Windows 7 Desktop Graphics Loves Multi-core CPUs

[Dave_69]

Yeah but aren't they going to release a Vista SP2? If so, they might address this issue there.

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]Does this mean that all the crap that nvidia said about core i7 and core 2 duo is the same for gaming was a wrong statement when it comes to windows7?[/citation]
No, what NVIDIA said is true. GDI is for 2D (regular) programs, it does not affect 3D gaming.

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]downix[/nom]backport, not just to vista, but XP! This has been a known issue with Windows for years, dating back to even the 3.0 days that I am aware of.[/citation]
Not gonna happen. This is a recent improvement for new OS's only that takes advantage of multi-core and parallelism. This is quite a bit more integrated into Windows than a simple DirectX update. Also, XP does need to die already.

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]norbs[/nom]ZOMG something new besides a pretty GUI.[/citation]
Hmmm. Maybe you should read the articles and Engineering Windows 7 blog posts more often instead of just looking at the pictures

 

[harshahorizon]

thank god.pc gamers finally got a solution for this terrible headache

 

[rsud]

Gee, do you think they can solve the 'Start' button problem where I must spend up to 30 seconds waiting for the start menu to load. That would be something. Boy I can only hope. I mean, I know I'm being a bit 'out there' thinking the 'Start' menu should always be cached.
Jeez.

 

[AngryClown]

defrag: Auslogic FTW

 

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]rsud[/nom]Gee, do you think they can solve the 'Start' button problem where I must spend up to 30 seconds waiting for the start menu to load. That would be something. Boy I can only hope. I mean, I know I'm being a bit 'out there' thinking the 'Start' menu should always be cached.Jeez.[/citation]

I've never had this problem with Vista, though do remember it from XP on very rare occasions.

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]harshahorizon[/nom]thank god.pc gamers finally got a solution for this terrible headache[/citation]
This is about GDI, not Dirict3D. This only applies to regular 2D programs (as I stated on the previous page).

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]rsud[/nom]Gee, do you think they can solve the 'Start' button problem where I must spend up to 30 seconds waiting for the start menu to load. That would be something. Boy I can only hope. I mean, I know I'm being a bit 'out there' thinking the 'Start' menu should always be cached.Jeez.[/citation]
They have been working on that. See this post in the E7 blog http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/26/some-changes-since-beta.aspx The start menu performance is under point #36 "The two graphs below show the performance of opening the Start Menu..."

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]In Windows Vista, a single application could hold a system-wide lock on the GDI, basically creating a bottleneck, especially if there are other applications waiting in line to access the graphics stack.
[/citation]
Can that bottleneck happen while direct3d applications are running? I'm experiencing pauses of up to 15-20 seconds when playing saints row 2 - but I'm assuming it's simply because of the poor port with very littme memory optimization. It's almost immidiately listed with 1.7gb committed memory in the task manager. Anyway, even in fullscreen it's actually running in a seamless window, so while it's 3d, it's still sitting on top of the desktop.

 

[apoq]

I'm beginning to rather enjoy the technical details as part of the marketing strategy for Win7. They're finally moving away from useless glitter and trying to make the new OS attractive to nerds again. Kudos to them.
As a side note, Kubuntu 9.04 won me over but I think those guys could also work harder on responsiveness of the UI. Other than that i can't really bitch about free software

 

[bkraft4637]

1 - yes, boot files are no longer everywhere but smaller temp are in place instead
2 - been tested, not as fast as xp, but faster than vista, so yes
3 - been proven. yes. Especially when it comes to systems using SLI and/or games running on high with very high resolutions. Than, that extra Core i7 comes in REAL HANDY. but then again, that has already been proven.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/19 (sli benchmarking)

core i7 vs core 2 duo

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,672004/GTA-4-PC-Intel-Core-i7-far-ahead-of-Core-2-Quad-in-CPU-benchmarks/Reviews/

http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/CPU/Gaming-Performance-Core-i7-vs-Core-2-Quad/Page-2.html

while i love nvidia, it is propaganda that of course, a hardware company is going to push THEIR OWN product. besides, nothing can change the laws of mathematics. core i7s simply push more cpu calculations a second than majority of your core 2 series (with exception of PERHAPS some overclocking). keep in mind though, a core i7 also has unlocked multipliers so technically, it has been documented, it overclocks itself automatically mid-operation. the only difference with the core i7 extreme line is that the extremes have (currently) slightly more multipliers. yay.