Show

XP SP2 vs. Vista RTM vs. Vista SP1: Gaming benchmark

franzon
29 February 2008 - 11:02
56 Comments
Liked this (3)

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.

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

Comments (56)

  1. LPC - 29 February 2008 - 11:45

    What's WiC ?

  2. BrainDedd - 29 February 2008 - 11:47

    World in Conflict

  3. +Northgrove - 29 February 2008 - 12:04

    Hmm, in other words, mixed blessings, but quite small differences in either direction.

    The exception being Oblivion for some reason...

  4. toadeater - 02 March 2008 - 00:15

    (Jugalator said @ #2)
    Hmm, in other words, mixed blessings, but quite small differences in either direction.

    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.

  5. GP007 - 02 March 2008 - 00:26

    It might just be the ATi Catalyst drivers. In the end of the day a game benchmark is all about your video cards drivers more than the OS.

    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.

  6. toadeater - 03 March 2008 - 01:10

    (GP007 said @ #2.2)
    It might just be the ATi Catalyst drivers. In the end of the day a game benchmark is all about your video cards drivers more than the OS.

    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,

  7. GP007 - 04 March 2008 - 16:04

    (toadeater said @ #2.3)

    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.

  8. PeterTHX - 29 February 2008 - 13:06

    Why are they using a Phenom and ATI?

    Why not an Intel Core2 Quad and a nVidia solution?

    Interesting to see how different cpu & driver sets would do.

  9. spacer - 29 February 2008 - 13:13

    I agree. It's nice to see a comparison between different OS's. But to be completely thorough and meaningful, I'd like to see those same games/OS set ups running on a core2/nvidia platform. (mostly because thats the platform I am currently using :))

  10. +TCLN Ryster - 29 February 2008 - 14:09

    (PeterTHX said @ #3)
    Why are they using a Phenom and ATI?

    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.

  11. +dead.cell - 29 February 2008 - 16:53

    Yeah, but couldn't it be argued that maybe Intel/Nvidia setup would have different results among the 3 tested OSes? I mean, if for instance, an Nvidia card got reverse results, I think it'd be fair to say that there's more to it than using simply different OSes.

    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.

  12. prospero - 29 February 2008 - 19:42

    Dakkaroth makes excellent points

    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.

  13. Davebo - 01 March 2008 - 13:47

    (prospero said @ #3.4)
    Dakkaroth makes excellent points

    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.

  14. +dead.cell - 01 March 2008 - 19:35

    (Davebo said @ #3.5)
    We await YOUR results with great anticipation.

    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? :huh:

    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.

  15. prospero - 02 March 2008 - 06:44

    We await YOUR results with great anticipation.

    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.

  16. ruterger - 29 February 2008 - 14:11

    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.

    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. :redface:

  17. +dead.cell - 29 February 2008 - 18:13

    Good point. Why didn't they use SP3?

  18. +Chrono951 - 29 February 2008 - 19:17

    because SP3 has not hit RTM yet.

  19. +dead.cell - 01 March 2008 - 02:29

    (Chrono951 said @ #4.2)
    because SP3 has not hit RTM yet.

    Doesn't change the fact that there's a version available for testing.

  20. Raa - 03 March 2008 - 00:24

    (Dakkaroth said @ #4.3)

    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!

Please Log In or Register to post a comment.