Gaming in Vista, watch out XP!

Quoted from ExtremeTech: "It took about a year and a half, but the performance gap between Vista and its forerunner has finally evaporated."

It looks like Vista is no longer slower than XP in gaming benchmarks. In every single test they ran, ExtremeTech found that XP SP3 and Vista SP1 have almost identical in gaming.

There goes THAT excuse!

Source Article on ExtremeTech

 

I totally disagree with the whole premise. I never go by benchmark scores but rather real world results like playing the game and seeing the results for yourself. When judged by this alone Vista still misses the mark.

I can still play games with a higher framerate and with a smoother overall gaming experience in XP SP2 than I can with Vista SP1. And i've run games side by side and I still think XP does it better, to the point where I do all my gaiming on XP.

 

Well maybe SP3 has slowed XP down ;]
I could see windows doing that to make Vista look better hahah

 

They included SP2 test results as well. So you could also compare those.

Short answer: Vista is still at parity.

 

Are you referring to FPS in games, or subjective 'smoothness'?

They did several game tests in Supreme Commander and Crysis and still found the OSes were at parity.

But yeah, if it is that 'smooth' feeling you are talking about, that is your prerogative. I understand though, it really can make or break the feel of a game (*cough* Oblivion on Xbox360 stutter *cough*).

 

Those of us who have seen through all the Vista bashing and FUD have already known that Vista is faster than XP, and initial poor gaming performance was due to immature drivers. It is worth mentioning that I've found Vista64 to be a superior product when compared to the 32-bit version. Performance is noticeably improved.

The same thing happened when XP came out, nobody wanted to upgrade from 2000 because the UI was too graphic-y and a resource hog, and now everyone refuses to let XP go. The same will eventually happen with Vista, and SP1 is a step in the right direction.

 

I agree with you zipx2k5. Check the bashing come in with Win7 public arrives next year.

 

Well if we only have Vista for a year longer I cannot see my love growing for it enough to want to switch
I'd rather stick with XP or Linux
Much smoother on computers that are not recent
Vista is only running well on the newer computers IMHO
I can't even imagine trying to run it on my computer
Yet Compiz-Fusion is a beast and works GREAT on Linux
Rather funny how people like Vista for its looks when Linux has far superior looks
and runs on some of the oldest computers still around with better eye candy than Vista =]

 

I'd be running Linux if it weren't for DirectX keeping me tied to Vista or XP.

Vista isn't for older computers, you've got a point there. But I don't think we will be seeing Windows 7 till 2010, or late 2009. If they get it out any earlier I'll be stunned.

 

Thats an interesting article...im not 100% positive that is true though. Nice find anywho

 

*giggles*
Oh geez, and I bet a few others would share your suspicion.

 

Can't say that my laptop agrees with their findings. World in Conflict is still only playable on XP for me.

 

You have a X3100, which has sucky drivers. The test bed probably was running a GF8 card.

 

I prefer to hear good things about Vista, it really needs to get up onto its feet and improve itself!

 

I'm pretty sure most games will be sucky on your laptop. Youre using an x3100 integrated card.

 

>.> only reviews I trust anymore are on this site, or test that I've done myself. Even Chaz's most recent review of the np9262 still shows that xp maintains a more constant fps. Vista has improved a lot, but to say they are equal now is still false in my mind at least.

 

So? XP is still better. I couldn't give two ****s about nVidia.

 

That "test" had no mention of the hardware and drivers used, only a limited set of games (the writer "got bored" and stopped testing, which to my eye means "skip the tests that would have disagreed"), and no in game settings were mentioned.

So the tests mean nothing. Other than...well, they make nice bar graphs.

ExtremeTech is affiliated with PCMagazine, and that magazine has been publishing mostly rubbish for the last few years.

Next article, please.

 

We've been seing for a while now the clear decisive line between th gaming abilities dissapear. It was all due to drivers and now even if xp had the lead (which I don't believe) it would be at most 1 or 2 fps.

 

mm... i smell something burning... must be a... flame war...
moment i read the title i was like... cool vista vs. XP ppl lol. its actually not as bad as i thought, this forum is quite civilized... must be a computer nerd thing

 

Buuuurn!

*Waits for stormeffect*

 

What's better than a good ol' geek debates? It does suck when people don't know they are talking about though

 

Actually they do give details to the hardware and game settings.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2304029,00.asp

However they do not mention anything about which driver used.

 

Vista may have some nice looks, and DX10, but the reason I don't like it is because of all of the errors that occur in Vista. It seems as if you can never get Vista to "Just Work". I think it was released waaay to early. I would have loved for MS to just wait a little longer for its release to fix some bugs. i thought most of this would be fixed in SP1... I was wrong. I will wait until Vista works to my satisfaction, or a better OS comes out. I hope Vista gets better. It really looked promising. I still beleive that no matter how many bugs are fixed in Vista, it will never be possible for it to be "Faster" in games than XP. XP still uses DX9, and Vista is using far more demanding Aero and has DX10. In my eyes, it seems that there is a major difference in the power consumption of these two OSs. But, hey i might be wrong? We'll just have to wait and see what happens. For now, I'll stick with XP and Linux. =]
Just wanted to share my opinion.
The End hehe =P

 

I still won't "downgrade" to Vista. As noted above, you can't get it to just work. Windows 7 is also around the corner and here is a video of some new features. It's the complete and working version of Vista, so maybe I'll get that.

 

thats awesome. although ive never had any problems with vista. looking at your sig you dont have vista yet so you really cant comment unless u try i didnt like vista much till i tried it myself. much easier on the eyes tho

if windows 7 just comes out what makes you think it will work way better than vista? it will probably have as much bugs as when any OS comes out brand new. all OS have problems and really only time and usage will make it a much better OS. nothing brand new solves anything really..

 

im not switching either. i tried vista about 3 times now (including 64 bit vista about a week ago) and each time i was always able to get better general desktop performance AND better gaming results in xp pro.

one of the big things i notice is that vista is NOT snappy on the desktop and horribly slow with file transfer speed. it literally took me 2x as long to install games on vista as xp. its laughably bad.

with xp, programs have much more of an "instant open" feel. with vista, i always just start to wonder and have doubts about whether or not the computer actually got the double click (to open up an app or file)... and THEN it opens.

and of course, cancel or allow? thats a joke. annoying AND false sense of security. woo hoo.

that said, i don't absolutely hate vista. there are just still some issues that need to be worked out before i attempt to adopt it for the fourth time.

i will complement vista on finally being driver competent for my machine. all my hardware works, even in the 64 bit version. (of course, this doesn't really have anything to do with vista, but its still a necessary plus)

and its 3d performance isn't actually that bad in comparison to xp. its definitely slower. but not that much slower. i was surprised how competently vista 64 bit ran crysis 64 bit mode. but there are random things as well.. for example: be wary of 64 bit operating systems and half life 2. i thought i might try out half life 2 (you are forced to use the 64 bit version on a 64 bit OS) and it was madly glitchy. other steam games (including half life episodes and OB) are 32 bit regardless of your OS, and those work fine.

and the desktop looks prettier, but not that much prettier. aero is basically a joke. aero imo consists of basically 2 things. 3d window flip!!!! and translucent menu bars!!!!

anyway. i'm not just a hater, and i will probably adopt vista eventually. i might end up skipping it for windows 7. again, it just needs a bit more fixing and i'll jump.

 

This is all very silly. Shouldn't a newer OS be better than the old one?

What's the point of releasing a downgrade?

 

/sigh

Its time to start labelling Vista with the following warning:

Your IQ must be THIS
<--------
high to ride!

That would be high enough to patch and turn things off without a step-by-step guide or a community run-through...

Seriously, the difference is small and starting to fade into meaningless-ville.

hey look! JUST like XP did back in the day... wow, no one could have predicted that...

 

But did they take into account that some games don't play nice at all with Vista sandboxing?

 

Guess you just got bored reading the review, huh Greg?

Next retort, please.

A new OS should be more capable, it isn't very common that a newer OS performs better than an older OS on identical hardware. But a newer OS should be able to support and work with more advanced and modern hardware.

I like you.

 

Vista Rocks... Xp Sucks... Wooo Ultra Fanboy Vista4life

 

even though i personally can't use vista, i'll admit its not horrible. the performance delta in games isn't that large. the desktop isn't as snappy as xp, but it does look nicer. the hdd read / write times are kind of a downer, but its not the end of the world.

so all in all i prefer xp. its not a crime, and it doesn't make me a tard either. if i were buying a new pc, i would probably get vista with it just because i would probably prefer it like 6 months from now and its definitely in a "usable" state now (i remember a time when it was not)

and i have a capable computer. i have vista and xp. when the time comes i'll make the switch. no fanboyism here.

 

Sounds like a reasonable course of action to me. This thread isn't really about one being better than the other, I was just posting data showing that XP is no longer many percents higher in 3D FPS compared to Vista.

People who dislike Vista will not have their minds changed no matter what I show them. Vista could turn into the best OS ever with some mega patch tomorrow and people would still hate it. It has gained quite the negative rep, and it will probably never recover, no matter how much better it becomes.

 

I agree.
To me, Vista is cool...
My PC is the only one in the house with vista..
I have XP on my desktop, and my other 2 lappies.

 

I personally doesn't see the big deal about gaming performance between the two OS. I have tried both XP and Vista, and as stated before the difference in performance is slim. If you have a slow computer that extra couple frames isn't going to help to achieve the 60 FPS that gamers usually looks for, and if you have a fast PC, you don't need the extra frames anyways because you will be able to push out 60 FPS no matter what. In Addition, I seriously doubt anyone can feel the difference between 22 vs. 25 FPS. I like Vista for it's interface, so I decided to switch back to Vista; however, there is nothing wrong for those who chose to stay with XP.

 

Personally the main issue for me is drivers for my legacy hardware.

Xp has them, vista doesn't.

So XP for all my older PCs and then dual boot for my Laptop so that for one thing I can sync my Palm based phone.

both have their foibles, and once you know what resource sucking things to disable in vista it's not as bad as it used to be, just wish everyone made the effort to update their drivers (which despite my hatred of M$ I know is equally if not more the mfrs fault than M$').

For gaming I find it game dependant, prefer Oblivion on XP, but some other games have more flexible options under Vista. Also be sure you have enough memory or else no SP will help Vista equal XP. 4GB (well you know 3+) did it for me making Oblivion a bit smoother, but not enoguh to stick with Vista for that, but for others, sure.

 

Vista does have it's kinks, but for the most part it's solid. I have noticed better framerates in some games in vista and nothing noticeable in the others. CS:S is noticeably jerky and stuttery in Vista when compared to XP. I suppose it's good that I have both then.

 

BS! XP is still better for gaming, regardless. Take real life experience, not biased crappy reviews and benchmarks.

 

the Framerate in vista fluctuates...while in XP the FPS i used to get was constant.

other than that... infact on Vista my game doesnt crash due to runtime error like in XP.

 

Vista 64 FTW!!

 

Mheh
XP still performs better with my DX9 card, I supose a DX10 card would perform better under Vista and DX10...

 

XP or vista as long as they can play games. you guys sound like this

OMFG XP has 25FPS higher than Vista with only 20FPS OMFG XP is WAIIII better and vista total Suxs!. geez lets all get on CoD4 and show me that 5fps makes such a dam diff

 

I was referring to both. With high frame rates comes smoothness. I have one racing game in particular that suffers from 1-2 second pauses every 25 seconds in Vista. The other games when I play them in XP average 20-25FPS more.

That's a HUGE deal for me because i'm a Race Sim junkie. That means I can add several more cars (59 cars) on the grid with full detail. Something Vista can't duplicate at the moment.

 

Anythime buddy.
XP allowed me to play Crysis ALL HIGH at 1024x768 at over 20fps, whereas in Vista I would barely make it to 15 fps.
Anythime

 

Windows 2000 SP4 is still the best.

I know a lot of people who like Vista but they are all [semi]beginners in computer world. Especially they like UAC ...
My experienced friends mainly hate Vista.
I'm neutral.

Probably M$ paid article.

 

Lots of my friends turned off UAC because it was annoying. A new computer user should really leave it on, it keeps them safe not only from themselves but also from outside attacks. Very experience users can forego its use, but then you also lose its ability to prevent outside users or programs from being blocked when they really should be.

I was a super Vista hater, but then I got it, and I liked it. Couldn't go back to XP, but for those still using it, more power to you.

Otherwise, what is with everyone calling foul on ExtremeTech? When did everyone become an anti-corporate, anti-government, anti-establishment, anti- anti anything that might go against your beliefs nutjob? Oh right, Watergate...I always forget about Nixon and his antics. Someone please source me a reason to suspect ET, otherwise keep your libelous paranoia to a minimum.

But yeah, gaming performance. I'd suspect that newer hardware is what bridges the gap between XP and Vista. Anything pre-2007 is suspect, performance wise.

 

this xp vs vista bull**** is getting old

 

That is correct. I said I can turn off UAC, but no, they said they like it as prevention from doing something wrong.

I'll buy soon new laptop and if I got Vista on it, I'll stay on Vista and add openSUSE v10.3. If I got laptop without OS, I'll put XP Pro SP3 (and add openSUSE v10.3, too).

 

Are you saying that HL2 for x64 is only available as a separate copy from the x86 version?