097/2571 MFLOPS

Multi-Media:
Integer iSSE2: 8304 it/s
Floating-Point iSSE2: 10109 it/s

Memory Bandwidth:
RAM Int MMX: 1950 MB/s
RAM Float FPU: 1957 MB/s

Ummm....question. How the hell did you get all of that in your sig?

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>

You think he types that out every time?
Or pastes it in?

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>

Actually a very good question, indeed...



--------------------- P4 1700 MHz ---------------------

Overcloked 1700 MHz P4 Willamette Socket 478 with stock cooling benchmarked using SiSoft Sandra. "Crippled" by a generic Antec 300W power-supply.

CPU Arithmetic.
Dhrystone ALU: 4039
Whetstone FPU/SSE2: 1097/2571 MFLOPS

Multi-Media:
Integer iSSE2: 8304 it/s
Floating-Point iSSE2: 10109 it/s

Memory Bandwidth:
RAM Int MMX: 1950 MB/s
RAM Float FPU: 1957 MB/s

He definitely pastes it in.

Speaking of which... I think we should rally and try to get the sig character limit raised. 100 characters is really small. Especially since that includes any markup you use which really sucks.


<font color=red>"I'm not gonna launch a $2 million missile at a $10 tent and hit a camel's butt." -Bush</font color=red>

Yeah, I noticed that too. I think it's a trick MS is using to make us think XP is loading quickly. But when you get to the logon screen it actually hasn't loaded everything yet.

I've learned not to logon until about 10 seconds after the logon screen appears. That seems to take care of any problems with drivers not being loaded.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks"

Can you actually notice ANY difference between playing at 250 fps and 202.8 fps? If not, then what does it matter if you like the OS?

Sometimes it's really easy to get caught up in benchmarking instead of real world performance.

Just my opinion. Hope everything works out to your satisfaction.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks"

i know it may sound like im whining over nothing but i just hate upgrading and then it not being worth it....but i didnt pay for the xp so that make me feel better =-]....the only reason i had to upgrade is because i overclocked my fsb too much and cause a system file to corrupt and it wouldnt start so i decided to upgrade while i was at it....neways thanks for the replys...
neone know of any xp tweaks?

Civ

Windows 2000 Pro to Windows XP isn't as worthwhile of an upgrade as Windows 9x/Me to WinXP is. Amazing is all I can say. Sure, I had to throw out some of my old old peripherals, but Windows XP is light years ahead of Me in performance, stability, usability and features. BTW, I'm having a hard time getting my ATI TV Wonder working probably under XP, anyone have any ideas? The video is extremely distorted.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

Windows 2000 Pro to Windows XP isn't as worthwhile of an upgrade as Windows 9x/Me to WinXP is. Amazing is all I can say. Sure, I had to throw out some of my old old peripherals, but Windows XP is light years ahead of Me in performance, stability, usability and features. BTW, I'm having a hard time getting my ATI TV Wonder working probably under XP, anyone have any ideas? The video is extremely distorted.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

yes! you are quite right! I actually read about that on some site (wich I dont remember ofcurse..)

It works different from w2k wich sends requests out to hardware from the loaded driver and wait for answer before continuing loading the next driver. XP loads all the drivers first and then starts to ask the hardware and collects all the answers during the rest of the loading of the os.
Even thou my english isnt that good I hope you understand a bit of what Im trying to say anyway.. :-)

well of course those FPS matters are very important.
firstly, notice he stated 250 FPS @ 640x480.
now I know that i never NEVER play games at 640x480.

so dropping 50 FPS means nothing in that respect.

now depending on the game.. that 50 FPS less could easily translate to going from 50 to 40 FPS when you crank your game up to 1600x1200. or even dropping from 30 to 25.. oooo yuck... anyway... it can also so mean that game that only jsut runs on 2000 is potentially unplayable on XP cause of jitter and lag and other graphically satanic words.

balzi

"I spilled coffee all over my wife's nighty... ...serves me right for wearing it?!?"

Quote:
it was 250 at 640*480
now its 202.8 fps at 640*480


Please don't waste your time posting these kinds of stupid comments. If you really are serious then compare your framerates at a decent resolution.

Only a crack smoking dumbass would play at 640x480

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>

Ok duche bag is this better for ya?

1024*768 (plenty playable resolution for ya?)

was 216 fps
now 176.8 fps

if I thought it was a stupid post then I wouldnt have posted it....and if you knew anything... that big of a difference at such a low resolution means (where it isnt video card intensive) is just as serious as a high resolution benchmark since it takes most of the video card out of the equation...so cpu utilization is important and that benchmark isnt stupid YOU ARE so stay out of my post moron!!..
Anonymous
CPUs Authority
Gaming Expert

wow.. you choose an apropriate nick: civilised.
Try to live up to it.

Also.. like you mentioned. 640x480 is not bottlenecked by the GPU.. the performance is more an indication of the driver performance in fact.

One more thing: I have yet to see a monitor capable of more than 120 Hz. So who cares if its 150 or 250 fps ? You're not getting more then 85 fps anyway if your monitor is set at 85 Hz (85 Hz= 85 screen refreshes per second).

Now go flame somewhere else please.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

man I ask a simple question and all hell breaks lose...my post was to see if anyone else experience the same performance drop (regardless of how my refresh rate or the price of egg drop soup in china applies to the overall visual performance/loss or gain)....I do play all my games at high resolutions so eventhough my monitor refreshes at 85hz, at intense cpu loads at high resolutions the performance drop is visually seen......so just say yes or no and if you feel enlighted tell me your experiences and keep your personal ego out of the mess....thank you and have a nice day =-]
Anonymous
CPUs Authority
Gaming Expert

This part:

>my post was to see if anyone else experience the same
>performance drop (regardless of how my refresh rate or the
>price of egg drop soup in china applies to the overall
>visual performance/loss or gain)....I do play all my games
>at high resolutions so eventhough my monitor refreshes at
>85hz, at intense cpu loads at high resolutions the >performance drop is visually seen......

would have been a better reply than the moron dirtbag part you actually posted. Might have given you some usefull answers. Now Im just gonna say to stick with 98 if all you care about is frame rates.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

na the 9x kernel is too unstable...i prefer NT neday but thanks for the suggestion...i am using det 21.83 on both sytems so maybe the xp det drivers just arent totally optimized for xp yet?...

I don't think anything is quite optimized for XP at the moment, short of perhaps some software. I'm sure performance will increase over time, but I would guess that it is likely to not be quite as good as previous OSs, just due to the increased bulk of the OS.

Chesnuts roasting on an open CPU
Bill Gates nipping at your wallet

You're just being anal if this really bothers you. You'll never even notice the difference with your eyes so who cares? There is a guy wondering about his framerates dropping into the 30's in another section. That's a legitimate question.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>

No I think his post carries somewhat of a valid point. I really don't think he was looking for a diagnosis, I think he was looking for people with the same phenomenon. Clearly this post isn't about framerates, it's about performance in XP. Since there is such a framerate drop at the low resolution, my guess would be that it has to do with drivers not being fully optimized.

One more thing, Civil, if you get people pissed off at you then they definately are going to completely blow you off. And I don't know how long you've been around here, but things like that tend to blow up very, very quickly, so a simple explanation of the intent of the post would have done fine.

Cheers!

Studies show that the human brain approaches 100 percent retention.
Register or log in to remove
 
Ask the community
Read discussions in other CPUs categories
!