Vista takes gaming performance hit

[Quinton McLeod]

I was given a URL to a benchmark showing great gains with the ATI driver in Vista from FiringSquad.
It was in response to a link I gave earlier:

http://techgage.com/article/windows_vista_gaming_performance_reports

Of course, there were no Windows XP comparisons in that FiringSquad URL.

But then, I came across two other benchmarks saying the same thing:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=354&type=expert&pid=6

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page4.html#3d_games


So, what's going on? Why are you people deliberately leaving this tidbit out? I noticed that no one on these forums even mentioned the fact that gaming has taken a nose dive from XP to Vista. Even with Aero off, XP still outperforms it.

I want honest opinions about this. What is your take on these current chain of events?


Discuss!

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

brand new OS, brand new video drivers (some still in beta), blah blah, etc... come back in 3 months and see where things are then.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Things will still be the same in 3 months. People don't have time to wait 3 months to purchase Vista and their favorite games. People want results NOW. If someone is told to wait 3 months, they might as well wait until SP1 comes out.

 

[blackangst1]

IMHO, a 3-5% performance hit is really insignificant. If people remember the XP rollout, it was a disaster. The Vista rollout os one of the best ever.

Also, not to detract from the main issue of the thread, given Vista's other improvments over XP, I'd say its the logical choice-

 

[Kalmah]

XP drivers ~8 years in development -V- Vista drivers ~8 months in development...

Round 1.. Go!

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Things will still be the same in 3 months. People don't have time to wait 3 months to purchase Vista and their favorite games. People want results NOW. If someone is told to wait 3 months, they might as well wait until SP1 comes out.

Have you jumped on the nVidia lawsuit bandwagon yet?

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Look. If you wanted the best gaming card, you'd be wise to stick with the 8800 GTX. However, those suffer a 75% performance drop when you go to Vista. It's just a good idea to stick with Windows XP until the dust has cleared. This won't be until at least 6 months.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Things will still be the same in 3 months. People don't have time to wait 3 months to purchase Vista and their favorite games. People want results NOW. If someone is told to wait 3 months, they might as well wait until SP1 comes out.

Have you jumped on the nVidia lawsuit bandwagon yet?

As I recall, I was the person that posted a thread about that very same thing. I think it's ridiculous. You don't sue a company because they haven't released official drivers yet. That's like suing Nintendo because they haven't released Mario Galaxy for the Wii yet.

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Things will still be the same in 3 months. People don't have time to wait 3 months to purchase Vista and their favorite games. People want results NOW. If someone is told to wait 3 months, they might as well wait until SP1 comes out.

Have you jumped on the nVidia lawsuit bandwagon yet?

hehe I was just thinking the same thing. :roll:

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Things will still be the same in 3 months. People don't have time to wait 3 months to purchase Vista and their favorite games. People want results NOW. If someone is told to wait 3 months, they might as well wait until SP1 comes out.

too much coffee this AM?

 

[Tom]

Based on some info from another thread, where a link was provided to a Microsoft employee discussing a tangential issue, drm, my impression is Vista is somewhat more demanding than XP, but that is considered a good way to use the improving hardware capabilities, going forward.

Which makes some sense. However, one possible ramification would be that when comparing XP and Vista, for a single purpose, XP might have a small advantage in speed. For gaming, this shouldn't make much difference, unless it's a game that was barely playable in XP.

I think the nvidia driver issue is a different problem, maybe they just aren't finished.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: Tom
Based on some info from another thread, where a link was provided to a Microsoft employee discussing a tangential issue, drm, my impression is Vista is somewhat more demanding than XP, but that is considered a good way to use the improving hardware capabilities, going forward.

Which makes some sense. However, one possible ramification would be that when comparing XP and Vista, for a single purpose, XP might have a small advantage in speed. For gaming, this shouldn't make much difference, unless it's a game that was barely playable in XP.

I think the nvidia driver issue is a different problem, maybe they just aren't finished.

Finally. An intelligent response!

Oblivion is a game that barely runs on Windows XP with everything turned on high. Even with the best graphics card out, you won't get anything past 60 fps (unless with the 8800GTX... But 60 fps in Vista would be impossible).

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

yea that's the way to start a thread come in with an attitude of 'you people' and then start throwing around about 'finally! an intelligent response!"

I thought you wanted a discussion amongst all of us, not a debate with you personally.

anyway, vista FTW, I CAN wait a bit to play games, I still have a couple I got for Xmas I have not opened yet as I'm also doing other things... work, family, life in general ya know BTW my HL2, Prey, NFS: Carbon, so on seem to be giving me stutter-free loving at 1600x1200 w/ Vista.

(picks up his lawn chair, cooler and heads back to work).

 

[brandonb]

The last Vista I used was RC1.

However, the games I played on it were running fine. I played Vanguard SOH, which is a pretty demanding game. Between XP and Vista, and I couldn't really tell a difference between the two OS's. I also played Civ4 on both, and couldn't really tell a difference. Thats the same machine, same hardware, same games. I didn't play anymore than that, as those are the only two games I bothered to try.

There might have been some slowdown going to Vista, but not enough to really notice. It didn't go from 75fps to 7fps, if it did anything it went 75fps to 70fps, which would not raise any "red flags" with me when using Vista and something I'd typically not notice.

Your mileage may very...

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Those are games that do not tax your system like Oblivion or Fear. Fear on the lesser extent.

You may not notice a difference on your system due to varying differences: different games, different video card and specs. However, for the most graphic intensive games, you WILL notice a difference. Especially if you're an nVidia fan. It's not all roses on Vista quite yet. Hardcore gamers (which Microsoft is touting Vista is geared toward) will not be interested in Vista as of yet due to benchmark differences. This is exceptionally true among most overclockers as well. If the system isn't running it's speediest, than its not worth it. Vista can cause unnecessary skewed yields that can affect performance in some applications. This would be totally unacceptable to those who value speed over glitter.

 

[Tegeril]

Quinton. Please GTFO. You should really try gaming in Vista and actually using Vista before you continue to pretend to know what you're talking about.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: Tegeril
Quinton. Please GTFO. You should really try gaming in Vista and actually using Vista before you continue to pretend to know what you're talking about.

Actually, I have been using Vista. I've been running Vista since Beta 1. This would include RC1 and RC2. Last but not least, I have been using Vista Basic and Premium. I have tested my games on Vista, and I personally do not like the performance it provides for my games.

 

[mechBgon]

I heard that Vista's DirectX 10 gaming benchmarks are going to be WAY higher than on WinXP

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
I heard that Vista's DirectX 10 gaming benchmarks are going to be WAY higher than on WinXP

Well, obviously. There's no DirectX 10 on XP

 

[WT]

So, theoretically, if Vista DX10 performance is lower than the equivalent game using DX9 in XP are we going to have the same discussions on a daily basis ? Would you trade eye candy for FPS ?? Or, at what point would you consider it safe to ignore ?? 60 FPS ?? I just don't worry about my FPS anymore .. its the gameplay itself that I find appealing, not the blinding flash of gunfire around me rendered at 50+ FPS.

When XP came out, anyone gaming in Win98 or W2k could say the same thing .. how atrocious the new games perform in this new bloated OS. I'd say in 5 months we will see any remaining driver issues cleared up, so thats acceptable to me. Vista is out, so XP's days are officially numbered (5 years full support after Vista release puts it at January, 2012).

 

[JonnyBlaze]

The worst drop on the first link is 32.4%

OMG I can only play UT2k4 at 172fps now what will I ever do.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: mechBgon
I heard that Vista's DirectX 10 gaming benchmarks are going to be WAY higher than on WinXP

Well, obviously. There's no DirectX 10 on XP

What OS do you recommend for DirectX 10 compatibility, since WinXP cannot run DirectX 10 stuff?





Might as well stop throwing yourself in front of the steamroller.

 

[Tegeril]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: Tegeril
Quinton. Please GTFO. You should really try gaming in Vista and actually using Vista before you continue to pretend to know what you're talking about.

Actually, I have been using Vista. I've been running Vista since Beta 1. This would include RC1 and RC2. Last but not least, I have been using Vista Basic and Premium. I have tested my games on Vista, and I personally do not like the performance it provides for my games.

Odd, it provides great performance for mine.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: Tegeril

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: Tegeril
Quinton. Please GTFO. You should really try gaming in Vista and actually using Vista before you continue to pretend to know what you're talking about.

Actually, I have been using Vista. I've been running Vista since Beta 1. This would include RC1 and RC2. Last but not least, I have been using Vista Basic and Premium. I have tested my games on Vista, and I personally do not like the performance it provides for my games.

Odd, it provides great performance for mine.

Same here, although I haven't measured tenths of FPS I don't percieve any difference between Vista and XP.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

lol
Considering Prey only runs at 42 fps MAX on Vista; even with crossfire.