• 79 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -

So this review is in Polish... so you know google translate and all that

http://pclab.pl/art55318-10.html

But really here's the bit that matters.

It looks like the changes made to reduce CPU over head under DX 11.1 are paying some pretty damn hefty dividends under frostbite 3.

#2 Edited by Zurv (413 posts) -

I've had the same experience too on bf4 (win7 vs 8.1)

#3 Posted by ikilledthedj (279 posts) -

Hmmmm so that was confusing to read. how much better FPS are we talking? because this might be enough for me to jump on the Eight train

#4 Edited by Bollard (5025 posts) -

@korwin: Any proof that holds for other setups? Like, maybe an Intel processor? Isn't necessarily representative unless it holds across more than one PC... But interesting nonetheless.

#5 Edited by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@ikilledthedj said:

Hmmmm so that was confusing to read. how much better FPS are we talking? because this might be enough for me to jump on the Eight train

Chart speaks for itself I would have thought. That's the same rig jumping up 20 fps on both the min and max simply by changing to 8.1 (like 50-60%)

#6 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@korwin: Any proof that holds for other setups? Like, maybe an Intel processor? Isn't necessarily representative unless it holds across more than one PC... But interesting nonetheless.

It should hold universally true regardless of CPU vendor (CPU's unlike GPU's all work from a common instruction set). The advantage is in the use of DX11.2 optimizations.

#7 Posted by ikilledthedj (279 posts) -

@korwin said:

@ikilledthedj said:

Hmmmm so that was confusing to read. how much better FPS are we talking? because this might be enough for me to jump on the Eight train

Chart speaks for itself I would have thought. That's the same rig jumping up 20 fps on both the min and max simply by changing to 8.1 (like 50-60%)

Ahh i couldnt tell what that was (kl./s) Might wait for others to give it a try, I just reformatted not long ago

#8 Edited by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@korwin said:

@ikilledthedj said:

Hmmmm so that was confusing to read. how much better FPS are we talking? because this might be enough for me to jump on the Eight train

Chart speaks for itself I would have thought. That's the same rig jumping up 20 fps on both the min and max simply by changing to 8.1 (like 50-60%)

Ahh i couldnt tell what that was (kl./s) Might wait for others to give it a try, I just reformatted not long ago

Probably the Polish abbreviation for fp/s ;)

#9 Edited by Vuud (1432 posts) -

I'm still skittish on getting 8.1 when I build my new PC next year. Maybe if they can keep taking steps to prove it's not a horrible waste they'll convince me.

#10 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2812 posts) -

Still not getting 8.1.

SCREW YOU MS YOU CAN'T MAKE ME

#11 Posted by ikilledthedj (279 posts) -

Also seems that my crappy GTX660 SLI set up barely does DX11.1 so i probably wouldn't even see the performance. God why did i buy a 2nd and not just a faster single card.

#12 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@vuud said:

I'm still skittish on getting 8.1 when I build my new PC next year. Maybe if they can keep taking steps to prove it's not a horrible waste they'll convince me.

Well if you're building a gaming PC I'd call this a pretty convincing reason, going from 40 to 60 frames seems like a pretty big deal to me ;)

#13 Posted by Psychonautics (18 posts) -

I upgraded to Windows 8 for the performance increase, had been using it on my laptop for awhile. Its really not too bad. I didn't do any testing but it seemed like a solid 15 fps increase, this is on an i3770k at 4.5 ghz and GTX 680 FTW+ 4gb. There are plenty of programs to add the traditional start menu back, I don't ever see the metro screen - using Start8.

#14 Edited by Korwin (2721 posts) -

I upgraded to Windows 8 for the performance increase, had been using it on my laptop for awhile. Its really not too bad. I didn't do any testing but it seemed like a solid 15 fps increase, this is on an i3770k at 4.5 ghz and GTX 680 FTW+ 4gb. There are plenty of programs to add the traditional start menu back, I don't ever see the metro screen - using Start8.

Me to. I wish my 680's were 4GB, I keep rubbing up against the VRAM ceiling a little to often in this game so I have to leave MSAA off (really unfortunate since the PostAA looks like total garbage).

#15 Posted by mikey87144 (1484 posts) -

Fuck you Dice. You can't make me. I don't want to.

#16 Edited by bigjeffrey (4160 posts) -

windows 8 is worth the upgrade just for the boot up time alone.

#17 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3595 posts) -

windows 8 is worth the upgrade just for the boot up time alone.

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with Windows 8 at all it's crazy to read people still bitching about it so much. It's a smooth experience.

#18 Posted by Kung_Fu_Viking (693 posts) -

Windows 8 is just as good as Windows 7 in terms of usability and outperforms Windows 7 so it seems like a no-brainer (plus it's not too expensive to upgrade as far as I know).

#19 Posted by Andorski (5108 posts) -

Windows 8 is the best OS Microsoft has ever made. I think.

#20 Posted by Bollard (5025 posts) -

@korwin said:

@chavtheworld said:

@korwin: Any proof that holds for other setups? Like, maybe an Intel processor? Isn't necessarily representative unless it holds across more than one PC... But interesting nonetheless.

It should hold universally true regardless of CPU vendor (CPU's unlike GPU's all work from a common instruction set). The advantage is in the use of DX11.2 optimizations.

Ohhhhh if only that were true when it comes to hardware.

#21 Posted by spraynardtatum (2125 posts) -

I'll never go 8.

#22 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@korwin said:

@chavtheworld said:

@korwin: Any proof that holds for other setups? Like, maybe an Intel processor? Isn't necessarily representative unless it holds across more than one PC... But interesting nonetheless.

It should hold universally true regardless of CPU vendor (CPU's unlike GPU's all work from a common instruction set). The advantage is in the use of DX11.2 optimizations.

Ohhhhh if only that were true when it comes to hardware.

I'm not saying there isn't accounting for the differences (accounting for intel hyper-threading vs AMD's hardware threads), however it's not like the whole api/driver model you have with video cards. The enhancements in this case are at the API level.

#23 Posted by e30bmw (355 posts) -

Windows 8 is just as good as Windows 7 in terms of usability and outperforms Windows 7 so it seems like a no-brainer (plus it's not too expensive to upgrade as far as I know).

If you're buying it new, it's basically the same price. Just got 8 for my newly built PC. Took all of an afternoon to get used to the differences. I'm liking it so far.

#24 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3627 posts) -

This is good to see. I just bought a new PC and after using 8 for a while I've come to the conclusion it's totally fine. Once you figure out the quirks its no biggie. Gimmie dem frames.

#25 Edited by Evilsbane (4335 posts) -

8 is fine to just use it as a consumer, working on it as a tech is a complete pain in the ass.

#26 Posted by Grimmie92 (137 posts) -

huh.. thats weird cos BF3 is still broken as fuck on Windows 8 at times

#27 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

8.1 is pretty good

#28 Posted by alanm26v5 (415 posts) -

At this point I'm more worried about breaking older games than dealing with Windows 8 UI annoyances. Also I use Windows 7 Gadgets which don't exist on 8 as far as I know, even if I backed them up. I have a 660Ti though so maybe I wouldn't even notice a difference. Also adding an SSD has made Windows 7 boot and response times amazing so I don't know what I would gain there.

#29 Edited by Veektarius (4147 posts) -

You know, I pushed the button that said update, and it said it'd take care of it. Never could tell for sure if it did, but I don't think so. I wonder what button I have to push to make that happen.

#30 Posted by AMonkey (116 posts) -

I wonder how many games this applies to. I've stayed clear of Windows 8 so far, I'm waiting for at least 8.1 before I even consider it.

#31 Posted by zombie2011 (4941 posts) -

I don't get all the hate for window 8, I upgraded and I think it is far better than 7. I really like the new start screen because it has all the info I want right there but if you don't like it you don't have to use it. People who hate on it are just people on the internet that need something to rage about MS is doing.

#32 Posted by tourgen (4233 posts) -

It's this kind of artificial obsolescence that makes me happy Valve is pushing Linux/OpenGL for their game box spec.

#33 Edited by Tarsier (1052 posts) -

so theyre purposely making the new big games not run well on their older better OS so people will be forced into the new shit. sounds like exactly the kind of thing they would do after the xbox one stuff.

#34 Posted by PillClinton (3284 posts) -

Hmm, maybe I'll jump on 8 now when I finally get that SSD and reinstall. I certainly ain't tied to 7. Don't much like Windows in general, as a matter of fact. I've got (tentative) hope for the future of Linux and Steam OS.

#35 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4281 posts) -

Wow that's pretty cool. I was surprised how well the framerate was holding up for me on my 770 when I even had the MSAA maxed out, I guess 8.1 helped me out.

Also, lol at hate that's still there for 8. I bet the majority of them haven't bothered to try it.

#36 Edited by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@tarsier said:

so theyre purposely making the new big games not run well on their older better OS so people will be forced into the new shit. sounds like exactly the kind of thing they would do after the xbox one stuff.

...no

#37 Posted by Tarsier (1052 posts) -

@korwin said:

@tarsier said:

so theyre purposely making the new big games not run well on their older better OS so people will be forced into the new shit. sounds like exactly the kind of thing they would do after the xbox one stuff.

...no

ya and theres a job for it, theyre called 'schemers' and they usually get prety high up in the ranks. there are probly multiples of them involved in this.

#38 Edited by Blu3V3nom07 (4029 posts) -

I wonder how many are gonna stick with 7 once 8.2/9 comes out next year. This response should be a poll.

#39 Posted by iragequit (329 posts) -

Still not interested. I think there was an article floating around here, maybe it was GAF, showing that with 8.1, frames peaked higher but also dropped to lower lows, and the average fps being the same betwen the two.

#40 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@tarsier said:

@korwin said:

@tarsier said:

so theyre purposely making the new big games not run well on their older better OS so people will be forced into the new shit. sounds like exactly the kind of thing they would do after the xbox one stuff.

...no

ya and theres a job for it, theyre called 'schemers' and they usually get prety high up in the ranks. there are probly multiples of them involved in this.

A: You're a looney

B: Microsoft was not involved in the development of Battlefield 4

C: You're a looney

#41 Edited by GaspoweR (2510 posts) -

Win 8 has been great to me so far. I use it like I usually would use a traditional PC interface and i just had to pay 5 extra bucks for 5 licenses of StartIsBack to have OG Start menu functionality and despite what a lot of people might think, I've been using it on the desktop screen and not the Start app screen almost exclusively for months since I started using it in May. It's great.

Also in 8.1 it does have the option to boot to desktop and not the start screen though having StartIsBack installed also has that option too by default and i've been using it months before 8.1 came out.

#42 Edited by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@gaspower said:

Win 8 has been great to me so far. I use it like I usually would use a traditional PC interface and i just had to pay 5 extra bucks for 5 licenses of StartIsBack to restore Start menu functionality and despite what a lot of people might think, I've been using it on the desktop screen and not the Start app screen almost exclusively for months since I started using it in May. It's great.

Yeah I picked up a license for Start 8 for my machines and it's been perfectly fine. I understand that a lot of power users lament the loss of shadow copy but over all I think it's ok.

#43 Posted by SamStrife (1280 posts) -

I'm sorry but at this point, anyone who is still saying they'll never jump to 8 because 7 is so much better is basing their opinions off misinformation they revived before 8 ever launched.

8 is absolutely fine, better than 7 and 8.1 has improved it even more.

#44 Edited by SomeJerk (2968 posts) -

This is all about those AMD processors, actually. They compare badly to Intels in Win7 etc, but compete respectably in Win8. Something about their inner functions. We saw this back for the Win8 launch.

#45 Posted by Tarsier (1052 posts) -

@korwin said:

@tarsier said:

@korwin said:

@tarsier said:

so theyre purposely making the new big games not run well on their older better OS so people will be forced into the new shit. sounds like exactly the kind of thing they would do after the xbox one stuff.

...no

ya and theres a job for it, theyre called 'schemers' and they usually get prety high up in the ranks. there are probly multiples of them involved in this.

A: You're a looney

B: Microsoft was not involved in the development of Battlefield 4

C: You're a looney

you dont think microsoft is reaching out to third parties and trying to get them to make decisions that would benefit the xbox one and their new operating system? you dont think the people who run EA are the same kinds of people who run microsoft, and are probably all friends?

i guess youre right, that would just be too kooky.

#46 Posted by MasterRain (254 posts) -

Windows 8 is great regardless, its super fast. Also this isn't a Microsoft conspiracy to make it run worse on Windows 7, it runs better on 8 because its an improved OS.

#47 Posted by Vitor (2789 posts) -

@korwin said:

@psychonautics said:

I upgraded to Windows 8 for the performance increase, had been using it on my laptop for awhile. Its really not too bad. I didn't do any testing but it seemed like a solid 15 fps increase, this is on an i3770k at 4.5 ghz and GTX 680 FTW+ 4gb. There are plenty of programs to add the traditional start menu back, I don't ever see the metro screen - using Start8.

Me to. I wish my 680's were 4GB, I keep rubbing up against the VRAM ceiling a little to often in this game so I have to leave MSAA off (really unfortunate since the PostAA looks like total garbage).

That's crazy - my 680m is 4GB. I find it nuts that the far better desktop version wasn't that as standard.

Still, I can't use MSAA ever since the performance hit is huge so it's not like I'm winning out there.

#48 Edited by SomeJerk (2968 posts) -

I wish you guys were able to live without anti-aliasing like I can. BF3 never went below 45fps at worst in multi on my then old tired computer, usually locked at 60 so if it hit 45 some chaotic shit was going down. Pixels were so sharp most people would vomit by the looks of it (on the internet) but it just made my job of seeing pixels change colour indicating enemy movement or activity much easier and fun.

You can imagine how much money I save on computer upgrades.

#49 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -
@vitor said:

@korwin said:

@psychonautics said:

I upgraded to Windows 8 for the performance increase, had been using it on my laptop for awhile. Its really not too bad. I didn't do any testing but it seemed like a solid 15 fps increase, this is on an i3770k at 4.5 ghz and GTX 680 FTW+ 4gb. There are plenty of programs to add the traditional start menu back, I don't ever see the metro screen - using Start8.

Me to. I wish my 680's were 4GB, I keep rubbing up against the VRAM ceiling a little to often in this game so I have to leave MSAA off (really unfortunate since the PostAA looks like total garbage).

That's crazy - my 680m is 4GB. I find it nuts that the far better desktop version wasn't that as standard.

Still, I can't use MSAA ever since the performance hit is huge so it's not like I'm winning out there.

The pumped up vram on mobile GPU's is a fairly common tactic to squeeze consumers for extra cash in the laptop space, the numbers look bigger but really those GPU's net sweet fuck all performance from having such a large amount of memory. I bought my 680's at launch before board partners started doing custom flavours with double memory capacity. I look forward to the Maxwell refresh so I can move up to 4... then probably not upgrade for a million years since PC's are already giving the new consoles the business.

#50 Posted by GaspoweR (2510 posts) -

@korwin said:

@gaspower said:

Win 8 has been great to me so far. I use it like I usually would use a traditional PC interface and i just had to pay 5 extra bucks for 5 licenses of StartIsBack to restore Start menu functionality and despite what a lot of people might think, I've been using it on the desktop screen and not the Start app screen almost exclusively for months since I started using it in May. It's great.

Yeah I picked up a license for Start 8 for my machines and it's been perfectly fine. I understand that a lot of power users lament the loss of shadow copy but over all I think it's ok.

I can't remember the exact wording but I believe there has been something that replaces Shadow Copy (or was it completely omitted with no replacement?) but I can't recall what it is since I'm not super familiar with all the particular features but since I personally never took advantage of that feature in past OS iterations so it doesn't necessarily affect me directly as well.

I also love the fact that the Start button restoration options (Start 8, Classic Shell, StartIsBack, etc.) are either free or reeeeally cheap and have pretty neat features to go along with it as well (i.e. disabling the corner trigger that enables the sidebar menus in desktop, etc.)