Gaming on Vista - XP wins...

[fusen]

This has been mentioned in a few threads regarding the state of windows vista and gaming and comparing the performance from Vista against XP.

Thankfully HardOCP has done a review and shown us all the dirty facts;

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1178010522zQcJDy9Cez_6_1_l.gif

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1178010522zQcJDy9Cez_6_2_l.gif

Conclusion = uninstall vista and reinstall XP if you want higher frame counts :p

[MoraX]

This was to be expected. Almost all games so far have been created and have been optimized for Windows XP :)

[CodE-E]

When did HardOCP do those benchmarks? If they were made a few months ago when Vista just got released to the public, they might not be all too representative anymore, since Vista drivers are continuously getting better.

Prey uses the Doom 3 engine, right? Since ET:QW will make use of it too, I think it's fairly safe to say that one won't be significantly worse off playing under Vista.

[donny]

Vista is for guys, who want to have a home cinema or media center in their houses...

[xrat3d]

hmm.. QWET will run under OpenGL i think. I played Q4 1.3 and I got 128 fps on my 7800 GTX 800x600 tweeked config id_demo // WinXP. I runed again under Vista and I gained 5+ fps.
From those games they tested above..is only Prey i know it's using OpenGL.
I'll stay with Vista waiting for better drivers.

[PointlesS]

I find it odd that they picked nvidia when compared to ati their drivers aren't as mature or functional...in a few benchmarks ati actually had slightly better performance in vista than xp...of course ati still has it's issues but from what I've seen and read ati is much further down the line than nvidia is right now...if you're going to benchmark the two oses then I think they need to include both manufacturers and not just one or the other...

[Martijn]

They didnt take ati becouse ati doesnt have yet a direct x 10 card. When they have it, you can really compare the results

[PointlesS]

well they are benchmarking a 7600gt...so why not a x1xxx card?

[Moncealyo]

xp your days are numbered

[jammie_d]

xp your days are numbered

Still, its a big number for XP. Vista has got to become standard, and it may take a while.

[L33t Masta]

Who cares what you can do on XP vs Vista? Vista has DX 10, XP doesn't. Vista has a better looking interface, XP does not, Vista takes a little bit more memory to do 100000 more things than XP. All in all I'll trade the 2 FPS I lose for what Vista gives me.

[k0z4k]

"Vista has better interface" - but lower fps in games

[Lanz]

I'm not a vista fan for other reasons but I bet it has more to do with unoptimised gfx drivers than vista itself.

[wn.]

We had a Microsoft rep come onto campus to show everyone how great Vista was last Thursday. Unfortunately he didn't load up any games, but we did get a good laugh out of his failed attempt to get Vista's speech recognition working. He brought two laptops, claiming one wasn't properly configured but the other was. I think the only thing he was able to do was open the start menu.

You'd think they'd have worked hard to fix that after Billy G's botched attempt :D :D

*note* Office 2k7 did look pretty sweet.

[ktr]

Well anything above 30fps is still good.

And also, there is nothing wrong with vista...the only performance factor is them drivers from nvidia...they suck. Every driver update increases performance...little by little...

[num3]

xp your days are numbered

Its pretty simple... with Msoft's monopole on operating systems, every new computer sold (dell, hp, acer...) have vista on it and nothing else. And except dx10 and minor features vista is just a visual upgrade from xp. Also vista takes into consideration your in the 45-99 years old age bracket and its your first computer experience making system tools more hidden and some weird security features that are more anoying than anything else. (note the "and" in the previous scentence... im not saying 45-99 y/o cant use computers). Vista simply feels that there is a tousand hiddend prosses running in the background that you cant even know of.

Ill have XP untill nothing works on my pc. So im guessing and other 3 years.

[b0rsuk]

Who cares what you can do on XP vs Vista? Vista has DX 10, XP doesn't. Vista has a better looking interface, XP does not, Vista takes a little bit more memory to do 100000 more things than XP. All in all I'll trade the 2 FPS I lose for what Vista gives me.

You'll be happy to learn that ET:QW is a DX9/OpenGL game.

[JAM]

Vista is for guys, who want to have a home cinema or media center in their houses...

I'm a guy, I want a home cinema and I don't need Vista to do it. I need thousands of pounds worth of amps!

I am dual booting Vista however, and I never use it ;x

[Nail]

num3, recently the courts have ordered MS to allow either XP or Vista to be ordered on new computers. lol, they tried to discontinue support for Win 2000 at same time as 98, but found out every accounting and law firm in the universe (well almost) uses 2K including their own

[L33t Masta]

You'll be happy to learn that ET:QW is a DX9/OpenGL game.

I know it's a DX9 game. I've read up on it. But I have an 8800GTX and Vista's DX 10 will take advantage of that in games like Crysis. Not to mention I love all things Microsoft and I have a Zune instead of an iPod.

[Acid4Blood]

i have two pcs,one running xp the other vista,xp runs the games with no a problem but the vista one has all sort of graphics problems.

[JAM]

I'm running Ubuntu Linux :x

[L33t Masta]

I won't go into my extreme hate for Linux here. Anyway, I think those graphs up top are bias because they tried it with lower end PC parts. Had they used a good CPU (I meant my PentiumD 4 GHz CPU hits 5.1) then Vista would have given them near XP results. Also if they used an 8800GTX, Vista would be at mostly 5.9s and thus Vista would have overtaken XP.

[JiggaJigga]

This is very intresting but wait until Vista gets service pack 2. Right now i would say it's pretty close and remember Vista hasn't been out for even a year yet. When Vista gets it's updates and everything is refined it will Own XP. Just like when XP first came out it wasn't nearly as good as it's predessor. Now it's gotten alot better because of the updates.

When Vista gets the service packs and everything is nice and tidy it will destroy XP.

[Kurayamino]

I was running vista, will give it a few more months so its completely problem free. I dont know if Vista will ever destroy XP, since especially the Ulitimate version has alot more feature wise to use up all that memory!

[SniperSteve]

Vista is not worth looking at until the DX10 games come out. Then you need to dual boot it so you can get good performance on the other games.

[Kurayamino]

Theres DX10 games out or did they never release the patch for Supreme Commander?

[L33t Masta]

Vista is not worth looking at until the DX10 games come out. Then you need to dual boot it so you can get good performance on the other games.

Those of us with the hardware don't need to dual boot. Vista is enough.

[b0rsuk]

Is this just me, or there are many parallels between (Microsoft)Vista and EA ? But wait until next patch, it's going to rock then.

[LCPL Tristan]

XP and Vista is no different!

[fusen]

XP and Vista is no different!



except in about 1000 different ways

[L33t Masta]

It's true. And seeing as my thread got closed for no reason, I'm just going to post in here. Vista offers much more than XP. Many XP features have been further developed. Superfetch caches some information from I think it's your top 2 used programs so that access is much faster, Vista allows faster pagefiling through USB jump drives not to mention it allows you to cutomize your folers in things like icon and preview size, allows you to index the whole hard drive so you can find files that you want fast and it offers expert updates to help fix those bugs.

[Spoofeh]

Anyway, I think those graphs up top are bias because they tried it with lower end PC parts. Had they used a good CPU (I meant my PentiumD 4 GHz CPU hits 5.1) then Vista would have given them near XP results. Also if they used an 8800GTX, Vista would be at mostly 5.9s and thus Vista would have overtaken XP.

How is it biased if the same HW was used for both XP and Vista?
The E6400 isn't a bad CPU, at least not compared to Pentium D, and the 8800GTS is hardly low end. :rolleyes:

[PointlesS]

I like vista a lot with 2gb+ of ram...it actually uses your memory efficiently by using all of it when it's not in use...and once a program needs memory it gives it up...stuff loads faster...I haven't had any stability problems...program compatibility isn't quite there yet but the devs of those programs need to write a vista compatible version...

I wouldn't recommend it for gaming yet but in a few months when drivers are up to snuff it should be a bit better

[L33t Masta]

How is it biased if the same HW was used for both XP and Vista?
The E6400 isn't a bad CPU, at least not compared to Pentium D, and the 8800GTS is hardly low end. :rolleyes:

Had they used the p[roper top of the line hardware then Vista would have given them better results than XP. And dont go badmouthing the PentiumD. It has the power of a midrange Core2Duo @ 4 GHz.

[Spoofeh]

Had they used the p[roper top of the line hardware then Vista would have given them better results than XP.

Can you give a reason for that that makes sense? In my world both XP and Vista runs faster if you give them faster hardware, and testing a top of the line system doesn't make more sense than testing a fairly modern system (not every one will pay for bleeding edge).

I'm not bad-mouthing Pentium D, I'm calling Core2duo (http://www.hardware.info/en-US/articles/am9nZGpvZA/Conroe_on_a_budget_Core_2_Duo_E6400_test/3)a great CPU. :P