Stop Complaining about DX10

[Thundering]

The game is $19.99. Windows 7 upgrade is $30. Thats $50, the price of a standard game.

Anyone still using XP for gaming is a cave-person. There is not a single reason to use XP for gaming. Not one. If your computer is gaming capable (3+ GB of RAM, 9800+ GPU, 2.66ghz+ Dual or Quadcore) you have no excuse to use DX9.

Prove me wrong.

[MaxMad]

The game is $19.99. Windows 7 upgrade is $30. Thats $50, the price of a standard game.

Anyone still using XP for gaming is a cave-person. There is not a single reason to use XP for gaming. Not one. If your computer is gaming capable (3+ GB of RAM, 9800+ GPU, 2.66ghz+ Dual or Quadcore) you have no excuse to use DX9.

Prove me wrong.

I agree. It's 2010 people, come on, the "I don't buy vista because it's crap" trend has ended.. Windows 7 is amazing, go buy it

[YelpingManCandy]

I'm totally for Windows 7, and I know these aren't the right forums, but there does sort of seem to be a pattern for Microsoft OS's ...

Windows 3 - Good
Windows 95 - Bad
Windows 98 - Good
Windows ME - Bad
Windows 2000 - Good
Windows XP - Bad at launch, evolved to Good
Windows Vista - Bad
Windows 7 - Good

[Korn1699]

I'm totally for Windows 7, and I know these aren't the right forums, but there does sort of seem to be a pattern for Microsoft OS's ...

Windows 3 - Good
Windows 95 - Bad
Windows 98 - Good
Windows ME - Bad
Windows 2000 - Good
Windows XP - Bad at launch, evolved to Good
Windows Vista - Bad
Windows 7 - Good

Vista was more bad press than anything.. Performance wise, it was about the same as 7 on all my machines.

[cyreb]

Finaly somone with half a brain, i love hearing somone talk sense on a forum (a rare event).

XP is over, times change, and if pople don't want to upgrade they don't have to, but there are plenty of games out there that do support XP. This is a cutting edge game after all and the minimum/recommended system requirments are high compared to most games today, if your computer meats those requirements then your computer can run vista/7 with no problem (you might even find an improvment over XP ;)).

[JackHorner]

The game is $19.99. Windows 7 upgrade is $30. Thats $50, the price of a standard game.

Anyone still using XP for gaming is a cave-person. There is not a single reason to use XP for gaming. Not one. If your computer is gaming capable (3+ GB of RAM, 9800+ GPU, 2.66ghz+ Dual or Quadcore) you have no excuse to use DX9.

Prove me wrong.

dude no one cares lol why did you make this thread

[ShadowMan]

LOL hard @ caveman person.

I agree, time to upgrade for many ppl who are still complaining about operating systems and DX10 and now DX11 games, which are only featured on Vista and W7.

I've seen similar complaints and arguments over Crysis, Farcry 2 to Cryostasis, ect.

[budapestblitz]

Anyone still using XP for gaming is a cave-person. There is not a single reason to use XP for gaming. Not one.

Prove me wrong.

Dont have to 52% of steam users do that for me.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
You're an idiot.

[YelpingManCandy]

It is actually frightening to see that almost 30% of the gamers on Steam could get such a performance increase by updating from an OS that initially went on shelves eight years ago. I remember playing with Whistler (XP's name then) on my birthday in April 2000 (I was such a geek). The Windows 7 beta has been available to the general public for ages (FOR FREE), and a google search reminded me that the exact day that the RC came out on P2P was over 6 months ago (leaked early, but still FOR FREE and you could get your key on the MS website by providing a Passport.net account).

Sure, Vista blew, but with the money we spend on our hardware today I'm really surprised that people aren't checking their options for something so major. We're not talking about trying to justify that extra $100 to upgrade your on-board 7.1 sound to a "superior" Creative model, this is about the brains of the operation and affects every component (even something as simple as native USB support for just about every type of device I've seen).

[kaheiyeh]

Dont have to 52% of steam users do that for me.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
You're an idiot.

You're an idiot. Windows 7 just came out. You have to give time for people to actually go get the thing you know? Wait one or two months and look again.

[Ardbug]

You're an idiot. Windows 7 just came out. You have to give time for people to actually go get the thing you know? Wait one or two months and look again.

Wait a sec, you are telling him to shut up, even though he is clearly right judging by the data he provided lol.

Yet all you provide is wishfull thinking, if your logic was correct then we would all have switched to vista long time ago, but we didnt, so it isnt.

[trek554]

Dont have to 52% of steam users do that for me.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
You're an idiot.I think you missed the point. the people that meet or exceed the minimum and especially recommended requirements to play this game have no reason to be on XP. in fact most people with decent comps have already moved on to either Vista or 7. in other words unless you have some older pc thats not even worth playing newer games on then there is no reason to stick with XP.

[Ardbug]

I think you missed the point. the people that meet or exceed the minimum and especially recommended requirements to play this game have no reason to be on XP. in fact most people with decent comps have already moved on to either Vista or 7. in other words unless you have some older pc thats not even worth playing newer games on then there is no reason to stick with XP.

Do you care to back that up with something ??
You are just assuming people who run XP have low specs, yet your assumption isnt based on anything, I run XP with a quad and a 260, does that make me an anomaly or do you consider that low spec ?

The reasons I hear for using XP is because vista suck, wich it does, and because people dont want to beta test another M$ OS, the lack of confidence and the level of distrust in microsoft is well founded for many gamers, they earned that distrust by putting out too much garbage at inflated prices, so not jumping on the 7 bandwagon is a conscious decision by many, and not a decision based on low spec PC components.

[trek554]

Do you care to back that up with something ??
You are just assuming people who run XP have low specs, yet your assumption isnt based on anything, I run XP with a quad and a 260, does that make me an anomaly or do you consider that low spec ?

The reasons I hear for using XP is because vista suck, wich it does, and because people dont want to beta test another M$ OS, the lack of confidence and the level of distrust in microsoft is well founded for many gamers, they earned that distrust by putting out too much garbage at inflated prices, so not jumping on the 7 bandwagon is a conscious decision by many, and not a decision based on low spec PC components.so do you actually think the average person with a gtx260 is on XP? most of the people that have a decent gaming comp and still using XP are just plain ignorant. Vista only sucked for the first few months it was out and 7 has never sucked. take off your tin foil hat and upgrade to 7 if you have a decent gaming pc and are using XP.

[Ardbug]

No thanks.

[steven975]

I tend to agree. XP is old news. So what if the FPS in certain games is 1-4FPS lower. When you put a 1GB+ card on XP you are losing overall performance in just about every other area as it eats into your memory pool. SLI or Xfire...even more. There's a reason XP doesn't support 3way SLI...it would have no memory left. Sure, there's the PAE trick, but next to nothing is going to actually USE that extra memory as any non-server program is going to be written NOT to use it.

Honestly, Vista was never bad from SP1 and on. It was much more stable than my XP machine ever was. Slower, maybe, but with 4GB+ of RAM it certainly was not slow. What does 4GB cost now? I paid like $60 for the 8GB I have now LAST YEAR. As long as my FPS is over my refresh (i use VSYNC) I could care less about 2FPS. I stopped caring about benchmarks years ago.

And 7...much better. Compared to XP it is a revelation. Compared to Vista it is a step up, but not as much as the Vista haters would like to believe.

Futuremark is free to do what they want. Use XP...don't buy the game. Are they limiting their market by being DX10? Sure, but the market is already limited by requiring a 8800GT or better...that's already under 10% of the market.

I guess people have their reasons for sticking with XP. Sticking with XP for high-end gaming...I can't see why. I dual-boot XP for work stuff and for games with 16bit installers, so it has its place.

[trek554]

I tend to agree. XP is old news. So what if the FPS in certain games is 1-4FPS lower. When you put a 1GB+ card on XP you are losing overall performance in just about every other area as it eats into your memory pool. SLI or Xfire...even more. There's a reason XP doesn't support 3way SLI...it would have no memory left. Sure, there's the PAE trick, but next to nothing is going to actually USE that extra memory as any non-server program is going to be written NOT to use it.

Honestly, Vista was never bad from SP1 and on. It was much more stable than my XP machine ever was. Slower, maybe, but with 4GB+ of RAM it certainly was not slow. What does 4GB cost now? I paid like $60 for the 8GB I have now LAST YEAR. As long as my FPS is over my refresh (i use VSYNC) I could care less about 2FPS. I stopped caring about benchmarks years ago.

And 7...much better. Compared to XP it is a revelation. Compared to Vista it is a step up, but not as much as the Vista haters would like to believe.

Futuremark is free to do what they want. Use XP...don't buy the game. Are they limiting their market by being DX10? Sure, but the market is already limited by requiring a 8800GT or better...that's already under 10% of the market.

I guess people have their reasons for sticking with XP. Sticking with XP for high-end gaming...I can't see why. I dual-boot XP for work stuff and for games with 16bit installers, so it has its place.
well Vista and 7 are NOT slower than XP anymore so that cant even be an excuse for them. btw you dont lose more memory because of XP. Vista 32 bit will do the same thing because its a 32bit/64bit issue not an XP issue. yeah if you have a good gaming pc then there is no reason not to migrate to Windows 7.

[Star*Dagger]

Actually I hope the stupid people do NOT upgrade to win7, then there will be fewer stupid people playing SH, which is fine with me.

Yours in Win7 Plasma,
Star*Dagger

[steven975]

well Vista and 7 are NOT slower than XP anymore so that cant even be an excuse for them. btw you dont lose more memory because of XP. Vista 32 bit will do the same thing because its a 32bit/64bit issue not an XP issue. yeah if you have a good gaming pc then there is no reason not to migrate to Windows 7.

my bad. I just remembered there were x86 versions of Vista/7. Now, THOSE...there is just no reason to use...on a gaming system anyway.

[Korn1699]

my bad. I just remembered there were x86 versions of Vista/7. Now, THOSE...there is just no reason to use...on a gaming system anyway.

unless your CPU is only 32 bits..

[the_mitch28]

I upgraded to Vista from XP at the start of this year and for an operating system that is apparently terrible.... it's a lot better than XP.

Faster, better looking.. all the good stuff.

[trek554]

unless your CPU is only 32 bits..if you only have a 32bit cpu then you dont have a pc made for gaming in the first place. cpus have been 64bit for at least 5 or 6 years.

[Korn1699]

if you only have a 32bit cpu then you dont have a pc made for gaming in the first place. cpus have been 64bit for at least 5 or 6 years.

My 3 GHz P4 could handle almost any game I threw at it, but my motherboard was only agp, so the best I could get for the GPU was a 512MB 3850. That worked for every game before GTA IV...

[trek554]

My 3 GHz P4 could handle almost any game I threw at it, but my motherboard was only agp, so the best I could get for the GPU was a 512MB 3850. That worked for every game before GTA IV...well regardless of what you think a 3.0 P4 does not belong in any type of modern gaming pc. we are talking about computers capable of playing modern games like Shattered Horizon so a single core P4 is not the least bit relevant. that cpu is barely capable of playing many modern games and would bottleneck the hell out of even an entry level video card. btw even the last P4 cpus were 64bit so again I say if you have a cpu that isnt 64bit then you dont have a pc made for gaming in the first place.

[Korn1699]

well regardless of what you think a 3.0 P4 does not belong in any type of modern gaming pc. we are talking about computers capable of playing modern games like Shattered Horizon so a single core P4 is not the least bit relevant. that cpu is barely capable of playing many modern games and would bottleneck the hell out of even an entry level video card. btw even the last P4 cpus were 64bit so again I say if you have a cpu that isnt 64bit then you dont have a pc made for gaming in the first place.

Very few new games are even optimized for 64 bit system, and up until the last year, few even took advantage of multiple cores. That P4 has hyper threading, so as long as two threads are from the same process, it can do two at once. Also, unless you have an i7, good Core 2, or are doing some overclocking, you aren't going to get above 3 GHz. Since a lot of games weren't taking advantage of CPUs with multiple cores, my P4 really didn't do bad..of course it helped that I was running striped velociraptors for my C drive... I that system had 5.9s in Vista for everything except CPU(4.6) and Memory(4.8 I think..).

[trek554]

Very few new games are even optimized for 64 bit system, and up until the last year, few even took advantage of multiple cores. That P4 has hyper threading, so as long as two threads are from the same process, it can do two at once. Also, unless you have an i7, good Core 2, or are doing some overclocking, you aren't going to get above 3 GHz. Since a lot of games weren't taking advantage of CPUs with multiple cores, my P4 really didn't do bad..of course it helped that I was running striped velociraptors for my C drive... I that system had 5.9s in Vista for everything except CPU(4.6) and Memory(4.8 I think..).
no one said anything about a game being optimized for 64bit. we were talking about having more than 3gb of memory. to utilize much more than 3gb of memory you need a 64bit os. if someone is thinking about upgrading to a 64bit os but only has a 32bit cpu then modern gaming isnt going to be happening anyway.

your P4 with hyperthreading is no where near the same thing as a dual core cpu. also your cpu at 3.0 is way more than twice as slow as even just one core from a modern dual or quad core. heck when the Core 2 Duos first came out the 1.83 was WAY faster than 3.0 Pentium D which which is two P4 cpus put together. now facter in that the E8xxx series cpus are about 20% faster clock for clock than the original Core 2 Duo cpus and one core on my E8500 even lowered to 1.3 would still be faster than your 3.0 P4


please get an understanding that your 3.0 P4 is VERY VERY SLOW clock for clock so even in a single threaded game it would get ♥♥♥♥♥ by a modern dual or quad core cpu.

[Korn1699]

your P4 with hyperthreading is no where near the same thing as a dual core cpu. also your cpu at 3.0 is way more than twice as slow as even just one core from a modern dual or quad core. heck when the Core 2 Duos first came out the 1.83 was WAY faster than 3.0 Pentium D which which is two P4 cpus put together. now facter in that the E8xxx series cpus are about 20% faster clock for clock than the original Core 2 Duo cpus and one core on my E8500 even lowered to 1.3 would still be faster than your 3.0 P4


please get an understanding that your 3.0 P4 is VERY VERY SLOW clock for clock so even in a single threaded game it would get ♥♥♥♥♥ by a modern dual or quad core cpu.

A quad core at 1.5 GHz running a single threaded app could only run it at 1.5 GHz...a 3.0 GHz P4 would be able to run it at 3.0 GHz... The quad would just be able to handle other stuff going on better. That is why the new i7s overclock themselves in up to 5 bins (133 MHz intervals by default) to speed up when a single threaded app is running. My 2.8 GHz i7 on here can in theory get up to 3.47 GHz on its own without me turning on any overclocking, although usually something else is running so it may only got up by 4 of the 5 bins.

[trek554]

A quad core at 1.5 GHz running a single threaded app could only run it at 1.5 GHz...a 3.0 GHz P4 would be able to run it at 3.0 GHz... The quad would just be able to handle other stuff going on better. That is why the new i7s overclock themselves in up to 5 bins (133 MHz intervals by default) to speed up when a single threaded app is running. My 2.8 GHz i7 on here can in theory get up to 3.47 GHz on its own without me turning on any overclocking, although usually something else is running so it may only got up by 4 of the 5 bins.again you missed the point. your 3.0 P4 is already slower than even one core at 1.5 on modern Core 2 Duo, Quad or especially i7. if I lower my E8500 to 1.5 many games like Ghostbusters, GTA 4, Assassins Creed, Red Faction Guerrilla and others become basically unplayable and thats still using TWO cores which those games have to have just to run properly. remember your 3.0 P4 is not even as fast as ONE of my cores at 1.5. heck modern cpus dont even come clocked that low so even just core of a modern cpu at any stock speed will beat the unholy crap out of a 3.0 P4. and I hate to tell you but most modern games do utilize at least part of a second core. again even if a game only used one core your 3.0 P4 is still pathetic. most modern games are NOT very playable if at all with that cpu. even the ones that are playable would have a massive improvement with a modern cpu.

[Korn1699]

again you missed the point. your 3.0 P4 is already slower than even one core at 1.5 on modern Core 2 Duo, Quad or especially i7. they dont even come clocked that low so even just core of a modern cpu at 3.0 will beat the crap out of a 3.0 P4. and I hate to tell you but most modern games do utilize at least part of a second core. again even if a game only used one core your 3.0 P4 is still pathetic. most modern games are NOT very playable if at all with that cpu. even the ones that are barley playable would have a massive improvement with a modern cpu.

how is a 3.0 GHz slower than a newer CPU running at a lower frequncy? that is the speed... I've done multiple computations that are single threaded and take hours to complete on ANY CPU with most of the newer processors against my P4, and 3.0GHz on that finishes in basically the same time as 3.0 GHz on any of those..

The only reason I had trouble with GTA IV was because my card didn't have enough room for all the textures. Everything else was fine...Crysis, Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed,..

[trek554]

how is a 3.0 GHz slower than a newer CPU running at a lower frequncy? that is the speed... I've done multiple computations that are single threaded and take hours to complete on ANY CPU with most of the newer processors against my P4, and 3.0GHz on that finishes in basically the same time as 3.0 GHz on any of those..you are out of you freaking mind if you think a 3.0 P4 is the same as a Core 2 Duo or other modern cpu at 3.0. the speed of the cpu doesnt mean ♥♥♥♥ when comparing it to a completely different architecture. that is so ignorant to think that 5 years after the P4 all we have are just more cores at the same speed? PLEASE go educate yourself.

[Korn1699]

you are out of you freaking mind if you think a 3.0 P4 is the same as a Core 2 Duo or other modern cpu at 3.0. the speed of the cpu doesnt mean ♥♥♥♥ when comparing it to a completely different architecture. that is so ignorant to think that 5 years after the P4 all we have are just more cores at the same speed? PLEASE go educate yourself.

I have... That is where I proved the frequencies are the same speed when it comes to a single threaded app. Along with random apps I made and tested over the years, I had a term project classifying LARGE datasets. We classified two different ways. One used 3 GB of memory for just the model while it was creating it, although that only took a couple hours. The other used up a lot less (maybe 512 or so), but it took 8 hours on the P4. I tried that on any computer I could get my hands on at that time to test multiple variations. There usually a direct relation on frequency and time that the model took to be generated. The only major difference I noticed is that the pentium D was a lot slower, even having the same frequency.

[trek554]

I have... That is where I proved the frequencies are the same speed when it comes to a single threaded app. Along with random apps I made and tested over the years, I had a term project classifying LARGE datasets. We classified two different ways. One used 3 GB of memory for just the model while it was creating it, although that only took a couple hours. The other used up a lot less (maybe 512 or so), but it took 8 hours on the P4. I tried that on any computer I could get my hands on at that time to test multiple variations. There usually a direct relation on frequency and time that the model took to be generated. The only major difference I noticed is that the pentium D was a lot slower, even having the same frequency.sorry but you do not know what you are talking about. a P4 at 3.0 is no where near the performance of even one core of a Core 2 Duo or i7 at 3.0. its NOT EVEN CLOSE. every cpu architecture is different and you can have a completely different level of performance compared to another cpu even at the same clock speed. heck even simply adding more cache can give more performance to a cpu that is otherwise the same architecture. that and a larger front side bus are why newer E8xxx Core 2 cpus are faster than older E4xxx and E6xxx cpus even at the same clock speeds.


here is a simple example for you to maybe understand just how far off you are. years ago when your 3.0 P4 was actually relevant for gaming the single core Athlon 64 at 2.4 would beat the crap out of it. clock for clock the P4 wasnt even close to the Athlon 64 and today either of those cpus would easily get beat by only core at just 1.6 on a modern day cpu like Core 2 or i7.

[Korn1699]

sorry but you do not know what you are talking about. a P4 at 3.0 is no where near the performance of even one core of a Core 2 Duo or i7 at 3.0. its NOT EVEN CLOSE. every cpu architecture is different and you can have a completely different level of performance compared to another cpu even at the same clock speed. heck even simply adding more cache can give more performance to a cpu that is otherwise the same architecture. that and a larger front side bus are why newer E8xxx Core 2 cpus are faster than older E4xxx and E6xxx cpus even at the same clock speeds.


here is a simple example for you to maybe understand just how far off you are. years ago when your 3.0 P4 was actually relevant for gaming the single core Athlon 64 at 2.4 would beat the crap out of it. clock for clock the P4 wasnt even close to the Athlon 64 and today either of those cpus would easily get beat by only core at just 1.6 on a modern day cpu like Core 2 or i7.

The newer CPUs only help when you are doing multiple things at once. I was talking from experience with a lot of different systems and performance changes between then and between upgrades. For most games until about this year, the graphics card was the main determining factor, whether it was memory, speed, or the memory interface. As long as I closed basically everything and just was playing the game, the 3 GHz P4 wasn't what was restricting me.

I started with the P4 and a 7600, got a laptop with a 2.2 core2 and 8600 GT, upgraded it to a 2.53 Core2 (no noticeable performance difference in games to the 2.2 but there was in just general use), upgraded the 7600 to a 3850, and then games ran much better on that than the laptop. When GTA IV came out I got a 2.2 GHz Core2 laptop with a 9800 GTS that now has a 2.8 GHz Core2. That handled games better because the card was better. When it came to just major single threaded computation it was usually more frequency giving better time.

[Shebeski]

The newer CPUs only help when you are doing multiple things at once. I was talking from experience with a lot of different systems and performance changes between then and between upgrades. For most games until about this year, the graphics card was the main determining factor, whether it was memory, speed, or the memory interface. As long as I closed basically everything and just was playing the game, the 3 GHz P4 wasn't what was restricting me.

Yes, it was. A P4 at 3.0GHz does not compared to a single core of the E8400 @ 3.0GHz. You're SORELY mistaken. There is a huge architecture difference. A Pentium D (Pentium 4 dual core) at 3.7GHz (they exist) doesn't even compete with an old 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo, in single or dual threaded applications. The architecture has changed dramatically and they do NOT process information the same. The Core 2 does much, much, much more work per clock cycle. Why the hell would someone upgrade from a Pentium D 3.7 to an E6600 (as the time) at 2.4GHz? The E6600 destroyed it in everything, hyperthreading or not, frequency or not. You're totally wrong about everything.

I started with the P4 and a 7600, got a laptop with a 2.2 core2 and 8600 GT, upgraded it to a 2.53 Core2 (no noticeable performance difference in games to the 2.2 but there was in just general use), upgraded the 7600 to a 3850, and then games ran much better on that than the laptop. When GTA IV came out I got a 2.2 GHz Core2 laptop with a 9800 GTS that now has a 2.8 GHz Core2. That handled games better because the card was better. When it came to just major single threaded computation it was usually more frequency giving better time.

That doesn't say anything at all. Yes, a better card will handle games better, but your anecdote is set up all wrong and doesn't prove anything. You were using such poor graphics cards that you obviously wouldn't notice a CPU increase because your graphics card (7600 or 8600) are absolute junk. Pair that 9800GTS with a P4 and at 3.0GHz and source games don't even run smooth at max. SOURCE! A 9800GTS can destroy source games, but it's well documented that a poor CPU paired with a decent video card will result in poor performance. A P4 is an absolutely terrible CPU and of course you wouldn't be able to tell using such terrible cards.

Just admit that you're wrong. We haven't just been adding cores. The entire processing method has changed. Cache size and structure has changed, FSB has changed. All of it has been dramatic, and i7 is ever more efficient. A 2.66GHz single core of an i7 destroys a 2.66GHz single core of a Core 2, which then destroys a single core 2.66GHz P4. Do NOT compare the i7 frequency to a P4, it only makes you look like a child with that much ignorance.

Benchmarks which show a 3.7GHz Pentium D being mutilated by now ancient CPUS. Seriously, educate yourself.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=14
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=15
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=16

And if you can't read, here's an example:

Oblivion, an older game, not that multi-threaded. E6300 at 1.86GHz receives 81.3 frames per second. Pentium EXTREME 965 dual core @ 3.73GHz receives 70.7 frames per second using the same graphics card.

Old game, old graphics cards. Your argument is toast. Twice the frequency and it can't even keep up. Goodbye.

[Korn1699]

You can't use the Pentium D for comparison to a P4. Pentium D doesn't have shared cache, which means that it can do two different things at once, but not two threads working on the same thing, as a P4 with HT can. My old work PC had a 3.0 GHz Pentium D and it performed much worse than the P4 on my home desktop with everything. That P4 has a FSB at 800 MHz which is still above half of what most newer CPUs have. I won't admit being wrong, but I will admit that having the striped 10,000 RPM drives as my main drive on that machine may have made that system perform a lot better than if it was just a regular P4 system. That machine isn't working right now because I took most of the drives out for the i7 system, and I haven't gotten around to putting windows back on it. I'll have to do some tests on it then..

[grayscare0]

You're an idiot. Windows 7 just came out. You have to give time for people to actually go get the thing you know? Wait one or two months and look again.

Vista says hello.

[Shebeski]

You can't use the Pentium D for comparison to a P4. Pentium D doesn't have shared cache, which means that it can do two different things at once, but not two threads working on the same thing, as a P4 with HT can. My old work PC had a 3.0 GHz Pentium D and it performed much worse than the P4 on my home desktop with everything. That P4 has a FSB at 800 MHz which is still above half of what most newer CPUs have. I won't admit being wrong, but I will admit that having the striped 10,000 RPM drives as my main drive on that machine may have made that system perform a lot better than if it was just a regular P4 system. That machine isn't working right now because I took most of the drives out for the i7 system, and I haven't gotten around to putting windows back on it. I'll have to do some tests on it then..

Yes, you can. A single core of a Pentium D is IDENTICAL in all practical ways to a Pentium 4. They just doubled a P4 and put it on one chip. So yes, a single threaded application ran the exact same way on a P4 or a PD.

The FSB doesn't matter. They run on net-burst architecture, something totally different from Core 2s and i7 (which themselves are very, very different). You can't compare a Pentium 4's clock rate to that of a Core 2. You just can't, they aren't the same and don't mean the same thing.

Sure, they may still represent the speed of the CPU with GHz, just as engine power is represented in Horsepower, it doesn't take into consideration the rest of the car. Two cars can have 400HP but one can be super light and aerodynamic, the other, a box weighing a few tons. One will naturally perform everything better than the other, regardless of this deceiving piece of information.

This situation is exactly the same. The P4 is a box with 400HP and the Core 2s are highly aerodynamic, light and expensive cars with 400HP.

[Korn1699]

Yes, you can. A single core of a Pentium D is IDENTICAL in all practical ways to a Pentium 4. They just doubled a P4 and put it on one chip. So yes, a single threaded application ran the exact same way on a P4 or a PD.

The FSB doesn't matter. They run on net-burst architecture, something totally different from Core 2s and i7 (which themselves are very, very different). You can't compare a Pentium 4's clock rate to that of a Core 2. You just can't, they aren't the same and don't mean the same thing.

Sure, they may still represent the speed of the CPU with GHz, just as engine power is represented in Horsepower, it doesn't take into consideration the rest of the car. Two cars can have 400HP but one can be super light and aerodynamic, the other, a box weighing a few tons. One will naturally perform everything better than the other, regardless of this deceiving piece of information.

This situation is exactly the same. The P4 is a box with 400HP and the Core 2s are highly aerodynamic, light and expensive cars with 400HP.

You can't compare a P4 to a PD when a P4 can handle threaded apps more like a Core2 can. The PD was just something intel threw out there to have a 64 bit CPU to try to compete with AMD.

Don't even bring cars into it. I've got more to do than argue on here, and even responding to that wouldn't help any because I can rant about that even more...

[Shebeski]

You can't compare a P4 to a PD when a P4 can handle threaded apps more like a Core2 can. The PD was just something intel threw out there to have a 64 bit CPU to try to compete with AMD.

Yes, I can, because they're the same thing. A Pentium D EE (Extreme Edition) at 3.73GHz is actually two Pentium 4 Prescotts on the same chip, hyperthreading and all. There was no difference between them. The normal Pentium Ds did not have hyperthreading, but yes, the EE version is a completely accurate and valid comparison. They are one in the same, ok?

Secondly, a P4 doesn't handle threads like a Core 2, as Core 2s don't have hyperthreading. The non-EE Pentium Ds are closer in form to the Core 2s because they have two cores with just two threads, but that is where the similarities end.

I have no idea how you're not understanding this. Pentium D = Pentium 4 architecture, cache, FSB, HT, frequencies. Everything is equivalent.

A program running on a late Pentium 4 @ 3GHz vs. a Pentium D @ 3GHz with one core disabled are identical if they have the same cache and FSB, and in most cases they did.

[steven975]

[QUOTE=Korn1699;11811103]You can't compare a P4 to a PD when a P4 can handle threaded apps more like a Core2 can. The PD was just something intel threw out there to have a 64 bit CPU to try to compete with AMD.
QUOTE]

Well, you might be right, but it would be in a *VERY* limited set of circumstances. A P4 with Hyperthreading is not better than a P-D with 2 cores...its as simple as that. Sure, they are both 2 threads, but the P-D can utilize the full execution pipleine for each thread. Oh, and each thread would have its own cache. With a P4-HT, the 2 threads would have to share a cache and an execution pipeline. It may be faster that way on a *VERY* limited set of circumstances (those where locally available, small amounts of cache are needed with a high incidence of branch prediction failures), but the 2 core method is going to perform better more consistently.

Take an example of video encoding...a relatively "easy" procedure that doesn't need lots of cache. With HT, the execution pipeline will be filled by both threads, but filling that pipeline with 1 thread isn't hard as there is a low incidence of branch prediciton failures with this type of task. 2 cores and 2 pipelines are better than 1 core sharing an execution pipeline.

Oh, and the P-D could have HT for 4 total cores, but the FSB was just too slow. Merely maintaining cache coherency would just choke it.

And on the P4 3.0Ghz being equal to a Core 2 "solo" (hypothetical CPU) at 3.0Ghz...I really hope you're not trying to keep that argument going. The Core2 has vastly better branch prediction, a much shorter pipeline, larger L1 and L2 cache, and can do way more work in just one clock cycle. That and it would use far less energy.

[Shebeski]

To sum it up:

You were wrong. Pentium 4/D CPUs are and have been utterly inadequate for gaming since 2006 at the very latest. To claim that a P4/D even holds a candle to any modern CPU in single threaded applications is a huge factual inaccuracy, and is, quite frankly, embarrassing.

[trek554]

Korn1699, you are extremely ignorant about cpus and have no idea what you are talking about. do you actually think the rest of the world is as clueless as you are? you are beyond help so keep dreaming thinking that a P4 is just as fast as modern cpus at even single threaded apps. :rolleyes:

[Korn1699]

Korn1699, you are extremely ignorant about cpus and have no idea what you are talking about. do you actually think the rest of the world is as clueless as you are? you are beyond help so keep dreaming thinking that a P4 is just as fast as modern cpus at even single threaded apps. :rolleyes:

Ok, this all started from me saying that some people may still game on 32 bit CPUs. The P4 system wasn't great, but it could play most games to a playable level on maybe medium settings, not because I had a crazy P4 because it isn't that good. The whole system together really pushed it to the limits of that hardware. Most of my experiences were based off a small set of code (Java in the case of the operation that took hours), so a benchmark that uses a lot more features would be different. I'm sure at least a few of my comments were late night rants because it was after 1 am here when I made most of them.. Also, most of my newer CPU comparisons were based off laptop CPUs, which had lower FSBs than most of the desktop versions.

I did not intend to make most of the comments I made, just that some people may still be using 32 bit only systems for games (not that those people would be able to play any games since early this year very well on them..)

[warmaster670]

The game is $19.99. Windows 7 upgrade is $30. Thats $50, the price of a standard game.

Anyone still using XP for gaming is a cave-person. There is not a single reason to use XP for gaming. Not one. If your computer is gaming capable (3+ GB of RAM, 9800+ GPU, 2.66ghz+ Dual or Quadcore) you have no excuse to use DX9.

Prove me wrong.
my computers plenty gaming capable, heres my excuse, DX10 doesnt look good enough to but a NEW OS.

Why buy vista or 7 when XP works just fine for no extra cost?

[trek554]

my computers plenty gaming capable, heres my excuse, DX10 doesnt look good enough to but a NEW OS.

Why buy vista or 7 when XP works just fine for no extra cost?
then why not stick with Windows 2000? you might have had a decent argument last year but XP is now two operating systems behind. also this is just now the first ground up DX10 game even though DX10 has been out for three years. it was bound to happen at sometime so either pay the small upgrade fee for 7 or dont play.

[BuckRodgers]

I would have kept XP if not for the fact that i had grabbed 8gb of ram for my pc and the OS could only see 3.5-4gb of it. After the first service pack vista stopped being bad if you had enough ram.

From the reports ive been seeing win 7 is looking pretty damn nice, sounds like its not a bad choice to update, personally though all it provides me is a small performance boost so i'll stick to vista until such a time as i can comfortably reformat or buy a nice solid state hard drive.

There is almost no reason to still be using XP, I can understand not wanting to switch, waiting for the win 7 service pack, but come 6 months or so if you are still using win xp chances are you might actually start losing compatibility with some programs now.

[Darkstar83]

if you only have a 32bit cpu then you dont have a pc made for gaming in the first place. cpus have been 64bit for at least 5 or 6 years.

Actually, nearly 50 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

But yeah, for consumers/x86 architecture...

[ojibewa]

guess you can call me Capt Caveman..

I'm on XP64 90% of the time, even tho I dual boot..

Q6600 @ 3.4ghz
6G OCZ PC1066
BFG 9800GX2
XFI Platinum

I have no problems gaming with XP64 at all, for SH and other DX10 games I just boot to the other OS..

but for the most part if I'm not gaming I'm on XP64

IndianScout - PBBans - Punkbuster Support..

[magdelen11235]

Dont have to 52% of steam users do that for me.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
You're an idiot.

No. You just proved that 52% of the steam community have an out of date OS. You actually proved that 48% of the community aren't airheads who bring down the entire PC gaming community by saying that you would prefer game developers spend their time and money, and therefore your money to support an obsolete format, instead of pushing the limit of where gaming can go, both on community wise, and hardware based. So if you want stay on your XP rock and whine about progress in the gaming community, because in reality you don't want to perform a simple upgrade, then be my guest. However, I'm going to support the gaming community by enjoying a new game that does what is stated above, even if it means I have to spend a minuscule amount of time upgrading, an OS.

[Alex0856]

I'm totally for Windows 7, and I know these aren't the right forums, but there does sort of seem to be a pattern for Microsoft OS's ...

Windows 3 - Good
Windows 95 - Bad
Windows 98 - Good
Windows ME - Bad
Windows 2000 - Good
Windows XP - Bad at launch, evolved to Good
Windows Vista - Bad
Windows 7 - Good

Windows 98 was terrible. Period.

[Darkstar83]

also this is just now the first ground up DX10 game even though DX10 has been out for three years.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,677895/Stormrise-first-DX10-only-game-Interview-with-Lead-Designer/News/

[trek554]

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,677895/Stormrise-first-DX10-only-game-Interview-with-Lead-Designer/News/yeah I had forgot about that one. if anything that means there is even less reason for those to complain about a DX10 only game since we already had one. ;)

[Darkstar83]

yeah I had forgot about that one. if anything that means there is even less reason for those to complain about a DX10 only game since we already had one. ;)

No problem. It's not very popular game so it's easy to forget that game.

[ninjikiran]

If you really want to analyze those stats, 40% of people using steam that own DX10 capable hardware use Vista/Win7. 28% have DX10 capable hardware but are either still using XP or havn't been updated in the survey. If you only count those with DX10 hardware more than half are capable of playing a game such as this.

This is truly the first game to support only DX10, we had Halo 2 but that was basically a DX8/9 Level game forced into DX10 to sell Vista. While this game looks great it still shows there isn't much a leap from DX9 to DX10 besides being tightly integrated with Vista and beyond. DX11 on the other hand is where we are going to start to see some real game changers. Just from those demos on "tessellation" and the fact that their performance footprint is supposed to be small. I mean there are differences and a DX10 game will look better if made exclusively for the DX10 platform but thus far nothing to really make you open your eyes wide and say wow this is amazing.

Of course that is my opinion, and I am still really excited to see a DX10 only game. I feel this game has way more than graphical merits though, it was the gameplay that hooked me in. If I didn't own Vista/Win7 I would be envious. Though to be honest I think it is a little more than XP grognards that held us back from a true DX10 game and might still slightly hold is back. Although if you look at steam survey a majority of steam users own DX10 capable hardware thats still 32% who don't and that is taking into account steam is a place more hardcore PC people venture. Those of us that don't mind spending money on expensive video cards and the such every few years.

As for Vista stigmatism it is completely unwarranted. There were some bumps in the road in the beginning but thus far I haven't had any significant problems for over a year. I been using the x64 version as well, and the x64 drivers of vista imo were so buggy at launch I had to use 32-bit x86 version for a while. Now I am running Vista x64 with no problems. I don't have any issues with game performance in vista and io performance while not as strong as Win7 still doesn't effect me at all. I would NEVER go back to XP, even when it was still a little buggy. If anything windows 7 is basically a new service pack of Vista with a few extra goodies (like SSD specific functions and jumplist). The driver stability and compatibility you have in Win7 right now exist in Vista. As for BSOD, ever since WinXP i really havn't experienced them much at all unless I was having hardware issues or a really poorly coded program. Every now and then windows will explode, but even Win7 will explode every so often.

[voryon]

DX10 is old now, time for people to move on to DX11 =)

[ninjikiran]

DX10 is old now, time for people to move on to DX11 =)

I am probably going to be shy about moving over to a DX11 capable GPU. There werent many DX10 exclusive games so I might wait. My GTX295 was expensive and is still relatively new.

[arizonachris]

I am probably going to be shy about moving over to a DX11 capable GPU. There werent many DX10 exclusive games so I might wait. My GTX295 was expensive and is still relatively new.

Agree, no need to jump on the DX11 bandwagon just yet. still only a handful of DX10 titles out there. Give it a year, more DX11 titles and cheaper hardware as well.

In the beginning, XP stunk like last week's Swiss cheese. I know, I'm a MS Beta tester and have been for 13 years now. (not a paid tester just a guenia pig) SP1 was what saved XP and Vista from oblivion in both cases. Win 7, right out of the box, is fantastic.

Now is the time to get Win 7. With a student discount, it's $30 USD.

[magdelen11235]

If you really want to analyze those stats, 40% of people using steam that own DX10 capable hardware use Vista/Win7. 28% have DX10 capable hardware but are either still using XP or havn't been updated in the survey. If you only count those with DX10 hardware more than half are capable of playing a game such as this.

This is truly the first game to support only DX10, we had Halo 2 but that was basically a DX8/9 Level game forced into DX10 to sell Vista. While this game looks great it still shows there isn't much a leap from DX9 to DX10 besides being tightly integrated with Vista and beyond. DX11 on the other hand is where we are going to start to see some real game changers. Just from those demos on "tessellation" and the fact that their performance footprint is supposed to be small. I mean there are differences and a DX10 game will look better if made exclusively for the DX10 platform but thus far nothing to really make you open your eyes wide and say wow this is amazing.

Of course that is my opinion, and I am still really excited to see a DX10 only game. I feel this game has way more than graphical merits though, it was the gameplay that hooked me in. If I didn't own Vista/Win7 I would be envious. Though to be honest I think it is a little more than XP grognards that held us back from a true DX10 game and might still slightly hold is back. Although if you look at steam survey a majority of steam users own DX10 capable hardware thats still 32% who don't and that is taking into account steam is a place more hardcore PC people venture. Those of us that don't mind spending money on expensive video cards and the such every few years.

As for Vista stigmatism it is completely unwarranted. There were some bumps in the road in the beginning but thus far I haven't had any significant problems for over a year. I been using the x64 version as well, and the x64 drivers of vista imo were so buggy at launch I had to use 32-bit x86 version for a while. Now I am running Vista x64 with no problems. I don't have any issues with game performance in vista and io performance while not as strong as Win7 still doesn't effect me at all. I would NEVER go back to XP, even when it was still a little buggy. If anything windows 7 is basically a new service pack of Vista with a few extra goodies (like SSD specific functions and jumplist). The driver stability and compatibility you have in Win7 right now exist in Vista. As for BSOD, ever since WinXP i really havn't experienced them much at all unless I was having hardware issues or a really poorly coded program. Every now and then windows will explode, but even Win7 will explode every so often.

Thank you for the info

[Dreadlockyx]

Sorry if my English is bad :P

If you want to buy Windows:
1) Get a keygen/seria - It's (not) good :D Get your own serial
2) Get Windows Vista/7
3) Install Windows
4) Play games

If you want to stay with XP:
Do like me
1) Install Vista (Get a keygen/serial or your own serial)
2) At the startup, choose ''eariler version of Windows* (XP)'' or Vista
3) Enjoy your OS
4) Play games

* = You must install Vista in normal mode (not update)

Remember that 7 is based on the same kernel as Vista (6.0 for Vista and 6.5 for 7)

[Leopold Stotch]

I'm actually DL'ing W7 only for this game as we speak.

[Korn1699]

Remember that 7 is based on the same kernel as Vista (6.0 for Vista and 6.5 for 7)

Actually, 7 is 6.1.

[Kitsunami]

I have vista, and my version works fine.

Though, it is an alienware tweaked edition of vista.

[xayu]

I use XP on my netbook for working, actually I wish a similar OS to XP was made coz bullcrap what Microsoft are saying if it wern't for DX10 and 11 I would be back to XP in a flash because its so comfortable to use and convienient. Most of the features of Vista (and 7 from what I have seen of it) are everything I hate in operating system, snapping to the side windows (hate) a user folder then a documents folder (hate), quite a lot of these other supposidly new and convienient ways of getting around my operating system (hate) pretty much coz they all made me have to relearn everything about how to operate an operating system, everything that had been in an operating system but just built upon since windows 95. I used to be able to teach people how to use a computer now half the time I aint got a clue myself and I find myself saying "if it was XP i'd be able to tell ya."

But where Vista and 7 do get it right are the looks. But as we know with girls usually the bad apples are the ones that look good. But I will defend Vista to the fact its not buggy despite what people say its stable for me apart from it not liking some of my old games (but which OS really does) I have no issues so until I get a new rig I would say Vista is here to stay on my gaming rig.

Yeah so you can say it OMG a Vista user would rather have XP kill him as a heretic...

[kattle87]

IMHO W7 sucks a little less than Vista, but still sucks.
At least they tried to change the GUI that some people like more, some dislike.
But HOLY ♥♥♥♥ GUYS the RC IS FREE and has been out for a while! Give it a try! I'm using it right now (can't do performance comparison since I'm on a really powerful PC compared to my XP one) and it *just works* (apart from some crazy technical ♥♥♥♥).
For the average user, it can be just as good as XP is (on a decent PC).

[frontline]

Windows 7 is the best os i've used since Windows 2000. I have to use XP at work and find it frustrating as hell.

[ZakTheEvil]

Just my 2 cents and another vote for Windows 7. Get it. If you have decent hardware you have no reason to run XP. XP is over, dead, ugly. I've run 7 since RC came out in Spring and last week installed final on all my PCs and I will never look back at XP, it's ancient history. Windows 7 is awesome, first Windows ever that I really like and enjoy using. Sure, you may experience switching pains, some problems but inthe end it'll be worth it. I tried Vista meantime and had problems, some apps didn't run. They all run on Windows 7. I even installed Jedi Knight II for kicks and runs on 7 great, but didn't run on Vista:)

No reason to call people names. 50% of Steam users run XP because of inertia, it works for them, why switching? But 7 just officially came out so give it 6 months and then check Steam statistics:)

Z.

[voryon]

have fun bottlenecking ur system with windows xp

[trek554]

have fun bottlenecking ur system with windows xp
you brought a year old thread back from the dead just to say that? :rolleyes:

[DEATHx2]

ha ha

[Hokum]

so do you actually think the average person with a gtx260 is on XP?

I have a GTX 460 and have XP because it's less memory intensive allowing for superior gaming performance on the 99% of games that support it (basically everything but this and Just Cause 2).

[DacK]

I have a GTX 460 and have XP because it's less memory intensive allowing for superior gaming performance on the 99% of games that support it (basically everything but this and Just Cause 2).

This was true 3 years ago when Vista came out.

It's no longer true and a lots of games runs better on Vista/Seven than XP.