Artifacts on Vista but not XP?

[dccool879]

On XP i can get Ati Tool to go to 847/963 with my 2900xt without artifacting. I ran the test for 30 min. anything higher will give a few errors between 10-20 min. I can play crysis at this clock in XP and it runs great!

On vista, ATI Tool can't set the clock speeds to 3d, so i can't use that to test my clocks. I used RivaTuner and set my clocks to 847/963, and opened crysis. Major artifacts! The ground was white and shit. So i turned down my core speed to default and kept mem @ 963 and there was no artifacting. So it was the core. I had to bump down the core in increments of 10, until i got to 780 before I stopped noticing artifacts (I could easily find them by just looking at the sky.)

What gives? I also have DX10 mode enabled for vista, if that makes any difference

[DanishDevil]

I don't think ATiTool works properly on vista...mine won't even open.

DX10 mode in Crysis is technically "Very High" settings. Do you mean you have all settings set to Very High?

Other than that, what Catalyst drivers were/are you running?

[dccool879]

I don't think ATiTool works properly on vista...mine won't even open.

DX10 mode in Crysis is technically "Very High" settings. Do you mean you have all settings set to Very High?

Other than that, what Catalyst drivers were/are you running?

Yeh ati tool doesnt work.
the settings are on high, my desktop shortcut says "C:\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis\Bin32\Crysis.exe" -dx10
and the crysis window says DX10.

Cat 8.2

[DanishDevil]

It might just be the X2, but try the Cat 8.1's. See if that helps.

And it is possible that DX10 works the card harder and therefore would cause artifacts on your card. Not sure though, and that seems very odd.

[dccool879]

now that I think about it, XP might be using 8.1 still, i don't remember upgrading ever

[DanishDevil]

Give it a shot. Check this (http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=668091&postcount=23) thread out where I did a comparison between Cat 8.1's and 8.2's on a 3870X2. 8.1's blew a few of the benchmarks out of the water for a freaking driver change!

[dccool879]

Incredibly interesting! when i force DX9 mode, it runs way smoother and no artifacts even at 847/963!

Would it be bad for my video card to be left at these clocks? I dont get any artifacts in Opengl Fur, AtiTool, 3dmark, etc. just crysis DX10!

[DanishDevil]

If you're not getting artifacts, and your temperatures are below 80C, you're safe. Keep an eye out for artifacts though, as I have experienced them appear over time while a card was sitting in its box after I OCed it and popped it back in.

Can anyone else see if their cards' OCs don't hold in DX10 versus DX9? This would be a breakthrough, and would be VERY important to the OCing community.

I'm not gonna do it with my X2. Going back Friday and doesn't OC well anyway. I got like 850 core and got over it.

[panchoman]

one simple explanation: vista is crap... lol jk

[DanishDevil]

Haha. I bought Vista Ultimate for $50, and I'm actually enjoying it. It's more fun to look at than functional I think, but $50 isn't bad. And I'm dualbooting anyway.

[dccool879]

I got a cheap college laptop with vista home basic, and the thing had 512 mb, so vista ran awful. I put linux on it and dumped the vista, and used that key for my Desktop. Home basic is sweet because it has less shit, my only hate in vista. I put the theme to classic and disabled a bunch of services that i read in the tweak vista guide. Now it runs almost as well as my XP install (only noticible in numbers.)

Can someone please test DX10 vs DX9 artifacts!

[DanishDevil]

I can definitely attest to DX10 being harder on video cards. Keep in mind, these are DX10 capable, not DX10 optimized. When I run Gears of War (for the short time that I can) I get 60FPS maxed out 1680*1050 in DX9, but with DX10 enabled, minimum settings at 400*300, I get 20FPS. BLOWS.