1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Interesting: Black OPS Windows 7 v XP performance.

Discussion in 'Games' started by MatTheCat, Apr 15, 2011.

  1. MatTheCat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    883 (0.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    129
  2. AsRock

    AsRock TPU addict

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,256 (4.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,804
    Location:
    US
    So ?, it drops to min 45 fps meaning it's way playable. Dunno what the benchmark is like with BO but if any thing like Mafia II it's way over what you actually need playing the game.

    And lets face all it takes is a few extra lighting effects and such to make a frame rate drop.
     
  3. ctrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    393 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    72
    uh it took me like 5-10 seconds to load a map if i remember right. something is wrong with this guys setup.

    it definitely never took 40 seconds.
     
  4. Melvis

    Melvis

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,594 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    531
    Location:
    Australia
    Hmm i wonder if my m8s system will improve if he runs it on XP, his runs like total ass on windows 7 64, (E8400/GTX460/4GB RAM)

    Mine runs perfect.
     
  5. AsRock

    AsRock TPU addict

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,256 (4.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,804
    Location:
    US
    Don't Quads help a great deal with this game ?.

    What ya expect with only 2GB of ram lol.. I've needed more than that for years now lol.
     
  6. MadClown

    MadClown New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362 (0.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Location:
    NY, the state were you cant defend yourself
    Maps load in under 10 secs for me, fps does leave a little to be desired though.
     
  7. crazyeyesreaper

    crazyeyesreaper Chief Broken Rig

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,180 (3.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,821
    Location:
    04578
    weird i havent heard of anyone having issues on win7 64bit around me that plays it on PC. then again Black Ops dosent use a quadcore... it only uses 2 cores, but from the looks the people having issues are all using dual core systems.
     
  8. Melvis

    Melvis

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,594 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    531
    Location:
    Australia
    Yes that is correct, but this guy^ got it running sweet with his dual core on XP?

    and my m8 has 4GB not 2GB.
     
  9. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,849 (1.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,026
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    2GB of RAM and then complaining over bad performance... I've had 2GB of RAM 8 years ago...
     
  10. 2DividedbyZero New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Messages:
    780 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    202
    Location:
    in retarded hell
    I must've said this over a billion times.... I don't get any issues playing BLOPS



    :D




    2Gb Ram is a decent amount for a PC even today --- but a PC gamer must be aware --- build your system to its (your) requirements.

    You don't put your flip flops on and go to a 50K job interview right. (hmmm maybe some of you shouldn't answer that ;))
     
    Jack Doph says thanks.
  11. tigger

    tigger I'm the only one

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    10,183 (3.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Dayum thats were i went wrong :eek:
     
    Jack Doph says thanks.
  12. Jack Doph

    Jack Doph

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    508 (0.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Location:
    Upright down-under (Brisbane, Australia)
    I must confess I have never been to an interview that cost me 50K..
    :p
     
  13. AsRock

    AsRock TPU addict

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,256 (4.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,804
    Location:
    US
    2GB is not as bad for XP.

    your m8 ?, the OP ?.

    And lets face it everyone runs and instals different software \ hardware every configuration cannot be covered.
     
  14. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,313 (7.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,795
    The problem with this guy is he doesn't know WTF hes doing.
     
  15. caleb

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,553 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Location:
    Poland,Slask
    Whats wrong with playing COD on a 2GB system? Do you ever look at task manager?
    I play BC2 on my shitty spec PC (win7) and I still have 400MB+ of memory free.

    Memory size doesn't hit FPS directly. More likely it will start to stutter (0FPS) not cause a drop from 60 to 40 fps.
     
  16. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,939 (3.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,531
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    I can't look at that link due to the proxy at work :rolleyes: but if it shows XP outperforming 7 in 3D performance, then yes, it's absolutely true, it does.

    I published some benchies on this forum a while back showing just how much 3D performance is lost with Vista and 7. I believe it's probably due to the video DRM Microsoft baked in.
     
  17. Easo

    Easo

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    840 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    79
    Location:
    Latvia
    Problem is on his end. Although his CPU is below minimum, its not the factor. Maybe some funky AV on Win 7 doing the "job".
     
  18. lilhasselhoffer

    lilhasselhoffer

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,681 (1.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,040
    Location:
    East Coast, USA
    There was an article about the difference between windows 7 and xp awhile back (focusing on dx9 and subsequent revisions). I can't remember who wrote it, but it was on the TPU front page. Maybe that's worth a read before anyone jumps on the RAM issue....

    That aside, I believe this article was done by someone with an agenda. While the performance may differ between operating systems, I have never experienced a radical shift in performance with my dual boot system. Given that xp x64 is less supported than 7 x64, you would think that if there was a problem it would be there.

    Conjectures aside, installing 5 mods on certain games has nerfed them on occasion. I have experienced a 400% increase in loading times in unreal tournament 2007 due to poor coding. I would be interested if the author was using only the vanilla game with all the patches, or something that might be running poorer due to garbage code from an outside mod. While it may not be relevant, nothing is mentioned in the article.


    In short, the author doesn't reveal anything that couldn't be fabricated by someone with an agenda. It may be my paranoia, but someone who writes a scathing article without anything but the barest of facts generally hasn't thought it through, or is pushing their belief shrouded in the guise of fact.
     
    Jack Doph says thanks.
  19. exodusprime1337

    exodusprime1337

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,188 (0.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    342
    I think his dates system specs are the problem with the benchmark, that or windows system issues(old install, virus repair, outdated drivers), i play at 1920x1080 all settings max with a modified cfg file only to have 125 fps and i litereally get only 125fps always, it rarely drops and if it does, only to 115 or so, and my loading times are pretty quick, as in the loading screen never even shows up, it goes black and then i'm in game, no loading bar at all... seems to be an issue with his computer.
     
  20. 2DividedbyZero New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Messages:
    780 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    202
    Location:
    in retarded hell
    i've mentioned in other posts, max_fps and maxpackets have a direct relation to one another - pick these wisely, google for a guide. Also snaps should ideally be set to 30.

    these are the only 3 things changed in my config, else settings are maxed at 1920x1200
     
  21. temp02 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    493 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    166
    Really?!? On a 2 GB system running bloated 7, games take longer to load and perform worse compared to XP?!?
    [​IMG]
     
  22. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,313 (7.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,795
  23. 2DividedbyZero New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Messages:
    780 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    202
    Location:
    in retarded hell
    he musta been a real vista fan
     
  24. temp02 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    493 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    166
    Don't tell me you still believe it's not, it's basically the same as Vista with a small tweaks here and there. The article author even stated the amount of RAM the system was using at idle, at the end of the article, 75% more RAM usage than on XP, leading to less free RAM available, leading to more page file usage, leading to more hard disk usage, leading to more and bigger waits between multiple disk reads, leading to slower system. How is that not bloated compared to XP?
     
  25. 2DividedbyZero New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    Messages:
    780 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    202
    Location:
    in retarded hell
    somebody stop me from reading this.
     
    Jack Doph says thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page