Which is faster XP + 4GB RAM or Vista x64 + 4GB Ram?

I am going to get a laptop and dual boot Vista Business x64 and Ubuntu Linux. My main use of Vista x64 will be for Gaming. I know that a 32 bit OS can only see something like 3.25Gb of ram and Vista x64 will see all 4GB of ram. I know that Vista is in general slower that XP due to bloat, and it being relatively new. So on one hand you have XP which is in general faster than Vista, but sees less RAM and on the otherhand you have Vista that is slower but sees more RAM.

All things being equal other than the mentioned factors, which would be the faster config:

XP + 4GB of RAM or Vista Business x64 + 4 GB of ram?

 

XP with 3.25 GB of RAM will probably be faster, because that is WAY more memory than Windows XP will ever need except maybe for large-scale numerical computations (which games don't do much). I myself have XP with 2 GB of RAM and the bottleneck is the graphics card, not the RAM.

 

either will be fine.........

you may want to consider vista since thats where everything is headed....

 

Service pack 3 for XP sped up my desktop alot. not sure what its like on notebooks, i like vista, looks good and runs well (at times) but xp in my opinion is still the best for games. even if u can use as much ram... honestly do u notice a difference when going higher than 2GB?

 

As an OS I like Vista more, but dont go X64 for gaming XP is still faster usually, if anything go X86 for more compatability.

 

Faster at what? Vista is fast at a lot of things.
XP is also fast at a lot of things.
The 4GB thing won't make a difference either way though. XP will *still* be faster at games, and Vista will *still* be faster at the things Vista does well.

 

Both are fine, maybe Vista is faster, but XP will be better for gaming.

 

lol... the things that vista does well...

 

lol

Well, I'm not a Vista user. I know Microsoft has put a lot of effort into speeding up specific bits and pieces of Vista, just like I know there are bits of XP that are suboptimal performance-wise. Of course Vista is going to be faster at *some* things.

As to what they are, and whether they are really faster, I'll leave to the Vista experts. But whatever Vista is faster at, it'll be faster if both systems have 4GB RAM as well.

 

XP is faster with games 'cause programmers originally designed their software for XP users. With new faster graphics cards hopefully game programmers will take advantage of it but I have a feeling they're not about to change anytime soon. nVidia has a link to see how well your system can run Crysis. It will assess your gear and let you know if you passed their minimal requirement for it.

 

XP is far faster, also reads 3.5 GB/4gb of ram

 

If you are looking at a PC with 4GB of RAM, I'm guessing it's a high end machine. If it is a high end machine, you'll probably be able to handle older games without any concern (the ones that like XP better), and newer games (that like Vista) will probably do better on Vista. Since Vista is likely to be around for a while, and longer than XP, it wouldn't be a bad choice. That said, there are more compatability issues with older titles with Vista than XP, so from that perspective, sticking to XP might be a good option.

 

Huh? So far, no game that I am aware of has run better on Vista than XP. I don't see why "newer games" should run better on Vista.

 

Direct X ten.... XP only goes up to 9. Vista will get all the new advancements and will surely run games yet to be released better (maybe not now but in the future : if vista lasts that is)

 

i may just be hungover from last night, but since xp is basically a 32bit os since the 64bit version of it s_cks.........

as more games comes out to take advantage of the dual core technology w/x64 Vista, why would anyone want to stay w/ xp in the future as more and more games are built around DX10 and for dual core processors--vista x64.

 

If we are comparing tomatos with tomatos applications, vista 64 + 4GB RAM is faster, there are no doubts, we are talking of a 64 bit FSB, faster FSB controllers, plus the full use of the 4GB RAM (if it's required), so it's obvious that vista is faster, no question about it.

 

4GB of memory and XP is just dumb. Unless you are running some sort of memory intensive application, then XP will not utilize any of that extra RAM.

Vista on the other hand will. It feeds on the stuff. The more the merrier.

 

Vista is a much easier to use once you move up. at some point I just find XP inadequate