First let me define 'hardcore' ;

120hz display with the ability to hold 125fps+ and never dip below without lowering a bunch of detail settings.

I'm still sticking with XP32 since I do not care for DX11 nor play DX11 based games unless they support DX9 as well.

My base build :

i7 950 @ Stock speed utilizing turbo +1
X58 FTW3 Board.
3 x 2gb CL7 @ 1066 (only utilizing under 4gb in XP32 obviously)
2 x RevoDrive 240's
GTX-580SSC

XP32 3DMark06 @ defaults = 29190 (avg from five runs)
7x64 3DMark06 @ defaults = lame ass 17611 (avg from five runs)

Pretty effen horrible if you ask me. Running 3DMark06 in 7x64 is relevant for me since the LARGE majority of games are coded 32bit anyways.

Pisses me off that in most 'tweakable' FPS games I play (i'll use COD4 and Blops as my example since they are common) I can max all the settings in the game and the nvidia control panel (minus AA - I disable it cause Its useless at high res in games with everything moving all the time) I can com_maxfps 250 and hold 250fps or more (com_maxfps 333 or higher in COD4) ;

but

In 7x64 I com_maxfps 125 and my frame rate dips down to shit like 70 and 80 alot.

I guess this isn't a problem for wankers with 60hz but man this is crap.

Just ranting. lol. Maybe I am too demanding.

From reading your post I'm guessing you play at max resolution.. That's a rookie mistake for fps gamers.

And I'm not trying to be a dick, simply suggesting you turn your resolution down for fps games! And not for a performance boost, but kill boost

I agree with you, but only to a point. Alot of people that lego-block their displays have no idea as to WHY they do it - just that they seen a few good players do it, so they think its an advantage. This was real common 7+ years ago - and more so on 4:3 displays.

Care to elaborate? - I'd like to see your answer.

There's no proven information that makes lower res better. But I can say from personal experience and friends experiences -- lower helps. People say it increases hit box sizes and stuff; however I don't think there is any truth to this. But I can say for sure, it does make the player models, in css at least, somewhat bigger. That's is the main reason I use 8x6. I found when I switched that it just seemed to make everything smoother. (and it wasn't because my computer couldn't handle the higher res) I guess the bigger thing than res is more refresh rate.

I guess it is a lot of preference really when it comes to resolution, but I honestly find playing on a lower res helps with reg - mostly in counter strike from what I've experienced. I can't really explain why playing in a lower res helps, but I do 5x better playing at 800x600 over 1680x1050.

It's hard to explain but I guess all I can do is tell you to try it!



Oh btw for your actual question: I do use 7 64 for gaming, and have had 0 problems with it. I actually just installed xp 64 bit today though and I'm having identical performance. That's with a 2600k and 5850.

I agree about the hitboxes and how there was really no proven proof to it. I've heard it all, recoil was less, etc. lol.

The main reason people lowered their resolution long ago was so they could utilize higher refresh rates on CRT monitors. Most half-assed CRT monitors would do greater than 100hz @ 640x480 and good ones would do it @ 800x600 and insanely expensive ones (for the time) would do 120hz @ 1024x768 like some of the MAG Innovisions and some Sony's. The lowering of details allowed players (depending on hardware) to get the frame rates required to play 100, 120 and sometimes 150hz. Higher refresh rates coupled with high frame rates and high input sampling rates (mostly 150 or 200hz on PS/2 back then) provided extremely smooth and highly responsive play.

So the low resolution theory is that and nothing more except possibly personal preference. Some old school players I still play with today (Vo0 for example) have moved to higher resolution simply because the hardware can handle it now, with ease. And with the re-introduction of 120hz capable displays we can now play like we did 10 years ago, but without lego blocks. Some people still play gross resolution, but that is purely habitual or preference. Matter of fact, most newer games when played at really low resolutions look so fucked up you would actually play worse and have hard time hitting shit since models are more complex compared to what they were years ago when you just had to make sure the bullets went into the hit-box - not so much the case anymore.

One thing I find that remains prevalent today is the 4:3 display in competition play - this mostly due to how field of view works, and then partially preference. FOV 106/112 FTW >:)

None the less - 7x86 is giving me roughly the same scores as XPx86 - so I guess the rest of my ram will have to wait for the day we get 64bit games.

Basically, if your GPU can crank out a higher FPS than your monitor's refresh rate at maximum resolution there's no need to run a lower resolution.

I've been using Windows 7 since before it was (publicly) released for beta/RC testing, in both the 32 and 64 bit varieties. I do primarily gaming on my system but I don't run a 120hz monitor (60hz presents no visible stutter and I'm not playing anything in 3D, I have my 3DTV for that if I want) or worry about my FPS being over anything except 30. So I'm not a "hardcore gamer" by your standards, but I've had zero issues with Windows 7 for gaming.

120hz at 125+ FPS sounds more like a hardware enthusiast to me. Most games aren't designed to run at those specs.

I've been running windows 7 since release and you're requirements spell elitist tool, not gamer to me. I played Quake 2 at 16fps and was good at it, I don't need idiotic frame rates that you can't perceive anyway to play a game well.

'Good' and '16fps' do not go together. What you smokin' ?

Nothing, I'm just not a prissy bitch who can't handle a challenge.

i hate to say it, running below a 100 fps while not willing to turn down some settings to get back up to 100+ means your not 'hardcore"


having a 120 hz display is about 1/2 way there though.


-

i miss the days of 200 hz...... 1990's , come back to me

didn't realize hardcore gamer meant you had to have over the top settings. I thought it was about the amount of time you dedicate to games.

That was my understanding as well. technology won't make a shitty gamer good.

i know i have tried and i am still shitty. LOL