PC CPU, OS and GFX Optimisation Help

[Endymion]

I can hardly believe the thread made it this long with nobody recommending Linux. If I had hardware that old it would have Kubuntu on it stat, and it would run everything like greased lightning.

[moozooh]

You're into the paging file right away, because Windows (older versions at least) is "smart" enough to use it way before it completely fills up physical memory (go figure). Even if you have 16 GB of RAM, it'll still try to swap resources it considers unneeded for now. Several years ago, back when I was on XP with measly 896 MB of DDR1, I tried disabling swap completely. Just browsing through directories without delays convinced me it was the right decision, even if I had to bear with applications crashing as soon as they reach the limit of the available RAM. In fact this taught me not to clog the process list with unneeded shit. :) But this is indeed a very niche practice that only makes sense if you aren't running several RAM-heavy applications at the same time (like, say, Firefox with 30 tabs + Photoshop with a multilayer file open and edited + MAME 0.140 with just a couple more shots).

VRAM is used for video data that only "overflows" into RAM if there is not enough space for it. Considering that the former is usually faster by a significant margin, and also communicates with GPU directly instead of going through system bus, you don't want this to happen at all. Things that hog VRAM are mainly multisampling and high resolution textures, so disable those in the first place. Stuff like triple buffering you should disable anyway since it adds to input lag. Back to your original question, get a better GPU because high amount of VRAM isn't going to help you anyway. Also get something better than 7900, that card is older than my grandma (almost). :D Something like Radeon HD 6570 won't leave either of the two cards a chance, and it's dirt-cheap as far as graphics cards go. At least that way you'll get stable 30+ fps at your display's native resolution on pretty much any game up to date. But if you aren't going to play games you might as well not upgrade your graphics card either.

The OS question is a tricky one. For me, the only conceivable reason to migrate to W7 was—and still is—DirectX 10+. Honestly, properly kept XP is a fast, stable system that doesn't get infected as easily as one would think—I'm saying this because I haven't run a resident antivirus on my main computer since 2004 or so. There simply was no need for it. And yes, XP really is faster than W7—it's not so noticeable on a powerful machine, but on those Atom netbooks shmuppyLove was raging about that means a difference between less than 60 fps on a GBA emulator in case with W7, and stable 60 on XP (this data came from the actual problem my friend was having on his netbook with W7 pre-installed; I just went with XP right away with mine). Another obvious thing to keep in mind is that 32-bit DOS stuff won't work on W7 without DOSBox (which is, once again, slower than XP's built-in emulator). And yes, it's a RAM and HDD hog by itself.

So the first thing you'll have to ask yourself is, is your hardware good enough that you need a more powerful system to take advantage of it? For instance, said 7900 GS doesn't even support DX10. 8500 does, but will choke on it faster than you can look into a price list for a better card. So as I see it, W7 will only make things worse on your config. Speedup on the rare 64-bit optimized applications likely won't offset the performance loss on average.

[mjclark]

I can hardly believe the thread made it this long with nobody recommending Linux. If I had hardware that old it would have Kubuntu on it stat, and it would run everything like greased lightning.

I'm an enormous fan of Linux (and am currently ploughing through various distros to optimise an old Dell PIII with 64Mb RAM lol) but one of the main points of discussion here is RAM optimisation in XP vs 7 since for my purposes on this machine I need a Windoze installation.
My own experience supports moozooh's conclusion that XP is a stable, resource-efficient platform and I've also now learnt (regarding DirectX support) why the 8500 will play the Revolver360 PC demo but the 7900 won't!
Ha ha- I also find it funny how to most people on this forum the setup I'm describing is an antique. Believe me, it's the newest thing in the house here

[moozooh]

It's considered an antique because it's too feeble to suit its purposes. There's a significant difference in hardware requirements between running MAME 0.99 with DoDonPachi, and a recent non-resource-efficient game like Revolver360. :P

[Endymion]

I'm an enormous fan of Linux (and am currently ploughing through various distros to optimise an old Dell PIII with 64Mb RAM lol) but one of the main points of discussion here is RAM optimisation in XP vs 7 since for my purposes on this machine I need a Windoze installation.
My own experience supports moozooh's conclusion that XP is a stable, resource-efficient platform and I've also now learnt (regarding DirectX support) why the 8500 will play the Revolver360 PC demo but the 7900 won't!

XP is plenty stable and is definitely the faster Windows that you could run, but as I assume your use is very specific (it usually is with older hardware) then I have no doubt that Linux would be even faster. It doesn't take a lot of learning, and that's usually the biggest stumbling block for Linux adoption, the unfamiliarity. In fact you probably have less set up that way, just to get what you need going. Linux for general purposes can be lot more work when it comes to some basic user stuff. What are you using that specifically needs Windows? Just the emulators?

[moozooh]

I'm quite sure he wouldn't need GeForce 7900 for emulators... :)

[mjclark]

Lol! This is turning into a bigup Linux thread and rightly so- I'm very familiar with various flavors of Linux and much prefer it especially for browsing the interweb eh? I've also used the mednafen emulator on Ubuntu longtime too sir and very good it is but let's not drift too far OT...
... I want Windoze to play Windoze games eh! Really Big Sky, Leave Home and the forthcoming Waves.With the 8500 installed I can also play Revolver360 PC demo rather well and this is why I was asking about optimisation!
(Also, last time I checked there was no successful way to burn .cdi images in Linux, but let's not go there). I'm pleased to see that some indie devs also release for Linux, obviously Kenta Cho but also Charlie with Scoregasm.
Anyway, please don't divert this into a "havn't you heard of Linux" (looking at a pile of 18 different distros now!) or "get a new PC" (only if you're paying!) discussion- my original question was regarding XP and 7 if you recall on a very specific hardware set, and the answers have so far been very helpful as well as useful when I put on my "PC refurbisher" hat and it's good to see XP retaining it's crown as "refurb OS of choice" too

[moozooh]

Well, as much as I'm rooting for PC scrap refurbishment, the harsh truth is that the only real way to optimize game performance is getting better hardware. :) Without spending anything extra, merely with optimization tricks and overclocking, you're looking at a performance increase of an order of 10%, at most 20% if you're really desperate (like I was in early 2000s, being a poor student—had to play Half-Life 2 in 640x480, with SCANLINES!!1), while it'll most likely take less than $100 to up it by 100%. What's that, a couple workdays' worth of salary for an average non-idiot European? Worth the trouble in any case.

[mjclark]

Anyway, please don't divert this into a ..."get a new PC"...discussion

...the only real way to optimize game performance is getting better hardware.

lol

Well I guess the major questions of this topic have ben answered really well so thanks guys!
And necessity is not only the mother of invention but also of learning - if I'd always had top end hardware then I'd probably know nothing about PCs eh?

[moozooh]

You're missing my point because you're too focused on what you perceive to be the problem, while it's actually rather irrelevant for an open platform that PC is. Again, it's not about getting the top hardware... it's about optimizing benefits. You're looking to solve the ongoing issue of lack of performance, which is why topics like this exist in the first place, in methods that are not only a compromise upon compromise where none are really needed, but also a hassle to maintain in many cases.

What I'm suggesting here is diverting your attention to solutions that are both simpler and more cost-effective. You can check the price lists and see that hardware that was top of the line in 2007 costs next to nothing now even unused—in fact, you can get relatively powerful scrap parts for a symbolic price like a few bottles of beer, a couple kilos of fruits, or at all for free. It's a fact that pretty much every household has at least one computer in this day and age. But the truth is, with the frightening rate hardware becomes obsolete nowadays it's become pointless to even attempt to resell them. They similarly get dismantled for scrap or given away.

Ask around. See if your company's tech manager, or one of your friends, or one of your colleagues, or one of your children's classmates (the main gamer audience, in fact, and also the audience most eager to get rid of stuff that cost a liver and a half just two years ago), or the nearest PC junk dealers are about to get rid of some PC parts. Or go the ever so easier way and order them through eBay. This not only allows you to build pretty much entire computers for a price of a couple Subway sandwiches, but also keep these frankensteins up to date with a time lag of three to five years. Which actually isn't bad at all if you're hell bent on economy.

tl;dr
if you have time to spend on small trifles, spend it on solving actual issues

(Also, on a more serious note, I worked for my hardware back when I was 18 and our economy was a gaping shithole of suck; if you're looking to getting better performance for games you really have no excuse.)

[mjclark]

You're missing my point because you're too focused on what you perceive to be the problem, while it's actually rather irrelevant for an open platform that PC is.
if you have time to spend on small trifles, spend it on solving actual issues

(Also, on a more serious note, I worked for my hardware back when I was 18 and our economy was a gaping shithole of suck; if you're looking to getting better performance for games you really have no excuse.)

Calm down moozooh! Your advice has been really helpful in answering the specific question that I asked, which was about optimising a very specific hardware set with a Windows OS.
And as I've said I've learnt a lot - and that's gold
I get all my hardware as cast offs from jobs, hence it's antiquity, and I've stayed on the trailing edge of technology for some years now. It's quite a sensible place to be really and I'm just waiting until iPads are £50= a throw eh?

[moozooh]

Right. I guess I got caught up in this.

Naturally, I've been mainly buying old stuff as well until I got a stable income, but at some point I decided that I don't want to wait 3+ years for hardware to drop in price so that I could play games that interest me and not have them look like turd, and there was no coming back from that point. :D Granted, I'm not only using this hardware for games (in fact, I still mainly play stuff I could play on my previous PC just as well, like fucking 20 year old ADoM), but convenience is so hard to part with it always seems to worth it in the end.

[BuckoA51]

You're into the paging file right away, because Windows (older versions at least) is "smart" enough to use it way before it completely fills up physical memory (go figure).

That's sort of true, though memory management on Windows is complex, it's not as simple as, memory used up, so we'll use some virtual memory. I recall how one journalist ruined his reputation by reporting that Windows 7 was a memory hog because it appears to use up all of the memory you give it.

Honestly, properly kept XP is a fast, stable system that doesn't get infected as easily as one would think

Depends how you use it, if you're just using a machine for emulators then chances of infection are low. Browsing the internet and XP is much more vulnerable than 7 or Vista. You can lock down XP by using standard accounts, but that's an exercise in frustration, one that Windows UAC solves in Win 7.

Another obvious thing to keep in mind is that 32-bit DOS stuff won't work on W7 without DOSBox

You can run 32 bit DOS applications but you have no low-level access to the hardware. Most old DOS games need DOSBox to run optimally anyway, on XP or Windows 7.

Another reason to go Win 7 over Win XP is the fact that support for Windows XP is set to end entirely in 2014, with mainstream support already withdrawn. I did some digging for benchmarks and it seems XP and 7 are fairly equal but I've not really compared them myself that closely, on my Tablet 7 actually felt a bit faster than XP, but then it could have been simply down to better tablet support in Win 7.

Ubuntu Linux is about the same on performance as Win 7 too, from what I could find, the nice thing with Linux though, is that you can choose different flavours. Something like Puppy linux would run really fast even on older hardware.

Anyway, I stand by my recommendation of Windows 7 over Windows XP, but the choice is yours of course.

[moozooh]

I recall how one journalist ruined his reputation by reporting that Windows 7 was a memory hog because it appears to use up all of the memory you give it.

I see your point. However, when I run the built-in calculator and see it consume 5 MB of RAM I feel like I will never have enough faces to palm, because that's the general tendency, and it doesn't seem like it's going for the better.

Depends how you use it, if you're just using a machine for emulators then chances of infection are low. Browsing the internet and XP is much more vulnerable than 7 or Vista. You can lock down XP by using standard accounts, but that's an exercise in frustration, one that Windows UAC solves in Win 7.

More vulnerable doesn't necessarily mean vulnerable, at least to a generic threat (I'm not talking about cases where you're specifically targeted by special services or something similar, to an extent where you have to use several layers of encryption and anonymization to carry on). The only defense mechanisms I've employed were in fact hardware-based: a NAT-enabled router, and DEP. The former I've only started using a year ago, when I was already on W7. Before that I've been running XP without other means of protection for four years, add two years for my netbook. Not an advisable tactic, obviously, but I've found through continuous experimentation that it hasn't let me down even once as long as I'm mindful of that. I've been using my computers for online gaming, all kinds of internet browsing, filesharing networks, messaging... what have you. And I have a fixed external IP. Nope, not a single virus or a breach I could track so far. I do run Windows Update regularly, though, maybe that's part of the reason (then again, I haven't run it on the older machine...).

You can run 32 bit DOS applications but you have no low-level access to the hardware.

How? What applications can be run without having a low-level access hardware? I'd be interested to know!

[nZero]

32 bit DOS applications

What.

[Ex-Cyber]

32 bit DOS applications

What.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_extender

Don't tell me you've never heard of DOS/4GW or CWSDPMI; you'll make me feel old.

[BuckoA51]

I should be clear, by 32 bit DOS programs what I was really meaning was 32 bit command line programs. You can't run 16 bit actual oldschool DOS programs in Windows 7, no, not without DOSBox, but why the hell would you want to? For older games I'd use DOSBox in Windows XP too since it would give much better results than the 16 bit subsystem.

You also can't run any command line programs that hit the hardware directly, this can mean programs that use the parallel or serial ports directly, but again, I don't exactly see that being a big problem for most people. Actually thinking about it wasn't it XP that introduced this restriction (or NT kernel at least?)

[moozooh]

I could run stuff like this on XP, well, not anymore. :\