Gaming on Vista?!

Hey,

Since Vista asks more of your computer to run then windows XP does, i was wondering.. Does Vista negatively effect the gaming preformance of a notebook in comparisation to the same notebook on XP?? Or is Vista build in a way that it disables itself partial when starting a game or something...

 

not very much from my experience.

 

I remember when Microsoft first announced DirectX and gamers were all up in arms about how MS had introduced an "extra layer" of software between their games and the hardware which could only result in lower performance. Now no one bats an eye about DX. I would be surprised if MS was that stupid that they released an OS which degraded gaming performance.

Plus there's a host of games coming out that are "Vista" only: Halo 2, Shadowrun, etc. If Vista is not optimal for gaming, then there'll be a lot of disgruntled people out there (including myself)...

 

According to Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/17/gameplay-only-gets-worse-with-vista/index.html

There will be a performance hit. Probably a very big one too depending on the game, just look at the results from Doom 3!!!

 

But those games are also build for DX 10 aren't they?? What about games like Rainbow six: vegas.. That is build for DX 9 and if youre just able to play it now...

 

I dunno what toms hardware is on, for good dual core machines I've noticed 20% boost in dual core games.

That is of course, when the game is made for dual core. When it isn't... OMG.

 

Results @ Doom 3 and F.E.A.R suck indeed..

 

Those results are indeed funny.

Unless they have RC1 or RC2, it shouldn't be doing that. I'm using RTM, and it only gives bad performance on non multi-core games.

For games that are multi-core or dual core, it gives 10-20% performance increase.

 

sorry, can u explain what RC1, RC2 and RTM means?

 

Vista RC1 was one of the first versions...

RC2 was the next, and got alot faster...

RTM means Ready To Manufacture, and it is released to developers...

 

Thanks, now i understand

So you are saying that Vista is good for games that have dual core support. And for games that have not, XP preforms a lot better...

 

That's from my experience...

Maybe it's different.

It could also be the quad core. If anyone remembers the early quad core tests, quad core is bad for anything that isn't multi core.

In fact, quad core performs worse in single core than dual core procs.

So these tests might be true... If you have a quad core pc. For dual core, it runs faster when playing multi threaded games.

This is because nothing has enabled quad core yet.

However, that's not to say you shouldn't get quad core. By the time Crysis comes out, hoo boy, you'll need quad core.

 

well their test system is a killer machine and they are using RTM

**Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe
2.93 GHz, 1,066 MHz FSB, 32 kB + 32 kB L1 , 4 MB L2
Corsair CM2X1024-9136C5D 2x 1024 MB DDR2 @ 800 MHz (CL5-5-5-15)
Western Digital Raptor, 50 GB, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache, SATA150
ATI Radeon X1950XTX 512 MB GDDR4 **

That should get extreme performance no matter what.

I think the issue is more driver based. The ATI results are not too bad and NVIDIA are pretty awfull.

Personally, I would wait. Wait for Vista to be publically released and wait for "real" drivers from the major companies. Then test it out again.

 

^^ yes thats what i think it would be is bad drivers
after all vista hasn't been released to mainstream users yet
so lets hope the drivers are better by then

 

In the conclusions the author puts it all down to driver issues, I'm sure nvidia and AMD (Ati) will make sure that they are ready for the end of the month so wait to see what performance benchmarks we get then. Then do the same in a years time, I expect that the performance will at least match XP, I don't have anything solid to base that on, but if on a pre-release OS with beta drivers they are geting that close already then once the developers get the hang of the new way of working it can only improve!

 

Actually I've read from a site (sorry can't remember the site's name) a few months ago saying that there will be a maximum 10% performance drop when using DX9 applications in Vista comparing to XP... I guess the reason is because the system will still have to load the desktop all the time which takes away some performance. I've also heard someone said the case is kinda the same when everyone is switching from Windows 2000 to XP.