will Crysis run on Vista 64bit

[doomsdaydave11]

Quote:
Apple uses Mac OS
X Server mainlyon their primary website because anything else would look bad
for business.

On their local sites they seem to prefer Solaris and Windows 2000 (china ran
it until a month ago)

because of their superior stability compared to OS X.
Is this an arrogant Mac fanboy post? I think it is: "OMG W1ND0ZE SUX!!1!!1!111!!!! Mac's are the way to go D00D. Get rid of your Windows machines every1! Because Macs are way better. They're way more stable. They're way faster. They're way more fun."

Hmmm... interesting. They're way more stable... lol wut? Macs crash more then Windows does.
They're way faster? The fastest Mac will cost 3 times as much as a midrange PC.
They're way more fun? Yeah, because organizing your photo albums and video editing is a ton of fun. About 5% of games work with Macs that work with Windows.
MacHead response : omg you can run boot camp and then play it!1! Last time I checked... when you're running boot camp, you're running Windows on the hardware. Apple knows it's own incompetence and feels the need to make it so Macs can use Windows to have fun.

Also, did you know Apple runs most of their websites on Linux servers (Solaris 9 Specifically)? Very interesting. Mac sucks so bad that not even Apple will use it.

Ima shut up now, sorry I hijacked your thread.

 

[crom]

Sure, here are my specs:

Mac Pro Tower:
Dual Quad core Xeon CPU 3.2GHz
8 Gigs DDR2
8800 GTX video card
4TB RAID

I've got OSX in one partition and XP 32 bit running via Bootcamp. I've also got another test partition that I used for demoing Vista 64 bit. This is a machine I got for work, but I decided to game with it as well. It runs everything great, and runs Vista less so. XP gets far better frame rates than Vista does in Crysis, UT3, COD4, etc.

I've also tested it on my older gaming rig:

Intel Q6600 Core2Quad OC'ed to 3.2 GHz
4 gigs DDR2
8800GTX video card

I got the same results on the PC build.

I'm not a mac fanboy, but I make no qualms about hating Vista, mostly for the truly poor performance compared to XP. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft lied about DX10 performance in Vista. In the current court case it's been proven by their own internal e-mails. It's garbage. Again, save your money and keep with XP until they release the next version of Windows in 2010.

 

[GeoMan]

*Edit, Toms, please sort out the forums so that posters have permission to delete their own messages, thanks.

 

[rockstone1]

It doesn't work to well at all IMHO. Windows Vista x64 runs crysis and most other games horribly in comparison to vista x86 or XP pro.

Maybe Intel's processors work better under vista x64...

 

[tallguy1618]

Well crom, something is wrong with ure pc because I have similar specs and I have no problem playing in Vista.

 

[jkflipflop98]

Well crom, something is wrong with ure pc because I have similar specs and I have no problem playing in Vista.

Pebkac

 

[dtq]

Sure, here are my specs:

Mac Pro Tower:
Dual Quad core Xeon CPU 3.2GHz
8 Gigs DDR2
8800 GTX video card
4TB RAID

I've got OSX in one partition and XP 32 bit running via Bootcamp. I've also got another test partition that I used for demoing Vista 64 bit. This is a machine I got for work, but I decided to game with it as well. It runs everything great, and runs Vista less so. XP gets far better frame rates than Vista does in Crysis, UT3, COD4, etc.

I've also tested it on my older gaming rig:

Intel Q6600 Core2Quad OC'ed to 3.2 GHz
4 gigs DDR2
8800GTX video card

I got the same results on the PC build.

I'm not a mac fanboy, but I make no qualms about hating Vista, mostly for the truly poor performance compared to XP. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft lied about DX10 performance in Vista. In the current court case it's been proven by their own internal e-mails. It's garbage. Again, save your money and keep with XP until they release the next version of Windows in 2010.

XP performance is incredibly poor compared to DOS, as much as I loved DOS before the dark days of GUI's Have you seen the boot speed even on older machines for DOS??? navigation in DOS is a joy none of this digging down through folders nonsense you can go straight to where you want to go and see all the files there in an instant!you can jump through 3or 4 layers deep of directories without having to wait for each one to open and search out the fodler you are looking for from hundreds. you can swap from 4 directories deep one way straight to 4 directories deep in another with just one command...

Its true every operating system ever since dos has been a backwards step in performance!

 

[crom]

True about DOS, but times are different now. The "innovation" of software has slowed, negating the need for the "latest and greatest" in an OS. Vista doesn't bring anything new to the table aside from some better out of the box security over XP, and GUI bells and whistles. Operating systems themselves are being pushed more into the background with the browser becoming more important. Vista was pushing itself as the gaming platform of the future, yet it fails over the previous OS in every category. Even with more RAM and a faster CPU head to head with XP it's slower. Poor driver support and general Microsoft incompetence makes it a less than ideal purchase.

Now that vendors are being pushed by Microsoft to offer Vista only on most new hardware, that's why Apple's sales have been on the rise. Aside from a few of the frothing fanboys here, Vista isn't falling into general acceptance. IT isn't adopting it and instead is staying with XP or moving to a cost saving Ubuntu install base, or going Apple. Your average consumer is getting it only because they are being forced to by not having an option. I can't tell you how many times my users have been upset or felt tricked by Microsoft when they got Vista.

Face it, XP is the gaming platform of choice for computer gaming. It's the most compatible and fastest experience. Any gamer will tell you that they care more for frames than they do for antialiasing or anistropic filtering. You don't get that in Vista. Now if Microsoft actually was going to build their SQLFS system and re-engineer the kernel of Windows then it might have been interesting, much like Apple did when they migrated over to OSX with BSD.

 

[physx7]

Any gamer will tell you that they care more for frames than they do for antialiasing or anistropic filtering.

As long as it is playable I would rather sacrifice a few frames for more AA or AF.

That's my opinion.

The 800 lbs gorilla with a tie has spoken.

 

[dtq]

True about DOS, but times are different now. The "innovation" of software has slowed, negating the need for the "latest and greatest" in an OS. Vista doesn't bring anything new to the table aside from some better out of the box security over XP, and GUI bells and whistles. Operating systems themselves are being pushed more into the background with the browser becoming more important. Vista was pushing itself as the gaming platform of the future, yet it fails over the previous OS in every category. Even with more RAM and a faster CPU head to head with XP it's slower. Poor driver support and general Microsoft incompetence makes it a less than ideal purchase.

Now that vendors are being pushed by Microsoft to offer Vista only on most new hardware, that's why Apple's sales have been on the rise. Aside from a few of the frothing fanboys here, Vista isn't falling into general acceptance. IT isn't adopting it and instead is staying with XP or moving to a cost saving Ubuntu install base, or going Apple. Your average consumer is getting it only because they are being forced to by not having an option. I can't tell you how many times my users have been upset or felt tricked by Microsoft when they got Vista.

Face it, XP is the gaming platform of choice for computer gaming. It's the most compatible and fastest experience. Any gamer will tell you that they care more for frames than they do for antialiasing or anistropic filtering. You don't get that in Vista. Now if Microsoft actually was going to build their SQLFS system and re-engineer the kernel of Windows then it might have been interesting, much like Apple did when they migrated over to OSX with BSD.

Vista brought DX10 new to the table that was the selling point to me, I like image quality! I like what dx10 does for shadows \ contrast \ lighting, I look forward to seeing more of what dx10 can do. The vista performance hit really isnt that bad when you run in dx9 mode... But if dx10 mode is on offer I take it, thats the whole point to me of getting better hardware is to improve the graphical whistles and bells. I havent had any issues with driver support, but then I brought into vista later in its life rather than at the start or with beta, and my hardware is all current rather than trying to install vista on a 2/3 year old machine.

XP is the fastest and most compatible experience for games written for xp's era, Windows XP isnt all that compatible either, and I remember never being able to get drivers for older hardware with that as well wen it launched Ive got plenty of old games that wont run under xp at all . I have a dedicated DOS machine for old school gaming . I remember games running faster under windows 98 than XP when they were made for windows 98... Its called progress the same thing happens every generation. I stuck with windows 3.11 will windows 98 SE came out I then stuck with windows 98 SE until windows XP SP2 came out then stuck with that till vista SP1 was iminent.

I guess from your post XP is the gaming platform of choice for those who care more about frames per second than image quality... For those of us who do run AA and do like graphical whistles and bells we will be drawn to DX10. Certainly I count myself as a gamer, but I care a lot about image quality as long as the frame rates are playable. I would like more frames per second BUT only if they dont come at the cost of image quality. Running a CRT monitor (because I care about image quality) I can get huge FPS out of most games by running at 800x600 but frankly Id hate the way they look, I like to run at 2048x1536 where ever possible, and 1600x1200 is about the lowest resolution I count as worthwhile playing at. I pay a price in frames per second for my image quality demands but its a price im prepared to pay to play beautiful looking games.

Vista performance hit really isnt that bad in non dx10 games an 8800GTX is still enough to get perfectly playable frame rates in most games.

 

[Guest]

edit

 

[Guest]

True about DOS, but times are different now. The "innovation" of software has slowed, negating the need for the "latest and greatest" in an OS. Vista doesn't bring anything new to the table aside from some better out of the box security over XP, and GUI bells and whistles. Operating systems themselves are being pushed more into the background with the browser becoming more important. Vista was pushing itself as the gaming platform of the future, yet it fails over the previous OS in every category. Even with more RAM and a faster CPU head to head with XP it's slower. Poor driver support and general Microsoft incompetence makes it a less than ideal purchase.

Now that vendors are being pushed by Microsoft to offer Vista only on most new hardware, that's why Apple's sales have been on the rise. Aside from a few of the frothing fanboys here, Vista isn't falling into general acceptance. IT isn't adopting it and instead is staying with XP or moving to a cost saving Ubuntu install base, or going Apple. Your average consumer is getting it only because they are being forced to by not having an option. I can't tell you how many times my users have been upset or felt tricked by Microsoft when they got Vista.

Face it, XP is the gaming platform of choice for computer gaming. It's the most compatible and fastest experience. Any gamer will tell you that they care more for frames than they do for antialiasing or anistropic filtering. You don't get that in Vista. Now if Microsoft actually was going to build their SQLFS system and re-engineer the kernel of Windows then it might have been interesting, much like Apple did when they migrated over to OSX with BSD.

I can agree with alot of this. I think you just tried to push your views as Anti-vista-nazi instead of an experienced user who had issues with the OS. Just give your pros & cons as a non biased person so people will take more word you say.

 

[physx7]

Just give your pros & cons as a non biased person so people will take more word you say.

The 800 lb Gorilla agrees.....

 

[cowcrusher]

it should, and if I remember right Crysis Editor is only suppose to be in 64 bit versions of windows

 

[Darron]

My new system is running Vista 64bit and I would like to get Crysis, but the demo will not run and I just wanted to make sure the game will run on a 64 bit system before I spend the money.

Just to answer the original question:
Crysis runs fine on my my vista x64.

It's a huge mysterium why some people (in this case Crom) always have to ditch talk an OS (in this case vista), instead of just answering the question people make.

Been a moderator on various gaming forums for years, and it's the same story every time a transition from one OS to another is taking place..

Give it a rest, let people choose the way they do, and answer their questions instead of forcing your opinions on everyone else.

To everyone, including Crom, make a new thread to dicuss Vista, Mac OS and what not

Have fun everyone

 

[Guest]

Any gamer will tell you that they care more for frames than they do for antialiasing or anistropic filtering. You don't get that in Vista.

Most gamers will adjust the settings to give decent average FPS and IQ.

I'm sure as hell not going to run any game at minimum settings just so I can get a high FPS count.

Sounds like you'd be happier with a console Mr Crom.

 

[thehelo]

Guys i hate vista cause i'm a rebel.

 

[Cuddles]

http://www.reactos.org/en/about.html
Some interesting news concerning an OS that will provide a real alternative to Windows.
As far as OS X: when it can run on something other than a piece of overpriced hardware I'll take a look till then they can keep their 3k+ OS and if I'm not wrong OS X isn't a true 64bit OS.
If Windows just ran on just a few pieces of Hardware it would be one of the most secure OS's around too.
So we're comparing Apples to Oranges here as far as OS X and Windows are concerned. I would love to see a real alternative to something other than Windows but till Apple can put out an OS that can run on something other than an expensive ass hat rack OS X is not it.
Linux... Too many problems to even begin with. Take a look at Reactos for the reasons.

Windows XP I would say should be a clear choice if your running a 32 bit system or any of your Hardware is over a year old. Make sure you take Microsofts online Version test before you do decide to switch to Vista because if you don't you are just looking at heartache.
Windows Vista 64 bit has been incredibly stable for me and as above I couldn't go back to XP even if I wanted to. I enjoy knowing that I'm getting the most out of my system. All my hardware is about as new as you can get and everything was Vista certified when I bought it.
Another note... Vista 64 bit loads a great deal faster than XP 32. I also have experienced a lot less crashes.
Crom some of your hardware may not be Vista 64 certified and thus you are experiencing the problems that you are.
And yes Win XP 32 does load faster than Vista 32. Vista 32 and Vista 64 are not the same OS and are built differently.
And don't dog me for running Windows. I'm not running a Mac till it can run all the games that Windows can, on as many different types of Hardware that Windows can, and it's a true 64 bit OS like Windows Vista is.
Linux... Don't get me started. I tried it and regretted it. I blame the Linux crowd for that 1 month of wasted time.
Crysis has some issues that should be fixed with an upcoming patch.

 

[crom]

I really don't see any mystery, Vista doesn't perform as well as XP does in head to head tests. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The DX10 "exclusive effects" are also able to be performed in a DX9 environment. Microsoft put pressure on developers to grey them out. Google it for Crysis, and you can get the same look and feel as the DX10 version in XP. Take it as bashing all you want, the OS itself isn't up to par. Microsoft released it too early and cut corners to do so. As a consumer you'd be better off sticking with XP until Windows 7 comes out in 2010, and then decide. Vista is the new Windows ME.

 

[Darron]

I really don't see any mystery, Vista doesn't perform as well as XP does in head to head tests. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The DX10 "exclusive effects" are also able to be performed in a DX9 environment. Microsoft put pressure on developers to grey them out. Google it for Crysis, and you can get the same look and feel as the DX10 version in XP. Take it as bashing all you want, the OS itself isn't up to par. Microsoft released it too early and cut corners to do so. As a consumer you'd be better off sticking with XP until Windows 7 comes out in 2010, and then decide. Vista is the new Windows ME.

Crom, that's really not the question now. Stop hijacking the thread for your own grudge.
The question was wheter Crysis would run on vista 64bit.

The question was not wheter Vista was a new Windows ME, wheter Microsoft cut corners or if DX10 is the new god or what ever else anyone can find against Vista.

I'm personally strongly adviseing against Vista for business, but that doesn't mean I have to rant about it in a thread where the poster asked wheter he could play Crysis on Vista 64bit.

For all of us who owns Vista and use it now, it's just really annoying when someone comes along and ditch the OS we use, when we ask if a specific game can run on it. We didn't ask for negative comments about some completely different issue.

 

[crom]

You're reading negative intent in what I'm posting which really isn't there. I'm simply stating the facts about Vista as a viable gaming platform. Crysis performs better in 32 bit XP than it does in 64 bit Vista. If this person is having a problem with the demo, he may want to look at XP as a viable alternative, through say a dual boot.

 

[physx7]

You're reading negative intent in what I'm posting which really isn't there. I'm simply stating the facts about Vista as a viable gaming platform. Crysis performs better in 32 bit XP than it does in 64 bit Vista. If this person is having a problem with the demo, he may want to look at XP as a viable alternative, through say a dual boot.

Personally if I were to build a new computer right now I would do a dual boot with Vista and XP. The 32 bit editions just seem to be more stable than the 64 bit ones to me. I also don't need more than 4 gigs of RAM at the moment.

 

[Cuddles]

I'm not going to argue anymore with you Crom.
Now it's time for :Put Up or Shut Up
Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.2GHz (8*400)
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3
8GB DDR2-800 4-5-4-15
GeForce 8800GT 512MB (stock)
Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB <--- Vista Home Premium SP1 RC 64-bit
Samsung SpinPoint T166 320GB <--- Windows XP Professional SP2

[See the end for some comments on the results.]

The tests:

File copy (6.3GB ISO from Samsung drive to WD drive):

Vista: 2min 48sec

XP: 3min 07sec


File extraction (extracting the Crysis patch zip file with WinRAR):

Vista: 14s

XP: 13s


File extraction (extracting 3.9GB RAR archive file using WinRAR):

Vista: 2min 16sec

XP: 2min 22sec


File extraction (extracting 1.7GB ISO file using 7zip):

Vista: 2min 05sec (64-bit version of 7zip)

XP: 2min 18sec (32-bit version of 7zip)


Program load times:

Vista:
Photoshop CS3: 2 secs
OpenOffice: 1.5 secs
Crysis: 26 secs

XP:
Photoshop CS3: 8.5 secs
OpenOffice: 6.5 secs
Crysis: 33 secs


Photoshop CS3 "Retouch artist's benchmark":

Vista: 30s

XP: 29s


3DMark06

Vista:
3DMarks: 11297
SM2.0: 5227
SM3.0: 4942
CPU: 2772

XP:
3DMarks: 11706
SM2.0: 5391
SM3.0: 5150
CPU: 2869


Call of Duty 4 (1280x1024, MAX settings, except no AA and AF slider at ~half):

Vista: 104fps (avg), 54fps (min), 255fps (max)

XP: 102fps (avg), 56fps (min), 274fps (max)

Since CoD4 contains no built-in benchmark, I had to measure with FRAPS and play the same sequence a few times to get somewhat reliable results. I played from the beginning of the level "The Bog" and until you pick up the Javelin, approximately 3 minutes of gameplay. The results were very consistent, so they're probably pretty accurate despite the inaccurate methodology.


F.E.A.R. (1280x1024, MAX settings, 4xAA, 16xAF):

Vista: 97fps (avg), 48fps (min), 242fps (max)

XP: 95fps (avg), 45fps (min), 242fps (max)


Doom 3 (1280x1024, Ultra quality, no AA, no AF):

Vista: 181 fps
XP: 191 fps

Doom 3 (1280x1024, Ultra quality, 8xAA, no AF):

Vista: 54 fps
XP: 55 fps


Crysis GPU-test (1280x1024):

Vista (”High”, DX10, 64-bit): 35fps (avg)

Vista (”High”, DX9, 64-bit): 37fps (avg)

Vista (”High”, DX10, 32-bit): 35fps (avg)

Vista (”High”, DX9, 32-bit): 36fps (avg)

Vista (”Very High”, DX10, 64-bit): 20fps (avg)

XP (”High”): 39fps (avg)


Crysis CPU-test 2 (800x600):

Vista (”Low”, except ”Physics” on high, DX9, 32-bit): 60fps (avg)

Vista (”Low”, except ”Physics” on high, DX9, 64-bit): 54fps (avg)

XP (”Low”, except ”Physics” on high): 69fps (avg)


Comments:

It's interesting to see that Vista's performance seems to have progressed since it was released. The general usage tests are either faster or equal to XP. It should be noted that the program load times may be influenced slightly by the fact that the OSs reside on different drives (Samsung/WD). However, Vista is on the slower drive (the WD), so it only makes the results even more impressive. Talking about the program load times, it's obvious that Vista's SuperFetch feature works wonderfully. Even though I've only launched Photoshop and OpenOffice a few times, Vista has already picked this up and loads them into mem right after boot up. Crysis was almost certainly not cached into RAM during the test, but still loaded faster than in XP.

The horrendous file copy performance has been fixed. Performance is definitely higher than in XP. Also gone are the sometimes irritatingly long file deletion times. File deletion seems instantaneous now, just like it's always been in XP.

Now, we've come to the less stellar part of Vista's performance: Gaming. 3DMark06 did perform okay, with numbers within 3-4% of XP. Although a performance decrease is never welcome, this is tolerable. Moving on to Crysis, however, things look a little more bleak. Performance is down 5-8% when looking at DX9 32/64-bit benches and DX10 is even worse off. The CPU test is also curious with a WinXP performance lead of 15%! This was definitely unexpected and something that would be interesting to research further.

EDIT: With the addition of the Call of Duty 4 results, things are more of a mixed bag. CoD4 actually performed very well and Vista was able to match the performance of XP. It's clear that more data is needed to come to a conclusion here. From the two games I've tested, Vista does atleast seem to do an "okay" job.

EDIT: Okay, with F.E.A.R added to the mix we can see that Vista doesn't seem all that bad for gaming. Not much else to say, really. The more data the better and with these three tested games, Vista performance seems good enough.

I haven't really benchmarked enough apps to show any clear trends, but it seems general Vista performance is very good and caching to RAM is beneficial. Overall feel of Vista is very good and subjectively an improvement over its performance at release. Thus far, it feels slightly faster than XP, even when stuff is not cached into memory. This is not just imagined either. Loading the image for the Photoshop test was about twice as fast in Vista compared to XP and it was the first time that file was loaded so it couldn't have been cached. With all that said, gaming performance is still a let-down and it seems we'll have to live with it.

Hope you all appreciated this and found it interesting! Thanks for reading.

------------------------------------------

EDIT: Vista has a feature called SuperFetch, which treats the system RAM as a giant disk cache. Whatever memory not used by another application gets stuffed with data that you use frequently, so that it can be loaded quickly if you need it. Some people believe this feature to be useless, so I set out to test this too. Results below (in seconds):



As can be seen, SuperFetch has a very large impact on program load times.
__________________
C2D E6600 @ 3.2GHz (1.23V) | Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme | Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3 @ 400MHz | 8GB DDR2 @ 800MHz 5-5-5-15 (1.95V) | Corsair HX520W | 8800GT with VF1000 @ 666/1674/1900 | Samsung T166 320GB | WD Caviar SE16 250GB | Samsung SATA DVD-RW

P-DC E2160 @ 3.0GHz (1.32V) | Scythe Ninja rev. B | Gigabyte GA-G33M-S2H @ 333MHz | 4GB Micron D9GMH @ 889MHz 5-5-5-15 (1.9V) | Corsair HX520W | Samsung T166 320GB
The above infor can be found here:http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72298

I'll be doing a full Crysis Vista 64 vs XP Benchmark on my own computer in the near future on my own system. General reports from a number of different sources show that Windows Vista 64 bit is roughly 10-20% faster than Windows Vista 32 bit and runs on less energy consumption. With Vista SP1 32 bit vs XP SP 2 there is no discernible difference in performance. I'm also disheartened that the person who ran the above benchmark ran each OS from a different Hard Drive thus the results were skewed more into XP SP 2's favor. This should still give you a rather good idea on what your system will look like running Crysis on a variable amount of different Resolutions and settings which should answer any and all questions you may have.

 

[darkstar782]

I really don't see any mystery, Vista doesn't perform as well as XP does in head to head tests. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The DX10 "exclusive effects" are also able to be performed in a DX9 environment. Microsoft put pressure on developers to grey them out. Google it for Crysis, and you can get the same look and feel as the DX10 version in XP. Take it as bashing all you want, the OS itself isn't up to par. Microsoft released it too early and cut corners to do so. As a consumer you'd be better off sticking with XP until Windows 7 comes out in 2010, and then decide. Vista is the new Windows ME.

Not in every case.

At 30" 2560x1600 a single card struggles.

In XP I can run 2 way SLi.

In Vista I can run 3 way SLi, or 4 way now with the 9800GX2 (which I may upgrade to soon).

Thanks to this, Vista, for me, is significantly better for gaming. I get a higher FPS, with more eye candy, running 3 way (maybe soon 4 way) SLi under Vista than 2 way under XP.

Before you say that this is not Vista, it is nVidia driver restrictions, while that is *possible* with 3 way SLi, with 4 way it is not.

Why did 7950GX2 quad SLi suck? 4 way AFR is NOT POSSIBLE under XP due to the way the graphics subsystem works. Instead 4 way SFR or AFR of SFR had to be used.

Vista, with its new graphics driver model, removes this limit and 4 way AFR works.

It would make no sense for me to switch to XP for gaming. I would get lower performance.

 

[physx7]

My new system is running Vista 64bit and I would like to get Crysis, but the demo will not run and I just wanted to make sure the game will run on a 64 bit system before I spend the money.

Heck all my blabbing on this thread and I didn't answer the OP's question,

I can't see a reason why it wouldn't. Except 64 bit OS's seem to have more problems than 32 bit.