Games performance: Vista x64 SP1 vs XP x64 SP2


Recommended Posts

@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.

I have an Asus motherboard with SoundMax on it and have had no issues on Vista on either 32 or 64. I've never been stopped from installing any driver because of driver signing.

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.

Team Fortress performance loss isn't that big of a deal... I am glad to see you had gains in COD 4 and Crysis though.

@Aeden

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.

I didn't pay attention to this crossfire & SLI things ... seems that Vista 64 is a bit less a attractive now...

@hagjohn

I have an Asus motherboard with SoundMax on it and have had no issues on Vista on either 32 or 64. I've never been stopped from installing any driver because of driver signing.

this is because your motherboard is much recent than mine

I have a P4C800-E deluxe ...

But I realize I've made a mistake in my "bashing" against Asus :blushing:

The driver I used to "fix" my sound problems was intended for XP only too ... (from motherboard P5P800).

I think this is more of comparison of drivers and compability rather then the OS' performance.

Ahh that is an os's performance. Its make NO diference whose at fault for what, all that should matter to the end user is bottom line performance and right now XP x86 delivers it in spades, actually across the board not only in gaming.

Also why are you trying so vehemently to defend some corporations product? Do they pay you? No. Do they know you exist? No. We get it, you like Vista, ok now let other people share their experiences and opinions. Stop trying to blame all of Vista's problems on user error, if it truly was a good os its user error would be low.

Ahh that is an os's performance. Its make NO diference whose at fault for what, all that should matter to the end user is bottom line performance and right now XP x86 delivers it in spades, actually across the board not only in gaming.

Also why are you trying so vehemently to defend some corporations product? Do they pay you? No. Do they know you exist? No. We get it, you like Vista, ok now let other people share their experiences and opinions. Stop trying to blame all of Vista's problems on user error, if it truly was a good os its user error would be low.

Wow talk about misunderstanding. I don't think you read all my posts correctly. I have clearly stated that companys have not given their fair share of effort to produce quality drivers. In no way have I accused end users for anything. No crap XP owns all in performance. If you didn't notice before, I'll say it again, Microsoft is at fault for many things but I don't think they are at fault for the lack of drivers - even though that is becoming less and less true. I'm not going to go off topic and discuss anything more than that. So what if I like Vista; I also like XP, for different reasons. Of course to the end user all that matters is if it works or not. I'm terribly sorry for expressing my opinion. I am not preventing anyone from expressing theirs.

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...

Double the times for games to load??? something is wrong there, there is no difference in loading times on any of my games (Or FPS for that matter) when I switched from XP (32 bit) to vista (64 bit). CS:S loads almost instantly, COD4 loads levels insanely fast I have had no problems at all.

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.

Performance-wise, I don't notice that much of a loss in Team Fortress 2 on Vista versus XP. (Except the game likes to crash when exiting in Vista.)

What I noticed with my copy of Vista Business x86, with my GeForce 8800 GT and Audigy 2 ZS: after I did something sound events stutter, music playback stutters a bit, sound in Source-based games stutter as well (even worse with ALchemy), and graphics tend to flicker a little bit. I'll probably try installing Business x64. Really my main holdback is the sound card, and I'm not really in the position to replace a freaking sound card at the moment. It still works great with XP x86.

Last note: almost the major components of my computer date from New Years Eve 2007. Except the sound card.

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.

I have to run RivaTuner if I need to game. Otherwise my GPU will go up in smoke. For Vista x86 I can set RivaTuner to start without prompting for UAC. On Vista x64 I'd have to do that, plus disable driver checking every single time I boot the PC.

Performance-wise, I don't notice that much of a loss in Team Fortress 2 on Vista versus XP. (Except the game likes to crash when exiting in Vista.)

What I noticed with my copy of Vista Business x86, with my GeForce 8800 GT and Audigy 2 ZS: after I did something sound events stutter, music playback stutters a bit, sound in Source-based games stutter as well (even worse with ALchemy), and graphics tend to flicker a little bit. I'll probably try installing Business x64. Really my main holdback is the sound card, and I'm not really in the position to replace a freaking sound card at the moment. It still works great with XP x86.

Last note: almost the major components of my computer date from New Years Eve 2007. Except the sound card.

I have to run RivaTuner if I need to game. Otherwise my GPU will go up in smoke. For Vista x86 I can set RivaTuner to start without prompting for UAC. On Vista x64 I'd have to do that, plus disable driver checking every single time I boot the PC.

How did you set rivatuner not to prompt?

I obviously can't (and won't) comment on behalf of others, but personally, I think those synthetic benchmarks are FUD. Try it out for yourself and see how good or bad "X" game runs on "Y" videocard in "Z" machine.

after I did something sound events stutter, music playback stutters a bit, sound in Source-based games stutter as well (even worse with ALchemy), and graphics tend to flicker a little bit. I'll probably try installing Business x64. Really my main holdback is the sound card, and I'm not really in the position to replace a freaking sound card at the moment.

Did you manage to fix the stuttering? I'm getting almost the same problem on different hardware and without a creative sound-card. I've tried using the latest beta and WHQL 64 bit drivers but neither seem to make any difference. I'm getting severe sound stuttering in TFC2 and CS:Source. Havent been able to test any other games.

I'm beginning to think the issue might be Vista SP1...

Anyone have any ideas of what I can try to fix this? The only thing I remember doing is downloading the free trackmania game, it crash on opening and then TFC doesn't want to work :p

Did you manage to fix the stuttering? I'm getting almost the same problem on different hardware and without a creative sound-card. I've tried using the latest beta and WHQL 64 bit drivers but neither seem to make any difference. I'm getting severe sound stuttering in TFC2 and CS:Source. Havent been able to test any other games.

I'm beginning to think the issue might be Vista SP1...

Anyone have any ideas of what I can try to fix this? The only thing I remember doing is downloading the free trackmania game, it crash on opening and then TFC doesn't want to work :p

I tried reinstalling Vista Business SP1 x64, but I'm reverting back to x86 one last time. Bit of a pain in the ass to maintain both 32 and 64 applications: for instances, separate sets of codecs for both 32 and 64 bit players.

On the plus side, installation of the Creative drivers was surprisingly speedy on x64. Performance was generally good; games were fine.

Really I have no idea what causes all this stuttering. Last time the wave of nonstop sound stuttering came after uninstalling NOD32...

Performance-wise, I don't notice that much of a loss in Team Fortress 2 on Vista versus XP. (Except the game likes to crash when exiting in Vista.)

What I noticed with my copy of Vista Business x86, with my GeForce 8800 GT and Audigy 2 ZS: after I did something sound events stutter, music playback stutters a bit, sound in Source-based games stutter as well (even worse with ALchemy), and graphics tend to flicker a little bit. I'll probably try installing Business x64. Really my main holdback is the sound card, and I'm not really in the position to replace a freaking sound card at the moment. It still works great with XP x86.

Now that I think of it, I don't think I lost any performance in Team Fortress 2. Though I do have that annoying crash whenever I exit the game. I know I lost performance in Half-Life 2 for sure. I lose 50fps simply by turning the flashlight on in Episode 2. Heck, Half-Life 2 runs so poorly that I had to run it 32-bit. It's odd because the game defaulted to 64-bit mode and it was really buggy. Valve claimed the game would run better on a 64-bit processor. Haha.

Anyway, I have a Sound Blaster X-Fi Platinum and it works fine on Vista Ultimate x64 with ALchemy (X-Fi edition). I also have no issues with my video card (ATI HD 2900 XT) at all.

I tried reinstalling Vista Business SP1 x64, but I'm reverting back to x86 one last time. Bit of a pain in the ass to maintain both 32 and 64 applications: for instances, separate sets of codecs for both 32 and 64 bit players.

On the plus side, installation of the Creative drivers was surprisingly speedy on x64. Performance was generally good; games were fine.

Really I have no idea what causes all this stuttering. Last time the wave of nonstop sound stuttering came after uninstalling NOD32...

My problem seems now to have disappeared but I'm not entirely sure why. I'm running the 169.25 WHQL drivers from nvidia. I also tried disabling services on vista that I don't think I need (used speedyvista to do this). The one thing I noticed was that the stuttering was worst when vista decided it wanted to do something and started churning the HDD. God knows what vista is up to...

I'm also on RAID0. Don't know if anyone else is. I don't run NOD or any AV so I can't compare that, but on x64 my TF2 seems to be running smoothly, for now...

since upgrading to 8GB of ram and a Q6600, even not overclocked, games such as COD4 and Frontlines: FOW and World in Conflict all load signifigantly faster, especially Frontlines w hich used to take forever before, but is insanely fast now....dont know what some of you are talking about....vista x64 sp1 rocks.

So basically, this confirms there's no reason to "upgrade" to Vista. It confirms that Vista requires more resources to accomplish the equivalent task on XP. It also confirms you need 64 Bit Vista because of the increased RAM usage, while XP only needs 2GB for gaming and doesn't need to be 64 bit.

I'm sure Vista will improve again with Vista SP2, but how long is that going to take? With Windows 7 on the horizon, Vista is a dead end. It's as dead as XP, only it stinks worse. :laugh:

So basically, this confirms there's no reason to "upgrade" to Vista. It confirms that Vista requires more resources to accomplish the equivalent task on XP. It also confirms you need 64 Bit Vista because of the increased RAM usage, while XP only needs 2GB for gaming and doesn't need to be 64 bit.

I'm sure Vista will improve again with Vista SP2, but how long is that going to take? With Windows 7 on the horizon, Vista is a dead end. It's as dead as XP, only it stinks worse. :laugh:

I really do not see how this confirms that vista requires more resources when it comes out on top...And it certainly does not confirm you need 64 bit vista because of increased ram usage because that does not make any sense at all. And x64 actually increases RAM usage...I fail to see how you can reach these conclusions.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!