9600 GT is severly being bottlenecked.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Well the fact that it is underperforming has nothing to do with the cpu. There is something not working correctly. So instead of making useless comments why don't you try and help out the OP sort out the issue.
 
Reboot and defrag the HD then reboot again.
Uninstall the driver for the GXF,reboot.
Clean the registry,defrag the -->registry<-- and reboot.
Now install the GFX driver,reboot set the res,reboot and defrag the HD it's self again.

The votages you say your HD have are screwy (perhaps a typo and you ment AMPS rather than VOLTS)...using Vista is never going to be helpful when it comes to drivers even if the said drivers are for Vista.

Vista is not just slower than XP it is a ram hog. The more ram you have the more it will use up to 4GB. At 4GB of ram it uses up almost 25%.
Find a copy of XP insatll it and see how well and much faster your system runs.

I have 2GB of ram...can run all me 3 security programs,leave two web pages open,run six torrents while playing a game and never use more than 59% of my ram according to Asus Probe II.
 


I also redid my post while you were posting!
Let us know how it works out.

Also when Vista 64 runs a 32 bit program it slows down to emulate it.
 
Hard to say what your problem is, but your specs should be doing much better. My roommate is using pentium 4 570 (can't remember if it is 3.8 or 3.6ghz) with an 8800GT and he can play Gears of War and Quake Wars with high settings @ 1680x1050 and get smooth frame rates.


Try out some of zoldude's suggestions, especially remove any video drivers you currently have and then reinstall newest forceware drivers. Good luck.
 

I guess you never understood what superfetch is. I gave 2gb RAM and vista 32-bit and within 3 mintues it uses up ALL my RAM, and guess what? Things load alot faster than in XP. As for drivers - catalsyt 8.3 for vista is far superior than for XP. The XP drivers halved my framerates over 8.2.
 
Don't forget that your 6800 and 9600 aren't running the same code. The 6800 can't run DX10, it would run in DX9 mode which is faster the last time I looked. If you put your 9600 at the EXACT same settings as the 6800, I would guess it would be faster.

If we are talking about 3DMark 06, something is definitely not right. What are the individual scores?
 
*sounds* like a power issue... even though the 6800 should use more power if I'm not mistaken. Other suggestion: get a *real* motherboard. Being attached to a piece of technology is irrational.

-mcg
 
No change!
Absolutely NO change! 🙁


So, I'm left with two options:

Bad PSU
or
Bad Video card.

Wouldn't either of them cause a complete failure?
 


Before LCD's were around the "native resolution" of a CRT monitor is what we now might call the default setting for that size. With LCD's the definition becomes a bit more restrictive in that the suck at any other resolution. With CRT's this doesn't hold. But the default res of a 17" would be 1024 x 768.


 


You are aware that both the Mac machine AND the windows machine were hacked in that contest. Only the Linux laptop wasn't penetrated. In the mac they got in using Safari and the Mac firewall wasn't turned on. On the Windows, they used Adobe Flash to provide a door into the Windows box....Windows firewall was on. Looks like both exploits will ultimately be proven to be "cross platform"
 
Actually, a 6800 doesn't use as much power as you'd expect.

Are there any significant background processes running? How much free ram do you have? Can you possibly do a reinstall of windows?
 
Anti virus that doesnt want to shut off.
And a search indexer that keeps reappearing. Nothing else.
I have about 1.5 gb free ram after vista gobbles the rest.
I could do a reinstall, but I would rather not.