For sale only in Portugal!!!
File From PCGuia, page 66 to 73. October Edition 2010!
The Windows XP, Vista and 7 32-bit and 64-bit number combinations to give the operating system from Microsoft. But what is the best for use with games?
The games never run too fast. Even when they finally get to have a good system, the next day will reappear on the market a title that makes the current configuration to insufficient power to play with all settings at maximum. In this battle for the maximum possible number of frames, the video card takes the central role, followed closely by the processor. However, there is another component that is before our eyes every day and plays an important role in the performance of games - we are talking about Windows.
Who has the Windows 32-bit version certainly wondered, perhaps while fighting heroically in the enemy lines or to drive a Formula 1 to 300 km / h, if indeed there is any difference for 64-bit version of the same software . Does it even exist? And will those who have Windows XP should upgrade to a newer version of Windows for more performance? The answer to this question may seem easy, but it is not. Something we learned over the years about Windows is that the latest version is not always an improvement, however, sometimes happen setbacks.
There is only one way to know what is the best version of Windows to play. We took a system that we consider normal use for games - based on a Phenom X4 CPU 965, a Radeon graphics and 4 GB of RAM we added four versions of Windows and even a small collection of games and programs to benchmark, format the disk hard and put to work. True, it took us some time and toasted a good dose of patience to dissect the differences, but it is for this reason we are here. To begin the battle!
The major component of the Windows games is, of course, Direct X (DX), a set of application programming interfaces (APIs) that are among the operating system and hardware.
However, Direct X had a very rough start in life. The initial version of Microsoft was completed in 1995 but could not leave the lab. See DX 2 was only allowed supervised visits, and only the third version of Direct X was possible to see what the Redmond giant had prepared for us all. Version 4 was also canceled, and the truth is that there must have been a lot of people to suffer while trying to remove the DX system, since this process was then a real headache. However, today technology is firmly established. DX9 aversion, for example, is not only capable but also is stable. There also has DX 10 and DX 11, which include a series of improvements and new effects. But why is that games still are not at all to DX 11? The answer lies in one word: consoles. The big games require big budgets and require large sales, which means that the secret lies in developing multi-platform games. However, the consoles still work with DX 9, so much development is still at this level.
The complete list of DX 11 games is horribly short: DiRT 2, Alien Vs. Predator, Battle Forge, Metro 2033, STALKER: Cali of Pripyat, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and there is little to record. In the list of DX 11 games that follow we Civilization V, Lord of the Rings On-line, Battlefield 1943, Crysis 2, F1 2010 and so on. It is still an important addition, but can not be regarded as a massive addition that gives us a great choice. Fortunately, the DX10 support is much broader in this chapter. Generally, a good game for PC is capable of giving, as they say in the jargon of the games, a "beating" to any console. Moreover, there are some titles that can take full advantage that a good PC can offer, although this happens more often in an environment of DX 9 that it would be desirable. Therefore, performance in DX 9 is still very important in the specification of a system for gaming. And equally important to know what the graphics card manufacturers are going to do in the future - if the development is centered on DX 11, then the DX 9 will inevitably be pushed aside in a gradual manner. Currently, the GPMA Radeon HD 5000 (our favorite) is still optimized for DX 9, but certainly this will not last much longer. The wording more technical, involving terms such as polygon tessellation, Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO) and volumetric clouds, sounds pretty good to us laymen. But when will we start seeing games that really take advantage of technology DX 11? These capabilities need to know the light of day soon so we can start recommending based systems architectures DX 11 graphics. Until then, we have to live in this strange world of mixtures.
Being a friendly and familiar face, Windows XP still runs in many personal computers around the world, perhaps on more machines than Microsoft certainly would. This operating system is limited to DirectX version 9, but as we have seen the DX 9 games are still the fashion, so the above limitations are not so shocking after all. However, Microsoft encourages its users to do the upgrade. How? Offering over time a lower support their older products, which, sooner or later ends up convincing people to evolve the software.
There is a 64-bit version of XP but we have chosen to ignore it, to the extent that it is a system that presents some problems that were already spoken several times with the weak support for the drivers head. So if you want to go for a 64-bit version of Windows, there are two other options more modern and capable. The XP installation went swimmingly and, in a quick and simple, the system became available at the first attempt - a base installation, attention. And our record is already contained Service Pack 1 but Windows had the perfect idea that would need immediately after the Service Pack 2-maybe this would cause the graphics card driver could finally work. But no, what was missing was the NET Framework 2.0, which in turn require that you first install Windows Imaging Component. And thus began a beautiful series of updates and patches, which was interrupted by us so we knew
that all we needed was functioning properly. However, there were still some more work to setup the way, including a ton of security updates and no less heavy Service Pack 3. And when we thought that Windows would stick around, here it decides to impose a few more corrective patches. This time we have been pleased.
Despite having promised to offer many new features when it appeared, Windows Vista had a hard life from the beginning, not having won not convinced users. Not revealed as one breakthrough that we all expected and that Microsoft had promised, and the problems associated with its start did not help. Moreover, many of the innovations that had failed to capture the community that resisted change preferring to stick to XP We began by installing the 32 bit version. Not a quick process, since forced us to two instances of prolonged wait, those in which the screen goes blank as if it were happening any intellectual activity on the hard drive, with a brief "grit" of the dishes from time to time. Like the XP you had to apply some patches to ensure everything worked like spikes. On the waiting list were 107 initial important updates, which took quite some time to be digested and processed - or theta long, as we have chosen to leave the PC on overnight to make those updates. And note that the Internet connection you have in PCGuia not those that creep. From this point forward, we have decided to no longer use Windows Update (Update intelligent read the text). Should also be noted that support for the original version of Windows Vista ended on April 13.
As for 64-bit version was also little information during the installation. Microsoft could be so kind to do a progress bar that stops at zero percent for forty minutes?
As is known, use a 32-bit version of an operating system has one major drawback-it is only capable of addressing 4 GB of RAM. With Vista 32, 4 GB of motherboard we had in the system recognized only 3.33 GB or 3.25 GB, depending on the software used to obtain the value, which gave 2.55 GB for Windows skip and move on. In this view, the argument of 64-bit Windows is stronger.
The best version of Windows since XP in our most humble and honest opinion, is Windows 7. Installed very easily and, being newer, had "only" 32 updates to do. There is a 32-bit version of 7, but it would serve us? There are several options for the new Windows at the time of purchase, being mainly a question of how many euros are there to spend. But better still, there is a vast amount of tweaks and utilities that can be downloaded from the Internet and allow the change, regardless of the version chosen.
Finally, Windows 7 will help you a lot not only during installation, but once installed. Needless to say, each version of Microsoft's operating system has undergone a battery of tests, as well as gaming benchmarks. The games were processed on two fronts - with all settings at maximum, even for a demanding test, and with everything at medium, to simulate what will be the typical use of the normal user.
When we did the last article of its kind still only with DirectX version 9, we compared the XP to Vista and the winner was Windows XE Well, on DX 9 the title continues to be delivered to the same hands. And the advantage remains significantly high, particularly bearing in mind that, in terms of games, each frame per second to be able to get the most is an important advantage. In fact, Windows 7 failed to shorten the distance that separated much longer XP to Vista.
However, if we consider the DX 10, the story is different, because the XP is forced to leave the scene. In direct clash between Vista 32, Vista 64 and also July 64-bit, we had to go to the photo finish to see who crossed the finish line first. The victory ended up smiling at Windows 7, the tie having been made with the values obtained with the benchmark Far Cry 2 pushed to the limit. Otherwise, it would have been a technical draw. With respect to DX 11, stepped in the benchmark DiRT 2. Oddly, with the settings in Windows 7 is the maximum back to the settings but median gain advantage. We could not determine with certainty what may have influenced these abnormal results - maybe the graphics controller, but not sure. Anyway, we believe that a treaty theta anomaly and, as in DX 10, we support the best system as Windows 7 DirectX 11 games. If, perchance, have installed 32-bit version of Vista, you should seriously consider upgrading to a 64-bit version. Do not just leave behind all the annoying limitations of Vista 32 as no longer has an operating system that is much slower when it comes to games. Although not the best in DX 9 or 11 in DX, Vista 64 is a bit faster than Vista 32 and offers access to all the RAM you have installed on the machine, even if only 4 GB.
If resistance is still one of the "old guard" has no problems of inferiority or complexity of having XP installed on your computer. This is a very decent operating system for games, and only when the DX 10 and DX 11 raises the same flight is that you must monitor developments with Windows 7. Until then, let it be as it is as even the latest games will always keep the support for DX 9. And right now that the limitations will be many and there is access to 64-bit applications. But consider making the jump directly to Windows 7 64-bit only when the effects of light and the physics of DX 11 becomes even evolved.
If you are a happy user of Windows 7, then we can only wish you well enjoy the spectacle offered by the DX 10 and DX 11 games. For us, it is currently the best operating system for gaming in general, that if you do not mind not being to get the best possible performance from their DX 9 games.
In short, it can be said that the ideal system for games have a kind of dual boot with Windows XP 32-bit mdo what is DirectX 9 and Windows 7 64-bit mdo which offer support for DirectX 10 11. And here among us, it seems that the scenario will remain as it is long.