Adrian Kingsley-Hughes from ZDNet.com executed the tests using the AMD Phenom 9700, Radeon 3850 graphics card, 2GB of RAM and ATi Catalyst drivers 8.2.
The three games which performed better on Vista than on XP SP2 were Call of Duty 4, F.E.A.R. and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Vista gave The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion the best performance boost compared to XP SP2, working out at an average of 9 frames per second faster on Vista RTM and 13 frames per second faster on Vista SP1.
Seven out of ten of the games tested produced frame rate averages which were lower under Vista than XP SP2, however, a closer look at the numbers shows that when Vista is slower than XP SP2, the actual frame rate differences are only in the single digits.
The three games which performed better on Vista than on XP SP2 were Call of Duty 4, F.E.A.R. and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Vista gave The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion the best performance boost compared to XP SP2, working out at an average of 9 frames per second faster on Vista RTM and 13 frames per second faster on Vista SP1.
Seven out of ten of the games tested produced frame rate averages which were lower under Vista than XP SP2, however, a closer look at the numbers shows that when Vista is slower than XP SP2, the actual frame rate differences are only in the single digits.
Here are the results: average frame rates for each game on each platform
CoD4
XP SP2: 56 fps | Vista RTM: 58 fps | Vista SP1: 62 fps
Fear
XP SP2: 70 fps | Vista RTM: 71 fps | Vista SP1: 71 fps
Oblivion
XP SP2: 56 fps | Vista RTM: 67 fps | Vista SP1: 69 fps
Bioshock (DX9)
XP SP2: 50 fps | Vista RTM: 46 fps | Vista SP1: 47 fps
CoH
XP SP2: 30 fps | Vista RTM: 28 fps | Vista SP1: 28 fps
Crysis
XP SP2: 27 fps | Vista RTM: 24 fps | Vista SP1: 23 fps
Doom3
XP SP2: 157 fps | Vista RTM: 138 fps | Vista SP1: 142 fps
SC
XP SP2: 47 fps | Vista RTM: 44 fps | Vista SP1: 44 fps
UT3
XP SP2: 68 fps | Vista RTM: 64 fps | Vista SP1: 65 fps
WiC
XP SP2: 24 fps | Vista RTM: 22 fps | Vista SP1: 22 fps
The exception being Oblivion for some reason...
The exception being Oblivion for some reason...
Good question. Maybe it's Oblivion's use of multithreading? But then that doesn't explain why Crysis with its multithreaded engine isn't receiving the same benefit.
Could also be some sort of error in the benchmark itself. That has been known to happen when comparing different OSes.
In my opinion with the core driver changes in Vista over XP, this benchmark shows that video card makers are finally starting to get Vista drivers up to what they are on XPSP2. And since it's only been a year into Vistas live, yet way longer for XP, I beleave that in time Vista performance will be higher accross the board.
In my opinion with the core driver changes in Vista over XP, this benchmark shows that video card makers are finally starting to get Vista drivers up to what they are on XPSP2. And since it's only been a year into Vistas live, yet way longer for XP, I beleave that in time Vista performance will be higher accross the board.
Yeah, I'd like to see tests with Nvidia hardware before assuming anything. I don't think Catalyst drivers are that bad by this point though,
In my opinion with the core driver changes in Vista over XP, this benchmark shows that video card makers are finally starting to get Vista drivers up to what they are on XPSP2. And since it's only been a year into Vistas live, yet way longer for XP, I beleave that in time Vista performance will be higher accross the board.
Yeah, I'd like to see tests with Nvidia hardware before assuming anything. I don't think Catalyst drivers are that bad by this point though,
The Catalyst drivers always seemed to be a step ahead of the nVidia ones from the start on Vista. It's just a process that takes time. The point I was making though is that the Vista performance (at least using the above hardware setup) is on par or just a few frames behind that on XP one year into it's life. The performance we see on XP right now took a few years to get to where it is now. Give vista drivers the same ammount of time and they should, if the trend holds, pass XP performance all around.
Why not an Intel Core2 Quad and a nVidia solution?
Interesting to see how different cpu & driver sets would do.
Why not?
As long as the tests were all done on the same PC setup, it makes no difference what the spec of the PC is. The point here is to show the difference in framerate between operating systems, not to provide an accurate benchmark of hardware.
That said, aren't the ATi or Nvidia drivers for XP and Vista rather different anyhow? Also, why is there a "(DX9)" mark on BioShock? Shouldn't they all be tested in DX9 since XP can't use DX10 anyway? Comparing a game in DX9 vs. DX10 doesn't seem like a fair comparison to me.
1) This should have included both AMD/ATi & an Intel/Nvidia solution, - DRIVERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE
2) Not a fair comparison to compare a DX9 game with the same game in DX10
3) WHAT ABOUT LOAD TIMES? - my biggest pet peeve is that the LOAD TIMES for games such as Battlefield 2 are SO much slower in Vista.
1) This should have included both AMD/ATi & an Intel/Nvidia solution, - DRIVERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE
2) Not a fair comparison to compare a DX9 game with the same game in DX10
3) WHAT ABOUT LOAD TIMES? - my biggest pet peeve is that the LOAD TIMES for games such as Battlefield 2 are SO much slower in Vista.
We await YOUR results with great anticipation.
Seriously.
Put up or shutup.
Seriously.
Put up or shutup.
That's dumb reasoning. If you're going to do something, do it right. If not, what's the point?
While this test could really have been done better, I don't think that someone should go through the efforts in seeing "what's the difference" because the difference isn't that great, and that's based off opinions of people who say the same game is faster/slower in Vista/XP. Everyone seems to have different results, and even then, it's not too great a difference I don't believe, unless you're one of those people who have to have every bit of fps possible. The biggest difference I see people talking about is between Vista x86 and x64, which of course weren't even tested.
I think simply having a better machine is what is going to determine the difference in fps, not XP or Vista. x86 and x64 though seem to be something you want to look at. Overall though, this test seems like a real waste of time. As previously stated, ATi drivers for XP and Vista are different from another, so the test can't really be done correctly; especially when driver updates can significantly impact certain games. Hell, how do we know Nvidia isn't doing better with Vista drivers?
Now, since you seem to be awaiting these kinds of results with great anticipation, I'm sorry to inform you that I do not have the resources to do this test. If you would so kindly donate a computer with an AMD Phenom 9700, Radeon 3850 graphics card, and 2GB of RAM, as well as an Intel/Nvidia solution, along with CoD4, CoH, Crysis, SC, UT3, and WiC (I have the rest), I'd gladly test this all out for you.
Seriously.
Put up or shutup.
if you read my post, that's exactly what i'm telling the reviewer/benchmarker to do.... put up REAL comprehensive results or shut up... to benchmark is not my job.
Yea but when you're a bum like me who can't afford new hardware, single digit frame rates are sometimes all you've got!
I'm talking to YOU, Crysis.
I hope more sites begin benchmarking games with both XP SP3 and Vista SP1. Comparing the performance in both OS's really helps when you're a person who only has time to really crank on one game at a time while using older hardware.
Doesn't change the fact that there's a version available for testing.
Doesn't change the fact that there's a version available for testing.
But also doesn't change the fact that nobody in mainstream is supposed to be using it either.
I didn't see benchmarks for Vista SP1 betas, and I don't think I should for SP3 betas. What happens if there's a major change and makes it better/worse? We'd be bitching a lot then (or celebrating)
Not long to wait now anyway and yes - im interested in seeing the final SP3 numbers too!
I didn't see benchmarks for Vista SP1 betas, and I don't think I should for SP3 betas. What happens if there's a major change and makes it better/worse? We'd be bitching a lot then (or celebrating)
Not long to wait now anyway and yes - im interested in seeing the final SP3 numbers too!
Good point. Guess I'm just over-eager for SP3.
vista runs fine on my amd 900mhz with a voodoo 3 and 2x128 + 256 ram (a whooping 133mhz) no dual but still ok
True, but only 1 out of 10 have a large difference. And when even the slowest still had over 140fps I can't say it matters that much, considering the age of this engine and the grand total of 4 games using it.
I still prefer XP after using Vista for 6 months, it just feels more responsive and light.
Last edited by Iridium on 01 Mar 2008 - 10:23
This is true. My machine could run Vista, but I know it wouldn't do it good. When I go to the stores and see the computers with a great processor and 2GB of memory, toying around with Vista was actually pretty nice. Everything was quick on load, and looked pretty while doing it, lol. On my next computer, I'll definitely dual boot XP and Vista (in case I change my mind).
It runs ok when you first set it up, but then when you start doing anything with it is when the trouble starts. Even dual-booting is more problematic with Vista than with XP or when using something like GRUB.
Why must MS always obfuscate and overcomplicate their OSes? They've gone so far with Vista that even MS can't reign in all the bugs that are growing exponentially as more and more hardware is introduced. I get the feeling that no one knows WTF is happening with Vista anymore. The specs and API are too complex for anyone to adhere to them.
It runs ok when you first set it up, but then when you start doing anything with it is when the trouble starts. Even dual-booting is more problematic with Vista than with XP or when using something like GRUB.
Why must MS always obfuscate and overcomplicate their OSes? They've gone so far with Vista that even MS can't reign in all the bugs that are growing exponentially as more and more hardware is introduced. I get the feeling that no one knows WTF is happening with Vista anymore. The specs and API are too complex for anyone to adhere to them.
this is a classic example of an anti vista comment
you basically say 'everything about it is bad'
but yet you don't give one single example?
maybe you just are new to vista and its confusing to you?
i'll stick with XP though!
If those figures are not what I felt then (XP SP2 vs Vista RTM) and by a long way, and those I know first hand, why should I believe the others (Vista SP1)??
nvidia + amd here
So Vista here I come... AGAIN
XP sp2
58,5 fps average
97,00735502 (point estimate)
vista
56,2 fps average
93,21714828 (point estimate)
vista sp1 beta
57,3 fps average
94,38363016 (point estimate)
Point estimate will give the same value (from a max of 100) for every game, so the bigger the better.
Conclusion :XP SP2 rules, vista sux, vista sp1 beta still sux!.
If XP was a update of Vista, then updating the system from vista to xp will give just a marginal earning, or you could say, update is not relevant.
But it's the opposite where vista is a update to xp, so there are not reasons (to the date) to update to vista, cause you are losing some performance (a bit but still you are losing something).
If XP was a update of Vista, then updating the system from vista to xp will give just a marginal earning, or you could say, update is not relevant.
But it's the opposite where vista is a update to xp, so there are not reasons (to the date) to update to vista, cause you are losing some performance (a bit but still you are losing something).
You're right in saying that you do lose a bit of performance going to Vista, but you have to keep in mind that it's not a simple "update" to XP. Large parts of the OS are new, so even though it says "Windows" for both, they're pretty different when you get right down to it. Unlike say Win2k and WinXP which is closer to a simple upgrade in this case.
The other thing is that the XP performance we get now is something that's taking a few years to reach. When did SP2 come out? 2004? From the release of SP2 to today look at how many driver updates we've had to give us the numbers that you post. While for Vista it's only been a year and they're right up there with the XP ones. Give it a few more months and they'll probably pass the XP numbers and so on.
Last edited by NeoFyLe on 13 Mar 2008 - 01:50
I would hope that almost nine years and PC's that were 300 Mhz or somewhat faster when it came out it was a DOG. People were sayin ohh Windows 98 SE is the best.
Alot has changed in the world since the consumer release in 2001. XP had it's day stop beating a dead horse and Vista will mature and as people go through growing pains like they did with the 98A, 98B, 98C to XP they will when Vista although needs some work and a few service packs for performance it will get better, as thechnology marches on and PC's get faster.
Just leave it alone for cryin' out loud.
Granted, Vista has some good improvements, but nothing that most users see the need to dump XP for. THAT is the problem. If it was a huge jump, the extra hardware requirements would be justified.
But there isn't 'much' most users will notice, except for UI enhancements and a few fancy features - so on that basis, XP still rates highly because it does almost everything Vista does, but with nowhere near the hardware requirements.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.