XP vs Vista... Some uggly benchmarks

I did some benchmarks to compare Vista vs XP, to deside if i should upgrade or stick with XP...

Machine used:
Acer Aspire 9424 (Core 2 Duo 1.83, Nvidia Go 7300, 1GB Ram)

3DMark03 Benchmarks:

Windows XP Media Center SP2 (Nvidia Driver 84.26)
Normal: 3451 3dmark
Overclocked: 4521 3dmark

Windows Vista RTM 6.0.6000.16386 (Nvidia Driver 96.86 shipped with Vista)
Normal: 2800 3dmark
Overclocked: not tested

I think i will stick with XP for awhile, maybe there will be some fixes or new drivers in future. But i did read somewhere that Microsoft did say that Vista will give 10-15% less gaming performance... Didnt belive in that back then, but now it seems to be true

 

That's nothing...try some real-world benchmarks. EG,

Counter Strike: Source stress test
Settings: 1440x900, 8xAF/4xAA, all @ max, Full HDR, no Color Correction

Windows XP Home SP2, 91.27 drivers:
~71 FPS

Windows Vista Ultimate RC2, 96.86 drivers:
~39 FPS

Absolutely appalling.

 

The REAL Question is do you REALLY notice a visual difference?

This is what non-benchmark folks would like to know.

I truly don't see a differ for XP & VISTA at most games I played at default settings, which is perfect Graphical game play IMO. I'm not a serious detail freak. I don't look at shadows and such to the tee.

High Settings Might be a differ story tho .....I Can't speak on that.

But if your talking about default graphic settings ....Vista is Good to Go!!!

 

That's a big fps drop. I'd notice, especially in games that aren't running superfast to begin with. Smoothness may matter more than sheer frames per second, but frames are important too.

I can't imagine they'll ship it in that state though...

 

Ouch ... that looks really bad - going from 70 to 40fps?? which build was that, lowlymarine?

 

Do you get a kickback from MS for hawking their products? Seriously... you come in as a cheerleader on every thread about Vista, and claim there's no problem when there is one, or that Vista is the greatest thing since sliced bread even though other OS's have had every feature Vista has way before it.

 

In my opinion, anything over 10fps is a 'statistical' difference (OK, i haven't worked out the chi-squared values...but you know what I am saying...its probably major), and so 32fps difference seems to makes Vista abysmal in the CS test.

 

Totally agree with ya, I mentioned something in another thread about benchmarks & Vista and this Vista-activist comes like at me as if on a holy crusade.

 

I thought that Vista was supposed to deliver superior gaming performance... but then I noticed that you ran the tests with an OS (XP) that's designed for DX9 versus an OS (Vista) that's designed for DX10, a whole new platform, and is instead running DX9. That's not a very consistent test.

 

Are you guys serious? I'm not being a cheerleader. I'm actually using Vista on a everyday basics ....Unlike others.

It seems like you guys read stuff from other sites and come in hear acting if you have extreme knowledge on every situation.

All I hear is about DRM, Gaming problems etc: etc: ........... When I ask for specifics you guys are completely vague about your answers concerning Vista. Maybe it's because you don't know anything and are speculating from other peoples opinions.

I mean that what forums are for right? If you act like you know something, then people will want to ask questions.

It's funny because when I ask about Linux you guys actually give me good advice & are more than happy when I state how much a like it.

I never condemned anyone on what they chose or if they like it or not.

I'm just letting people know that half of what you guys are saying is most likely not true or is unnoticeable to the average user. And that I have no Major problems with vista or gaming on it.

Vista-activist? UMMM NO!!! Vista User, YES

And Pitabred, as much as you shove Linux down everybodys throat, I'm surprised you even took it there.

 

It doesn't matter who uses what anyway. FOr what it's worth, I don't like Linux and I don't like Vista, for justifiable reasons. For now, I'll just say that this whole thread is worthless because the benchmarking was done with Vista using DX9, not DX10.

 

@bc135: Ermm - Using DX9 in both operating systems is what would be called "apples to apples" comparison. XP was not "designed for" DX9 - it released with 8.1; the DX10 featureset could be back-ported to XP, except that Microsoft does not choose to. There's nothing wrong with benchmarking DX9 games on Vista with DX9, and the fact that they're so much slower is a very valid concern.

@LIVEFRMNYC: You don't think losing 30fps is a concrete problem?

 

Ofcourse that would be a concern, but I was not basing my opinion on that benchmark. Too many variables in from each user in personal benchmarks. Mines probally would have turned out differ.

I actually Play games on Vista RC2 and visually see no differ in Graphics or game play from XP. Doom3, Swat4, flight sim x etc: all play Great under Default Graphic settings.

I just speaking from my experience using Vista, Not other peoples benchmarks or weblinks.

 

I don't care who says what..

Seeing as dx10 is still a while off and odds are my graphics card (as most laptops probably won't) be able to use it.. the benchmark still makes a good point.

No point in going to vista until they release dx10 compatiable graphics cards for laptops.. UNLESS they release something which will allow vista to run as effectivly as on xp..

 

I can settle it on the 17th. I get Vista again then and I can run some comparitive benchmarks.

Balrog is right there. And for the beginning of Vista's lifetime, direct X 9 games are going to be used a lot more than 10. So it is valid to compare them.

 

"And for the beginning of Vista's lifetime, direct X 9 games are going to be used a lot more than 10. So it is valid to compare them."

That may be true, but here's another truth: Vista is designed to yield results using DX10, not "outdated" software. Comparing XP and Vista when you cripple the latter and call it "ugly" or call it an "apples-to-apples" comparison is very subjective. It's not apples-to-apples. If you somehow get XP to run DX10, will it run games with faster fps than Vista? No.

 

I want to shout out that some of you have no idea what you're talking about. Microsoft never designs their next OS with today's technology in mind as so adamantly you seem to expect. Why doesn't Microsoft develop an OS that performs better on old hardware (ie, yours and mine)?

Because such a planning approach would be counter-productive for several reasons, one being that as a consumer you would no longer need to buy new hardware. With no new hardware to build a new OS on, Microsoft would go bankrupt. Each OS they plan is designed to have higher system requirements, whether the OS really needs the resources or not. It's a matter of business. Microsoft's developer's planned Vista, as they have planned every OS, while imagining the future's superior hardware, such as on-die NAND flash memory, hybrid HDDs, and DX10 graphics to support new game capabilities and an enhanced GUI. For that reason you are naive to expect Vista running on DX9 should yield superior benchmark results to XP.

That's really all I have to say.

 

Yeah. And that's called a FORCED UPGRADE.
Why the heck should I have to plunk down another 2 grand on a new computer just because Microsoft says so??

The forced upgrade mentality of Microsoft is bull****. They are perfectly capable of making a new OS that will run well on current AND future hardware. But yet they don't? Why is that?

If I'm buying the latest and greatest OS, I absolutely EXPECT it to run the software (and that includes games) that I already own. Including software titles that are less than 6 months old!! But yet Vista does not seem to be able to do that without spending more money on "new" hardware. That is crap.

 

Who says you have to do that at the moment? I don't see a rush. Most people have Digital Cable that has 6 HBO's, 3 MTV's, etc: etc: . But I chose to keep my Analog Box and deal without the extra channels. Sooner or later all cable will be Digital, but at least I had time to ease into it at my own will.
It's the same thing with Vista. You not forced to upgrade at the moment.

Why should they? By the time Vista becomes the main windows OS for at least a year. (two or three yrs), alot of programs, games and drivers might be obsolete due to upgraded drivers etc: etc:

And it runs ok on my machine(sig). I'm using it as I type. I have a feeling a year after final release, most people will be singing a differ tune.

Would you EXPECT PS3 to run PS1 games? And as far as programs less than 6 months old, I don't think thats going to be a problem.

Most programs and games worked for me in Vista RC2, so I don't think that going to be a problem.



Is Microsoft trying to hustle dollars from impatient or ignorant consumers? OFCOURSE!!!! Greed is Bliss with Microsoft.

But I see the actual purpose for Vista to be used for the next Gen of PC's. That happens to be around the corner.

OEM OS's kind of forces Retail sales of a OS from a business point of view.

 

Geez LIVEFRMNYC and bc135...

Listening to you guys is both kinda scary and entertaining.
Comparing DX9 games on XP to DX9 on Vista is perfectly valid. If MS designed Vista not to work well with DX9 then it was a mistake on their part. Something called backward compatibility is a real necessity considering the number of users using Windows and there there are still quite a few systems in this world that use Windows 98 and Windows NT4 (which one of you can tell me when were those released?) Also, please don't compare gaming consoles to PCs because they are different in their applications. It's like comparing a go kart with a car. Gokarts are fast, cars are too, but gokarts are built with one purpose in mind while the car is built with many. But, would I expect Vista to run DX9 games? Yes! DX8? Maybe. DX7? Probably not. But no matter what it is (even PS) it should be compatible with the previous version (eg PS2 ran PS1 games)!

Microsoft is known for releasing bloated software that an average person will be able to get a decent performance out of in about 2 years time after the release date. Microsoft always had a rocky start with every single OS they've released. Did you know that Windows 95 had 5 service packs? Did you know that Windows NT had 8? Windows 2000 was unusable till SP1, Windows ME was leaking memory so much that it seemed it was designed to do so. Windows XP had many problems to start with until SP1.

And please don't get me started on Microsoft's attempts to follow certain commonly-accepted standards (eg W3C) when designing software.

Anyway, all I wanted to say is that new products of MS are guaranteed to be slower than their predecessors and a significant drop in gaming performance between OS's doesn't surprise me at all (who cares that Vista was designed for DX10 when all current games are DX9, and will be for at least next 6-12 months?).

Also, LIVEFROMNYC, what is "default settings"? 640x480/800x600 resolution with details set on Low/Medium? That's what defaults are in most games I've played... Of course at those settings you won't see any differences, but I'm surprised you don't see how crappy the graphics are (especially compared to what they can be).

 

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If vista will get better performance with dx10.. then its a simple concept.. don't get vista.

For gaming.. dx9 is probably going to stay mainstream for at least another 2 or 3 years.. lets face it we don't even know what is dx10 compatiable yet.. (least I don't) There is probably going to be MILLIONS of adds that say "this is why you NEED vista".. but, don't pay them any mind.. in fact.. I am not upgrading to vista till I NEED to. since my computer can play all the games I want at the moment.. I will probably keep it till it doesn't run. If nessicery then we can get brand new computers after vista comes standard in new computers.

What is "vista compatiable" today.. means "vista pre installed" tomarrow..

Although... I will say this.... While backwards compatiability may not sell new systems... its going to deter people like me from buying it.. I bought my laptop nov 3rd.. nc 8430 2 gigs of ram 7200 rpm and 100 gig hard drive... hasn't even arrived yet, so I am not about to pay 240$ to go premium when I will probably not be able to get dx10 and it will only result in a drop in system effiency.... And I'm not going to get vista until I get a new computer... by this time.. dx10 along with vista will probably be standard.. meaning.. they didn't sell their hardware at a more expensive price.. and I am getting vista free or cheaper then they could have originally sold it to me for..

They are loosing money simply because I am not going to buy it right away when its all at a higher price..

Oh well.. they will still make money off of everyone who jumps to buy software that is not yet truly useable.

I think what it amounts to is this... don't rush.. you still have a LOONNNGGG time in which your system will be useable.. let everyone else deal with the pain.. and when they are done... and the price is down.. then take advantage of it.

 

Snowfox has pretty much voice most of my opinions and future intentions. Microsoft forces consumers to upgrade sooner or later.

"Something called backward compatibility is a real necessity considering the number of users using Windows and there there are still quite a few systems in this world that use Windows 98 and Windows NT4 (which one of you can tell me when were those released?)"

Backward compatibility is a necessity felt by the consumers, and one that Microsoft only occasionally pays attention to. Again, if Microsoft were to maintain support for XP and add new support components to it to keep up with advancing technology, then I wouldn't have to buy a new OS, and Microsoft would lose money.

Personally though, I'm going to wait for Vista to mature... let them slave away at fixing security issues and such, and let hardware advance in terms of power to make Vista a little more snappy. After all, I buy new computers to do more things faster.

 

Actually I do expect that, and guess what? All three of the next-gen consoles have some sort of backwards compatibility.

Of course DX9 performance is important in Vista. Considering there are only two video cards these days that are suppose to be DX10 (Geforce 8800GTS&GTX). How many people will have one of these? Obviously, the vast majority of Vista users would be and currently are running Vista without a DX10 video card. Now, assuming the general public that is going to use Vista already has a DX9 video card. When you play DX10 games like Crysis, the effects will not use DX10 paths obviously without a DX10 card, but it'd use the equivalent DX9 effect which is why we're saying DX9 performance is imperative. Its worth noting many of these upcoming games have DX9 paths (as in its still playable without a DX10 card, but you just won't see the DX10 effects). The only games I know of that are even considering to be DX10/Vista Exclusive are Alan Wake & Halo 2). But now to be fair to our Vista-activists, the DX9 performance in Vista is only about 5-15% slower than XP and those users with extreme performance downgrades is more likely to the immature drivers especially among nVidia owners.

There is no question that Microsoft is using Vista as leverage to force people to upgrade. In fact, Microsoft is trying to force people to upgrade 'as far as possible' without losing the mainstream crowd. If you guys follow tech news.. yes tech news.. One possible reason for this is that several software companies have become increasingly vocal in about how Intel has essentially destroyed their market for computer games by flooding the market with 'sub-par integrated' graphics, and some companies even responded by focusing development of games for consoles instead of Windows. As most of us know integrated graphics is the bare minimum and its good enough for basic OS functionality and most daily tasks, its quite a different story for playing modern games. Microsoft has responded to this with its 'Games for Windows' campaign and it plans to address the over-saturated 'integrated graphics with Vista+DX10 which will basically force users to upgrade to a 'reasonable' level (however, the plausibility of this happening is questionable especially when you go and buy computers with stores advertising as 'Vista-Ready'). This campaign is not only trying to make Windows in general more attractive to developers, but eventually it hopes that games will be easily ported between the XB360 and PC.

 

Couldnt be bothered to read those long winded posts since Iv read them 6 years ago. I find it ironic that some of the same things happened when XP just came out. Instead of flaming each other here I think ppl do realize that driver support for Vista isnt there yet. You are compaing a product with 6 years to mature vs one that isnt even out the door year. Not to mention Bill Gates isnt pointing a gun at you telling you to buy Vista. I know people that run Windows 2000 still since they like it. Anyway, will Vista ever be as fast as XP or faster than XP? Probably. Is it worth the trouble to switch right now? No. Should we all be fools arguing like kids over here? Definitely not.