SLI on Windows 7 RC

[MandoPatriot]

I just installed Windows 7 on my desktop computer, and it runs REALLY well. But one thing I noticed, it installs drivers for everything automatically, even video cards. I am running SLI for x2 BFG 7950 GT OC 512mb version, and it shows both cards showing up in the device manager, and both are working fine.

 

The Nvidia Control Panel does not show up, so I downloaded the latest drivers from Nvidia for my version of card and my operating system. I installed it, and now the Nvidia Control Panel shows up, and I enabled SLI.

 

I did NOT uninstall any drivers, and I did NOT run in safe mode. Should I have? When I tried to uninstall the drivers, they just automatically installed. I am not too worried about this, because after I use the downloaded driver, the card names change and the control panel shows up. BUT, am I going to get the best video performance?

 

I am new to Windows 7, and was wondering if I did this all correctly. Sorry if this seems noobish, I'm not so good with computers...

 

Thanks in advance your help!

[taowulf]

You did fine. this is one of the little things that is different with W7.

[slick2500]

Yeah you almost don't even have to install any drivers with Windows 7, unless the new drivers fix issues or enable new features.

[MandoPatriot]

Honestly, I don't know what I'm doing wrong here. Everything has been working just fine, but I'm actually getting WORSE FPS than I did on XP 32-bit. I am now running 7 64-bit. Could that be the difference?

 

***EDIT*** I used to get 200+ FPS in Counterstrike: Source, but now I get like 180+. What's the deal? I thought it would run better...

Edited June 15, 2009 by TraptPatriot

[Zertz]

What you did sounds fine

 

***EDIT*** I used to get 200+ FPS in Counterstrike: Source, but now I get like 180+. What's the deal? I thought it would run better...

 

Does it really matter

 

XP is still a lighter OS, it's 7 years old and designed to run on low end hardware. Vista & 7 just take up some more resources

[hardnrg]

You could probably gain some graphics performance by switching to Windows 7 Basic or Windows Classic theme

[xPETEZx]

***EDIT*** I used to get 200+ FPS in Counterstrike: Source, but now I get like 180+. What's the deal? I thought it would run better...

 

Are you kidding??? You are worried about the difference between 180 & 200 FPS???? Let me guess, you are running an LCD? With a refresh rate of 60 Hz? Yea? Well then you cant see ANYTHING above 60FPS ANYWAYS.

 

Seriously, if you where worried about the difference between 200+ and now sub 50, THEN Id be worried, but your really splitting hairs here.

 

To notice that "decrease" you clearly had to CHECK the FPS, as opposed to actaully notice any stutter. Which should be your first indicator, if YOU cant tell its any worse, Dont check if it is, cause if your eyes cant tell, whats it matter?

 

Like I said, you main problem is going to be that you are probably running a 60Hz monitor, in which case nothing above 60FPS gets displayed.

[Verran]

Are you kidding??? You are worried about the difference between 180 & 200 FPS???? Let me guess, you are running an LCD? With a refresh rate of 60 Hz? Yea? Well then you cant see ANYTHING above 60FPS ANYWAYS.

I think you might be being a bit hard on him here. To me, it doesn't sound like he thinks the 200 -> 180 is a big concern in terms of gameplay, I think he's just pointing out that Vista 64 is running worse than XP 32, which his example clearly demonstrates.

 

I think he expected performance to go UP and not DOWN when going to a newer operating system, and now he's concerned because the opposite happened. For example, if going from one card to SLI made your frame rates go down, wouldn't you be concerned? I bet you would, even if the reduced framerate was still very playable, simply because it's not what you expected.

 

To the OP: You will usually see a performance decrease when going to Vista. Your results are not that surprising and I wouldn't be too worried. And also, Pete does make a good point. Most people can't see anything more than 60 frames per second. The exact number is different for everyone, but I think it's safe to say that no one can see 180-200 FPS. So really, your loss is not affecting your game performance at all. As long as you're substantially over 60FPS, you really can't see much of a difference.

[MandoPatriot]

I think you might be being a bit hard on him here. To me, it doesn't sound like he thinks the 200 -> 180 is a big concern in terms of gameplay, I think he's just pointing out that Vista 64 is running worse than XP 32, which his example clearly demonstrates.

 

I think he expected performance to go UP and not DOWN when going to a newer operating system, and now he's concerned because the opposite happened. For example, if going from one card to SLI made your frame rates go down, wouldn't you be concerned? I bet you would, even if the reduced framerate was still very playable, simply because it's not what you expected.

 

To the OP: You will usually see a performance decrease when going to Vista. Your results are not that surprising and I wouldn't be too worried. And also, Pete does make a good point. Most people can't see anything more than 60 frames per second. The exact number is different for everyone, but I think it's safe to say that no one can see 180-200 FPS. So really, your loss is not affecting your game performance at all. As long as you're substantially over 60FPS, you really can't see much of a difference.

 

Yes and no. I was disappointed that the FPS went down, and that is partially why I mentioned it. The other part is this - in game, with multiple other players and larger maps than a Video Stress Test, I'm lucky to get 100+ FPS. Usually it ranges from 70-95. Now, somehow it ranges from 30-90 FPS. So yes, I think that is a major thing to be worried about! Right now it kind of stables out at about 60 FPS. Even though my screen refresh rate is at 60hertz, the game is still SMOOTHER with higher FPS. Right now it is choppy, and I can't play as well as I usually could, and other players have noticed that.

 

So anyway, I'm not taking offense to that guys previous post, but cmon, keep comments like that to yourself. I'm asking for help here, not to be criticized on something that you are not even in person to see. I can see it, I know what is going on. Thank you very much.

[Waco]

With high end hardware and settings Vista and 7 are almost always faster than XP. A new video card (even a $80 one) would liven your rig up considerably.

[MandoPatriot]

With high end hardware and settings Vista and 7 are almost always faster than XP. A new video card (even a $80 one) would liven your rig up considerably.

 

That's what I'm afraid of... Looking into getting SLI in either 8 series or 9 series, 200 series is too expensive for me! Lol.

[Verran]

The other part is this - in game, with multiple other players and larger maps than a Video Stress Test, I'm lucky to get 100+ FPS. Usually it ranges from 70-95. Now, somehow it ranges from 30-90 FPS. So yes, I think that is a major thing to be worried about!

So my question is: Why did you say it went from 200 to 180 when that wasn't what you were concerned about? If you were concerned about 30-90 FPS in game, then why didn't you mention that before?

 

People can only use the info you give them. If you say 200->180, they're going to tell you that's not a big deal and they're going to be right. If you say 30-90, well then that's something a bit more useful.

 

That's what I'm afraid of... Looking into getting SLI in either 8 series or 9 series, 200 series is too expensive for me! Lol.

It sounds like you think you NEED SLI for some reason. Why not just get the single best (and newest) video card you can? Why buy old technology just so you can afford 2? I don't know what your budget is but I'd be willing to bet that no matter what it is you'd be better off buying one big 200 series card than 2 9000 or 8000 cards.