Games performance: Vista x64 SP1 vs XP x64 SP2


Recommended Posts

Performance improvements across the board?

I'd expect that much, driver support for Vista 64bit is much better than XP 64bit ... as someone running vista 64bit I am pretty sure you can't squeeze any more performance from the same PC, in other words I think I am getting as much as my hardware allows.

So nvidia drivers really ARE lousy!

Do you not know how to read a bar graph?

I have these installed and all I can say is they need to get the control panel working 100% with all the features I'm used to from XP. Do they have like 10 people in all working on these drivers? They really need to step it up.

I find that hard to believe, right this moment im installing XP on my desktop because after using Vista for 2 weeks it still takes double the time for the games to load.

As far as frames per second, i don't know, it might be me but all the games felt smoother in XP, also Vista has a horrible tendency to read the HDD a hell of a lot more when im inside games, keep in mind that i already disabled prefetch, indexing and search services...

I find that hard to believe, right this moment im installing XP on my desktop because after using Vista for 2 weeks it still takes double the time for the games to load.

As far as frames per second, i don't know, it might be me but all the games felt smoother in XP, also Vista has a horrible tendency to read the HDD a hell of a lot more when im inside games, keep in mind that i already disabled prefetch, indexing and search services...

You answered your own question. Of course it's going to be hammering the HDD more if you've disabled prefetching which is what puts data from the HD into memory in the first place...

yeah, in these stats vista 64 win ...

but it is well known that drivers support in vista 64 is a pain in the ***

because of signed drivers checking, and this can't be disabled.

Do you have any specifics or are you making blanket statements? Which hardware? Which drivers? And it can be disabled permanently too (not that you'd want to).

You answered your own question. Of course it's going to be hammering the HDD more if you've disabled prefetching which is what puts data from the HD into memory in the first place...

Well i disabled prefetch because i was trying to get Vista to stop reading the HDD so much, but nothing helped :(

I find that hard to believe, right this moment im installing XP on my desktop because after using Vista for 2 weeks it still takes double the time for the games to load.

As far as frames per second, i don't know, it might be me but all the games felt smoother in XP, also Vista has a horrible tendency to read the HDD a hell of a lot more when im inside games, keep in mind that i already disabled prefetch, indexing and search services...

You've got to be kidding me. With your specs in your sig, Vista would absolutely fly. Yes no crap Vista is going to load games slower then XP, but as time passes with newer better hardware, it will not be noticable. Maybe you should start by not disabling features you have no idea what they are for...My PC listed in my specs is lighting fast and I am always looking at my HDD activity light and is consistently off.

yeah, in these stats vista 64 win ...

but it is well known that drivers support in vista 64 is a pain in the ***

because of signed drivers checking, and this can't be disabled.

Crappy driver support compared to what? XP x86? Of course it is going to be worse. And it's not MS's fault, companys (one example: nVidia) need to get a move on and fully support 64-bit. And yeah where are you hitting issues with driver signing?

EDIT: And you know what, not that I think about Vista has pretty good built-in driver support. In my desktop for instance it had drivers for all my devices, albeit, I installed the newest from nVidia. And even the past three servers I've built, Server 2008 even had all the RAID drivers built-in.

Edited by lord_xenos

@chAos972

Do you have any specifics or are you making blanket statements? Which hardware? Which drivers? And it can be disabled permanently too (not that you'd want to).

Ok, I'm just reporting what people are complaining about : drivers support is more painful with vista 64.

The fact is that with vista (32 bits) I got a problem with the onboard sound device (soundmax) , which didn't worked properly with the default driver ... What I've done is hack the inf file from the driver of a more recent motherboard (Asus ...), install that driver, and then the sound was even better than before under XP :laugh: In short what I'm saying with this example, is that without bypassing the "driver signing" , I wouldn't have be able to enjoy proper sound. Now , "people" and geeky articles are saying that driver signing can't be bypassed with vista 64; and that's what worry me the most. I've never verified this, but I'll certainly give Vista x64 a try the next time I'll upgrade my comp.

@lord_xenos

Crappy driver support compared to what? XP x86? Of course it is going to be worse. And it's not MS's fault, companys (one example: nVidia) need to get a move on and fully support 64-bit. And yeah where are you hitting issues with driver signing?

Everyone's saying it's not Ms's fault ... I don't agree. There must be a reason if so many companies refuse or can't deliver proper

drivers for vista ... After all, it's up to MS to provide incentives for all these companies to develop such drivers, and to make this job as easier as possible. If not enough hardwares are properly supported by Vista, then Vista is nothing.

I'm running Windows Vista Ultimate x64 and I've noticed some performance gains in games like Call of Duty 4 and Crysis. However, I have lost performance in games like Team Fortress 2 and Half-Life 2. Anyway, I think driver support for 64-bit operating systems is becoming more mainstream. I bought my computer back in November-07 and I had no trouble finding all the 64-bit drivers I need.

@chAos972

Ok, I'm just reporting what people are complaining about : drivers support is more painful with vista 64.

The fact is that with vista (32 bits) I got a problem with the onboard sound device (soundmax) , which didn't worked properly with the default driver ... What I've done is hack the inf file from the driver of a more recent motherboard (Asus ...), install that driver, and then the sound was even better than before under XP :laugh: In short what I'm saying with this example, is that without bypassing the "driver signing" , I wouldn't have be able to enjoy proper sound. Now , "people" and geeky articles are saying that driver signing can't be bypassed with vista 64; and that's what worry me the most. I've never verified this, but I'll certainly give Vista x64 a try the next time I'll upgrade my comp.

@lord_xenos

Everyone's saying it's not Ms's fault ... I don't agree. There must be a reason if so many companies refuse or can't deliver proper

drivers for vista ... After all, it's up to MS to provide incentives for all these companies to develop such drivers, and to make this job as easier as possible. If not enough hardwares are properly supported by Vista, then Vista is nothing.

:laugh:

@chAos972

Ok, I'm just reporting what people are complaining about : drivers support is more painful with vista 64.

The fact is that with vista (32 bits) I got a problem with the onboard sound device (soundmax) , which didn't worked properly with the default driver ... What I've done is hack the inf file from the driver of a more recent motherboard (Asus ...), install that driver, and then the sound was even better than before under XP :laugh: In short what I'm saying with this example, is that without bypassing the "driver signing" , I wouldn't have be able to enjoy proper sound. Now , "people" and geeky articles are saying that driver signing can't be bypassed with vista 64; and that's what worry me the most. I've never verified this, but I'll certainly give Vista x64 a try the next time I'll upgrade my comp.

@lord_xenos

Everyone's saying it's not Ms's fault ... I don't agree. There must be a reason if so many companies refuse or can't deliver proper

drivers for vista ... After all, it's up to MS to provide incentives for all these companies to develop such drivers, and to make this job as easier as possible. If not enough hardwares are properly supported by Vista, then Vista is nothing.

You can disable vista's driver signing thing, but I'm not sure if you can do it on a permanent basis (you just hit F8 and have an option there). I thought that you could install unsigned drivers just fine on vista, and that only those that needed to run in kernel mode or something like that were the ones that needed the signing.

But I've never found myself in the situation of having to modify singed drivers myself in order to get a device properly working. Vista x64 runs fine on my computer, the memory usage is definitely not twice as much as the x86 version, 32-bit applications are perfectly compatible... (and I'm beginning to think that running a 32-bit app inside a 64-bit OS isn't any slower at all than when the processor is in legacy mode). I just dont know why people don't install x64.

@chAos972

Ok, I'm just reporting what people are complaining about : drivers support is more painful with vista 64.

The fact is that with vista (32 bits) I got a problem with the onboard sound device (soundmax) , which didn't worked properly with the default driver ... What I've done is hack the inf file from the driver of a more recent motherboard (Asus ...), install that driver, and then the sound was even better than before under XP :laugh: In short what I'm saying with this example, is that without bypassing the "driver signing" , I wouldn't have be able to enjoy proper sound. Now , "people" and geeky articles are saying that driver signing can't be bypassed with vista 64; and that's what worry me the most. I've never verified this, but I'll certainly give Vista x64 a try the next time I'll upgrade my comp.

@lord_xenos

Everyone's saying it's not Ms's fault ... I don't agree. There must be a reason if so many companies refuse or can't deliver proper

drivers for vista ... After all, it's up to MS to provide incentives for all these companies to develop such drivers, and to make this job as easier as possible. If not enough hardwares are properly supported by Vista, then Vista is nothing.

All of this, every bit is just crap that you've heard from other people. So when you install Windows Vista it's just suppose to automatically have all your drivers for your devices? No. It is not Microsoft's job to make drivers for hardware someone else made. And Microsoft does give "insentives" to people to create compatible drivers. But don't you think pleasing their customers would be enough insentive to create fully functional drivers? So it is not Microsoft's fault for every piece of hardware to not work in your PC. And you know, it's not even Microsoft's fault for "requiring" drivers to signed. Maybe developers should not just create drivers and applications willy nilly - running with administrative rights and whatnot. Don't try and make blame Micorsoft, I'm not saying they deserve blame for some things, but not this.

@lord_xenos

So when you install Windows Vista it's just suppose to automatically have all your drivers for your devices?

At least I except most important devices to be "fairly" supported. It's quite boring that the only driver that Microsoft

provide for my soundmax onboard sound device, leads to dysfunctions. And that Asus refuse to provide an official driver for my motherboard.

(the driver exists , but only for people that buy a new shiny motherboard).

But don't you think pleasing their customers would be enough insentive to create fully functional drivers?

It seems not. Many companies are only interested only by your $ :

if there's incompatibilities with Vista , that's an opportunity for them to sell new hardware.

Off course they are short sighted, and it's a matter of time before customers boycott them.

I'm especially thinking of the recent scandal for creative & a certain "daniel K" (see this link or just google for more ...)

it's not even Microsoft's fault for "requiring" drivers to signed.

Well , that's new .... I've read that companies must even pay a fee to get their driver signed by Microsoft ....

Also due to "DRM limitations" , it's harder to developp "universal drivers" i.e a single driver that works for many similar

hardware ... See the article "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection". Now , you might say that's just FUD, but if it's true they really deserved to be blamed for the driver support, at least.

At least I except most important devices to be "fairly" supported. It's quite boring that the only driver that Microsoft

provide for my soundmax onboard sound device, leads to dysfunctions. And that Asus refuse to provide an official driver for my motherboard.

(the driver exists , but only for people that buy a new shiny motherboard).

Yeah don't you think that fault is on ASUS? I have an ASUS board and I know exactly what your talking about, however, that is not Microsoft's fault that would be ASUS.

It seems not. Many companies are only interested only by your $ :

if there's incompatibilities with Vista , that's an opportunity for them to sell new hardware.

Off course they are short sighted, and it's a matter of time before customers boycott them.

I'm especially thinking of the recent scandal for creative & a certain "daniel K" (see this link or just google for more ...)

Ok, so you seem to be seeing things my way now. Yeah ASUS wants your money as it seems. THEY are making it difficult for you to obtain a working driver, which I'd like to point also, obviously a compatible driver does exist, its just that ASUS supplies it to buyers of new motherboards.

Well , that's new .... I've read that companies must even pay a fee to get their driver signed by Microsoft ....

Also due to "DRM limitations" , it's harder to developp "universal drivers" i.e a single driver that works for many similar

hardware ... See the article "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection". Now , you might say that's just FUD, but if it's true they really deserved to be blamed for the driver support, at least.

Not a suprise that Microsoft would like to make money by charging for drivers to be signed. It doesn't change the fact that a signed driver is supported by Microsoft and deemed compatible with their OS and may someday become part of the wonderful world of Microsoft Update.

Edited by lord_xenos

So, in other words, unless you've got a CrossFire setup...XP drivers seem to keep pace (if not outpace, most of the time) with Vista performance. The Catalyst drivers shine with CrossFire & Vista, however, giving around 5-10 frames more per second.

yeah, in these stats vista 64 win ...

but it is well known that drivers support in vista 64 is a pain in the ***

because of signed drivers checking, and this can't be disabled.

No, I've never had any issues with not being to install drivers.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • So size is the ONLY selling point????? People have been plugging in PC's to TV's in living rooms for 20+ years. I would take a bigger box for more peformance. Also lot and lots of SFF/Mini ITX build guides out there.
    • My point is, if you buying this instead of a console for TV purposes, that you need to understand that you will not be able to play the most popular MP games with Steam OS. Now if you are not into those games, and into some of the perputual alpha/beta games on Steam then this is an option. I would argue a gaming PC would be the better route, more expensive but take the 1k -1.4k you are about to spend on this thing and build a better one. Because it is running Linux you can overide its 1080p settings. However The Verge complained about its 1080p cap and how you would have to get around it at the CLI, so someone buying this instead of a PS5 or Xbox might have a challege on their hands.
    • A review of Synology's BeeCamera software for the BeeStation Plus by Christopher White Synology is leaning into the BeeStation and the BeeStation Plus, and it's easy to understand why. While power users will want something more customizable, the BeeStation and its more powerful sibling, the BeeStation Plus, are great for those who want a device they can simply plug in, click a few buttons, and have it work as their own personal cloud. Until recently, the device was mostly used for the storage of files, photos, and videos, and with the Plus model, you could install and stream media through Plex. Synology recently released a new free application for the BeeStation Plus called BeeCamera, which is basically a stripped-down version of Surveillance Station. First, let's get the confusing naming out of the way. While you might initially think that BeeCamera is a physical device, perhaps a camera that Synology created specifically for the BeeStation Plus, that would be incorrect. BeeCamera is simply the name for the application that runs on the NAS and on your mobile device. I think the marketing team missed the mark here, but it does fit the other naming on the device, like BeePhotos and BeeFiles, I guess. Camera Support As of right now, only Synology-branded cameras are supported, which many will see as a callback to the drive locking the company implemented and then backtracked on. That said, while I 100% disagree on drive locking, I agree that camera locking for a device made to simply plug and play is the right decision. The whole point of the BeeStation line is simplicity. There are currently three camera model lines available, a wireless device for indoor use, and two PoE models for external use. CC400W (Wi-Fi): Plug it into power using the included power adapter, and connect it to your wireless network. This camera is rated only for indoor use and is the one I was provided to review the BeeCamera. $198.36, in line with the Unifi G6 Compact. BC510 (PoE): A bullet-style camera. Connect it to an Ethernet cable that is providing Power over Ethernet (PoE). This camera is rated for both indoor and outdoor use. $240. TC510 (PoE): A dome-style camera. Connect it to an Ethernet cable that is providing Power over Ethernet (PoE). This camera is rated for both indoor and outdoor use. $240. Although this isn't a review of the actual Synology camera, I did want to note that a positive for the Synology CC400W is that it uses a magnetic base. This means you can mount it on any magnetic surface, which is pretty handy. However, a downside to the camera is that it's powered by a built-in USB cable that's about six and a half feet (two meters) long. This means that the cable will probably be either too long or too short, but more importantly, if the cable is damaged at all, you'll likely need to buy an entirely new camera because there doesn't appear to be a way to replace it, unlike many competitors, like the Unifi G6 Instant. Hopefully, this is something Synology addresses in a future revision of the hardware. The BeeStation Plus supports up to four cameras. Setup The setup of BeeCamera is, like everything in the BeeStation family, very straightforward. Simply make sure you're on at least version 1.5 of the BeeStation OS, and BeeCamera is automatically installed on the device. BeeCamera Setup Screenshots Setting up the CC400W was just as easy. Plug it in, open up the BeeCamera app, and follow the on-screen steps to add the camera. During this process, you'll configure the camera name and how many days of retention you want to keep. The system will also automatically update the firmware for you. The whole thing took only a couple of minutes, excluding the time it took for the camera to update the firmware. Once the camera is connected to the BeeStation Plus, you can manage the various camera settings within the app, although there aren't many to choose from. You're able to configure whether the microphone will record audio (some privacy laws may preclude you from recording it), select what codec to use (H.264 or H.265), configure the color and exposure of the camera, and determine what data you want to overlay onto the video. Finally, you can set up AI detections so that BeeCamera will alert you if it sees certain things. These are all of the common detections you would expect in a camera system, such as people, pets, and vehicles. Under people and vehicles, you can also add extra monitoring for lingering and congestion detection, although pets are currently in "Lab" and therefore have no extra features yet. Recording in 4K using H.265 for 30 days will take roughly 300 GB of storage, which is very reasonable for most regular households, as the BeeStation Plus has 8TB of native storage. If you want to set up detection zones, you can. These are areas that BeeCamera will look at for the various detections, and are helpful if, for example, there's a tree in your frame and you don't want to be notified each time the wind makes the branches move around in the frame. Finally, you can also schedule when the camera should and should not be recording, which is a very useful feature. For example, you may want to record only at night when you're sleeping, but not during the day when you're up and about the house, so you can easily shut the camera off between 8 am and 10 pm. Each hour of each day can be configured to record continuously, only upon a detection event, or disabled completely. You can't fine-tune to record at a specific time, though, only hourly blocks on the hour. Daily Use The best part of BeeCamera is that it's easy and just works. If you only care about being notified when things happen, the mobile app sends those notifications and lets you click the button to bring up the video and see what's going on. For example, when I went out of town and had the camera pointed at the cat tower in our hallway, it was nice to be able to drop in and check that my furry friends were doing okay without me. Initiating the remote connection to the BeeStation Plus through the app is very responsive, but this will heavily depend on your ISP. In my case, using Xfinity, I'm able to go from starting the app to seeing live video in roughly three seconds, which is about the same amount of time it takes to connect to my Unifi UNVR system that costs much more. If you want to see footage from a specific day and time, you can do so using the calendar icon. You can also scroll through the timeline, looking for detections that are labeled in blue (vs. the normal gray when there's nothing of interest). There are buttons that let you go to the last/next detection on the timeline, which is helpful if you missed the notification on your mobile device. That's where the ease of use stops, though. While you can download clips that are flagged by detection, there's apparently no way to select generic time frames you're interested in, and the only place to download is to your phone. In addition, sharing a video shares the actual video, not just a link back to your BeeStation Plus. While that's good from a security and privacy perspective, it's a little awkward for sharing large videos. Limitations While the ease of implementation is great, there are some things that are lacking from BeeCamera. The most obvious is that there is no way to view the footage on the desktop. You can log in to the BeeStation Plus to see how much storage BeeCamera is using, but unlike BeePhotos and BeeFiles, there is no BeeCamera on the web console to manage or view footage. This means you'll be viewing all of your security footage on your mobile device, which is pretty limiting. In addition, there's no way to download the video to your PC without first using your phone as the intermediary. The one exception to this is that you can use BeeFiles to see the raw MP4 files. They're saved in 5-minute increments, and it's just raw data with no detection information or any other way to identify what any of them are. The lack of a way to interact with BeeCamera on the desktop also makes configuration of the cameras more difficult. For example, trying to set up detection zones using a tiny screen and your finger to draw boxes is more cumbersome than it needs to be. This reinforces the idea that BeeCamera is not made for power users. It's also missing some of the more advanced functionality of Surveillance Station. For example, I couldn't find a way to say, "Alert me if the thing in this zone is no longer there." Another major deficiency with BeeCamera, and a feature I suspect may come out in the future, is that while it can detect generic people, there is no specific facial recognition yet. This is an interesting omission, given the fact that other Synology tools can detect specific individuals, and competitors such as Unifi Protect also do it. This is probably a software limitation, so we will have to wait and see if this feature is added in the future. Conclusion If you need a security guard to monitor surveillance cameras to make sure your property is secure, then BeeCamera is not the solution for you. That said, you probably wouldn't be using a BeeStation Plus as the brains behind the system either. BeeCamera (and BeeStation in general) is clearly aimed at households that want to avoid sending personal data to Google and Amazon, and now want to add some cameras to keep an eye on their home and their pets while they're away. BeeCamera excels at doing this. The target market isn't interested in creating cases, tying multiple views together in a single pane of glass, or the like, and for the intended use case, the system works great. Where it starts to fall apart a bit is with more advanced features. Not being able to use a desktop app is a major compromise in my opinion, and having to do all of the configuration on a mobile device is annoying, but not impossible. If you don't want to have a full-fledged NAS device in your home, but still want control over your data (or maybe want an easy way to backup your data for World Backup Day), and want to add a couple of cameras to keep an eye on your house and your pets, this is a great, cheap, and easy way to go, and I suspect more functionality will come over time. If Synology releases a desktop app or at least a way to configure cameras and view footage on a desktop browser, this would be a near-perfect solution for a general home user. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • I forgot to add on my comment that when robots will take physical jobs, it's when they become more cheaper to manufacture and sell. That will be the starting point of the end to lanscaping, trash pickup, factory jobs, etc.
    • How many people can actually use a 2.5gig ethernet port? Most people do not have more than a 1gig internet connection, heck most have less than that. Most people at home do not have a switch that has multiple 2.5gig ports either.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      mike_rumble earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      477
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      172
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      104
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      88
    5. 5
      neufuse
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!