Vista takes gaming performance hit

[ObscureCaucasian]

I ran F.E.A.R. on RC1 on my x1800xt at 40+ fps, it was definitely playable. ATI cards show almost identical performance in DX games, however the way OpenGL is implemented, it does have some performance degradation.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: BlameCanada
I ran F.E.A.R. on RC1 on my x1800xt at 40+ fps, it was definitely playable. ATI cards show almost identical performance in DX games, however the way OpenGL is implemented, it does have some performance degradation.

40+ is not equivlent to 132 fps. 40 is very close to 30 fps. That is no where as smooth and fluid as a game running 60+.
Besides, Prey doesn't run on the final version of Vista with the latest Catalyst drivers.

 

[ObscureCaucasian]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: BlameCanada
I ran F.E.A.R. on RC1 on my x1800xt at 40+ fps, it was definitely playable. ATI cards show almost identical performance in DX games, however the way OpenGL is implemented, it does have some performance degradation.

40+ is not equivlent to 132 fps. 40 is very close to 30 fps. That is no where as smooth and fluid as a game running 60+.
Besides, Prey doesn't run on the final version of Vista with the latest Catalyst drivers.

OMG cause you need 132 fps. It ran at what my hardware was capable of. Some people don't need 300 fps you know.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: 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.

They've been advertising vista ready for months. That is a whole different matter than a game release. :roll:

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: 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.

They've been advertising vista ready for months. That is a whole different matter than a game release. :roll:

Does that give people the right to sue them?
What is nVidia's definition of "Vista Ready?" This question will be asked in court considering "Vista Ready" is so broad. nVidia could simply be saying that it "works" in Vista and thus it's ready for Vista. These are things we cannot be sure of.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: BlameCanada

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: BlameCanada
I ran F.E.A.R. on RC1 on my x1800xt at 40+ fps, it was definitely playable. ATI cards show almost identical performance in DX games, however the way OpenGL is implemented, it does have some performance degradation.

40+ is not equivlent to 132 fps. 40 is very close to 30 fps. That is no where as smooth and fluid as a game running 60+.
Besides, Prey doesn't run on the final version of Vista with the latest Catalyst drivers.

OMG cause you need 132 fps. It ran at what my hardware was capable of. Some people don't need 300 fps you know.

Well, I need my games running higher than 40+. If Prey; a game that should run faster than any other game out there; runs at 40+, then something is WRONG. There is no reason why that game should be running slower than Oblivion and Farcry PERIOD! And there's no reason that game shouldn't be able to run on the latest Catalyst drivers.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: 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.

They've been advertising vista ready for months. That is a whole different matter than a game release. :roll:

Does that give people the right to sue them?
What is nVidia's definition of "Vista Ready?" This question will be asked in court considering "Vista Ready" is so broad. nVidia could simply be saying that it "works" in Vista and thus it's ready for Vista. These are things we cannot be sure of.

It would give people the right to sue if there was sufficient evidence that nvidia lead people on that their products were going to be able to do such and such in vista. I'm just saying, it may be dumb, but it isn't too far fetched in this situation. Unlike the analogy you used which has no bearing or similarities to this case.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/win...nvidia_forceware_performance/page2.asp
Expected end of February release for whql certified drivers

 

[ObscureCaucasian]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: BlameCanada

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: BlameCanada
I ran F.E.A.R. on RC1 on my x1800xt at 40+ fps, it was definitely playable. ATI cards show almost identical performance in DX games, however the way OpenGL is implemented, it does have some performance degradation.

40+ is not equivlent to 132 fps. 40 is very close to 30 fps. That is no where as smooth and fluid as a game running 60+.
Besides, Prey doesn't run on the final version of Vista with the latest Catalyst drivers.

OMG cause you need 132 fps. It ran at what my hardware was capable of. Some people don't need 300 fps you know.

Well, I need my games running higher than 40+. If Prey; a game that should run faster than any other game out there; runs at 40+, then something is WRONG. There is no reason why that game should be running slower than Oblivion and Farcry PERIOD! And there's no reason that game shouldn't be able to run on the latest Catalyst drivers.

Prey is an opengl game which is why it has an abnormal difference in speed.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: 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.

They've been advertising vista ready for months. That is a whole different matter than a game release. :roll:

Does that give people the right to sue them?
What is nVidia's definition of "Vista Ready?" This question will be asked in court considering "Vista Ready" is so broad. nVidia could simply be saying that it "works" in Vista and thus it's ready for Vista. These are things we cannot be sure of.

It would give people the right to sue if there was sufficient evidence that nvidia lead people on that their products were going to be able to do such and such in vista. I'm just saying, it may be dumb, but it isn't too far fetched in this situation. Unlike the analogy you used which has no bearing or similarities to this case.

I didn't use an analogy. It was an example that needed no comparison.
They cannot sue nVidia for the simple fact that the driver DOES work, and since it does work, it's Vista ready. There is no manual or transcript saying that nVidia meant fast working drivers.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: 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.

They've been advertising vista ready for months. That is a whole different matter than a game release. :roll:

Does that give people the right to sue them?
What is nVidia's definition of "Vista Ready?" This question will be asked in court considering "Vista Ready" is so broad. nVidia could simply be saying that it "works" in Vista and thus it's ready for Vista. These are things we cannot be sure of.

It would give people the right to sue if there was sufficient evidence that nvidia lead people on that their products were going to be able to do such and such in vista. I'm just saying, it may be dumb, but it isn't too far fetched in this situation. Unlike the analogy you used which has no bearing or similarities to this case.

I didn't use an analogy. It was an example that needed no comparison.
They cannot sue nVidia for the simple fact that the driver DOES work, and since it does work, it's Vista ready. There is no manual or transcript saying that nVidia meant fast working drivers.

Links of vista ready adverts lead to this page. Promising stability, compatibility and reliability. So if someone decided to sue, they do have a leg to stand on.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/technology_vista_gpu.html

http://sg.nvidia.com/page/technology_vista_main.html

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: 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!

Leaving what tidbits out? That nvidia cards don't perform as well as ati cards in vista, due to drivers? Thats been obvious from day one.

Heres the problem:
A normal person comes in here and says: "Looks like Vista isn't as good a gaming platform as XP yet. The drivers are still young...let's wait and see if the GPU companies can come up with better drivers."

You come in here: "LOOK! THERE IS A 3-5% PERFORMANCE HIT IN MOST GAMES IN VISTA! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT VISTA SUCKS? DRIVERS?!?!? THEY'RE FINAL, ARENT THEY!?? FINAL MEANS FINAL! IT SHOULD BE PERFECT NOW! BUT IT'S NOT PERFECT NOW! I'M GOING TO IGNORE NVIDIA AND ATI AND BLAME IT ON MICROSOFT AND VISTA! VISTA SUCKS...WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE SEE THAT?!?!?!?"

And you expect people to take such flammatory BS seriously?

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: 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!

Leaving what tidbits out? That nvidia cards don't perform as well as ati cards in vista, due to drivers? Thats been obvious from day one.

Heres the problem:
A normal person comes in here and says: "Looks like Vista isn't as good a gaming platform as XP yet. The drivers are still young...let's wait and see if the GPU companies can come up with better drivers."

You come in here: "LOOK! THERE IS A 3-5% PERFORMANCE HIT IN MOST GAMES IN VISTA! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT VISTA SUCKS? DRIVERS?!?!? THEY'RE FINAL, ARENT THEY!?? FINAL MEANS FINAL! IT SHOULD BE PERFECT NOW! BUT IT'S NOT PERFECT NOW! I'M GOING TO IGNORE NVIDIA AND ATI AND BLAME IT ON MICROSOFT AND VISTA! VISTA SUCKS...WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE SEE THAT?!?!?!?"

And you expect people to take such flammatory BS seriously?

Dang, I wish it were only 3-5% for me. I have to turn off AA on CS:S just to make it decently playable. This is coming from XP with everything on and no slowdowns whatsoever (no smoke lag, fps never drops below 70 while it hangs around 40 and even drops below that in Vista with everything on).

 

[Shawn]

STFU already

 

[ObscureCaucasian]

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: 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!

Leaving what tidbits out? That nvidia cards don't perform as well as ati cards in vista, due to drivers? Thats been obvious from day one.

Heres the problem:
A normal person comes in here and says: "Looks like Vista isn't as good a gaming platform as XP yet. The drivers are still young...let's wait and see if the GPU companies can come up with better drivers."

You come in here: "LOOK! THERE IS A 3-5% PERFORMANCE HIT IN MOST GAMES IN VISTA! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT VISTA SUCKS? DRIVERS?!?!? THEY'RE FINAL, ARENT THEY!?? FINAL MEANS FINAL! IT SHOULD BE PERFECT NOW! BUT IT'S NOT PERFECT NOW! I'M GOING TO IGNORE NVIDIA AND ATI AND BLAME IT ON MICROSOFT AND VISTA! VISTA SUCKS...WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE SEE THAT?!?!?!?"

And you expect people to take such flammatory BS seriously?

Dang, I wish it were only 3-5% for me. I have to turn off AA on CS:S just to make it decently playable. This is coming from XP with everything on and no slowdowns whatsoever (no smoke lag, fps never drops below 70 while it hangs around 40 and even drops below that in Vista with everything on).

(notices the nVidia card he's running)

Need I say more.

But seriously, nVidia should have a new driver in a week or so that will bring you up to speed. All is not lost yet.

 

[Brian48]

This is why I dual-boot

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Of course, there were no Windows XP comparisons in that FiringSquad URL.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_performance_amd_catalyst_7.1/

Did you read the article? There are direct comparisons to both XP and XP x64.

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.

Leaving what out? Your links just show a different set of benchmarking tests. If there are major discrepancies between those links and FiringSquad (same tests, same hardware, same drivers), that's worth mentioning.

Still, your tendency for hyperbole is getting tiresome. The FiringSquad results suggest that with proper drivers, Vista has the potential to be a great gaming OS. When nVidia gets its act together, the benchmarks for their cards should improve.

 

[stash]

Don't feed the troll people. Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: Brian48
This is why I dual-boot

ditto =)

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: 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.

They've been advertising vista ready for months. That is a whole different matter than a game release. :roll:

Does that give people the right to sue them?
What is nVidia's definition of "Vista Ready?" This question will be asked in court considering "Vista Ready" is so broad. nVidia could simply be saying that it "works" in Vista and thus it's ready for Vista. These are things we cannot be sure of.

It would give people the right to sue if there was sufficient evidence that nvidia lead people on that their products were going to be able to do such and such in vista. I'm just saying, it may be dumb, but it isn't too far fetched in this situation. Unlike the analogy you used which has no bearing or similarities to this case.

I didn't use an analogy. It was an example that needed no comparison.
They cannot sue nVidia for the simple fact that the driver DOES work, and since it does work, it's Vista ready. There is no manual or transcript saying that nVidia meant fast working drivers.

Links of vista ready adverts lead to this page. Promising stability, compatibility and reliability. So if someone decided to sue, they do have a leg to stand on.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/technology_vista_gpu.html

http://sg.nvidia.com/page/technology_vista_main.html

Directly from your first link, nVidia says:

These NVIDA Windows Vista drivers are under development. These versions are not fully optimized for full 3D performance and may not include all available features available on different operating systems. NVIDIA, along with the industry, is continuing to update its Windows Vista drivers to ensure maximum performance on 3D applications and add support for features. These drivers are provided "AS IS." NVIDIA MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND WHATSOVER AS TO MERCHANTABILITY, COMPATABILITY, PERFORMANCE, APPLICATION OR FUNCTION, AND DISCLAIMS ALL SUCH WARRANTIES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: 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!

Leaving what tidbits out? That nvidia cards don't perform as well as ati cards in vista, due to drivers? Thats been obvious from day one.

Heres the problem:
A normal person comes in here and says: "Looks like Vista isn't as good a gaming platform as XP yet. The drivers are still young...let's wait and see if the GPU companies can come up with better drivers."

You come in here: "LOOK! THERE IS A 3-5% PERFORMANCE HIT IN MOST GAMES IN VISTA! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT VISTA SUCKS? DRIVERS?!?!? THEY'RE FINAL, ARENT THEY!?? FINAL MEANS FINAL! IT SHOULD BE PERFECT NOW! BUT IT'S NOT PERFECT NOW! I'M GOING TO IGNORE NVIDIA AND ATI AND BLAME IT ON MICROSOFT AND VISTA! VISTA SUCKS...WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE SEE THAT?!?!?!?"

And you expect people to take such flammatory BS seriously?

If you read the benchmarks, you'll realize that it's more than a 3-5% difference in the ATI benchmarks alone. In fact, the differences are much greater.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Of course, there were no Windows XP comparisons in that FiringSquad URL.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_performance_amd_catalyst_7.1/

Did you read the article? There are direct comparisons to both XP and XP x64.

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.

Leaving what out? Your links just show a different set of benchmarking tests. If there are major discrepancies between those links and FiringSquad (same tests, same hardware, same drivers), that's worth mentioning.

Still, your tendency for hyperbole is getting tiresome. The FiringSquad results suggest that with proper drivers, Vista has the potential to be a great gaming OS. When nVidia gets its act together, the benchmarks for their cards should improve.

I'm showing evidence that the FiringSquad's benchmarks are wrong. They are the only ones showing gains in Vista while everyone else is not. It's as plan as day.

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: 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!

Leaving what tidbits out? That nvidia cards don't perform as well as ati cards in vista, due to drivers? Thats been obvious from day one.

Heres the problem:
A normal person comes in here and says: "Looks like Vista isn't as good a gaming platform as XP yet. The drivers are still young...let's wait and see if the GPU companies can come up with better drivers."

You come in here: "LOOK! THERE IS A 3-5% PERFORMANCE HIT IN MOST GAMES IN VISTA! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT VISTA SUCKS? DRIVERS?!?!? THEY'RE FINAL, ARENT THEY!?? FINAL MEANS FINAL! IT SHOULD BE PERFECT NOW! BUT IT'S NOT PERFECT NOW! I'M GOING TO IGNORE NVIDIA AND ATI AND BLAME IT ON MICROSOFT AND VISTA! VISTA SUCKS...WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE SEE THAT?!?!?!?"

And you expect people to take such flammatory BS seriously?

:roll: After a full day's work and he's still at it? wow.

vista is 'final' too but I expect it to have bugs and be revised on a regular basis.. just like the drivers for nvidia, ati, etc..

meds: they can do wonders.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Of course, there were no Windows XP comparisons in that FiringSquad URL.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_performance_amd_catalyst_7.1/

Did you read the article? There are direct comparisons to both XP and XP x64.

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.

Leaving what out? Your links just show a different set of benchmarking tests. If there are major discrepancies between those links and FiringSquad (same tests, same hardware, same drivers), that's worth mentioning.

Still, your tendency for hyperbole is getting tiresome. The FiringSquad results suggest that with proper drivers, Vista has the potential to be a great gaming OS. When nVidia gets its act together, the benchmarks for their cards should improve.

I'm showing evidence that the FiringSquad's benchmarks are wrong. They are the only ones showing gains in Vista while everyone else is not. It's as plan as day.

Look at the *actual* games they test. One game that show gains (Battlefield 2/2142), also shows gains in the other article that tested it. Another game that showed gains wasnt tested by the other articles. All the other benchmarks that showed losses are perfectly in line with firingsquad's results.

You're so caught up on slamming vista that you arent actually *thinking* before you post. And THAT'S plain as day.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Of course, there were no Windows XP comparisons in that FiringSquad URL.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_performance_amd_catalyst_7.1/

Did you read the article? There are direct comparisons to both XP and XP x64.

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.

Leaving what out? Your links just show a different set of benchmarking tests. If there are major discrepancies between those links and FiringSquad (same tests, same hardware, same drivers), that's worth mentioning.

Still, your tendency for hyperbole is getting tiresome. The FiringSquad results suggest that with proper drivers, Vista has the potential to be a great gaming OS. When nVidia gets its act together, the benchmarks for their cards should improve.

I'm showing evidence that the FiringSquad's benchmarks are wrong. They are the only ones showing gains in Vista while everyone else is not. It's as plan as day.

Look at the *actual* games they test. One game that show gains (Battlefield 2/2142), also shows gains in the other article that tested it. Another game that showed gains wasnt tested by the other articles. All the other benchmarks that showed losses are perfectly in line with firingsquad's results.

You're so caught up on slamming vista that you arent actually *thinking* before you post. And THAT'S plain as day.

Sorry, you're wrong.
They are not in line. Look carefully at the benchmarks and you'll see they read very differently.

I'm not slamming Vista presently. I'm saying that Vista may not be the gaming platform of choice at this moment. It's best to wait an additional 6 months.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I'm showing evidence that the FiringSquad's benchmarks are wrong. They are the only ones showing gains in Vista while everyone else is not. It's as plan as day.

For argument's sake, let's compare the benchmarks that are comparable.

Battlefield 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 55, Vista 62.8
Tom's: NA
PC Perspective: XP 95.6, Vista 95.7

Call of Duty 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 47.9, Vista 46.6
Tom's: XP 84.6, Vista 83.0 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 47.1, Vista 47.1

FEAR (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 58, Vista 52
Tom's: XP 149.2, Vista 144.6 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 56.6, Vista 35.7

Yeah, "plain as day". :roll: The only drastic inconsistency I see is PC Perspective's FEAR benchmarks. All of the other benchmarks validate FiringSquad's numbers.