Vista SP1 vs XP SP3 Gaming Performance: Vista wins again!

[franzon]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.asp

[zhangm Supervisor]

Lets face some facts. For those who hate Vista, no amount of colorful bars and numbers is going to convince them otherwise. They've swallowed too much FUD, and they are welcome to use whatever OS they prefer.

[Mr. Gibs]

What Relativity says is right...but even so, and this is coming from a vista user/supporter, the difference is margninal.

However what I found whilst doing a random google search of Dx10 Vs. Dx9 gaming performance was that whilst the framerates for nVidia cards generally stay the same [for Ati there is a performance drop] the RAM usage is lower. The other advantage is the frame rates generally stay the same, even though the graphics [such as tone, HDR bloom etc] are noticibly better.

The test was done on crysis but there was a problem:

So where are the pretty DX10 Crysis graphics promised? They can be found in the “Very High” settings, but unfortunately those settings are not playable with today’s highest-end GPUs! When running DX10 Crysis you have the in-game settings of “Very High” that are available where these uber-settings are not available in DX9. Even with the most expensive $1200 Quad-SLI configuration we still weren’t able to scale Crysis to its highest DX10 settings and have an acceptable gameplay experience.

Now all we need is someone with 9800GX2s to test it for us =D

----

The sad thing is that when Windows 7 comes out, everyone here whos calling Vista rubbish will be praising it and calling it the greatest microsoft OS ever, and then will go on long rants as to why Windows 7 sucks...

Happenned with XP, happenned with Vista, and will keep happenning....

Edited May 13, 2008 by / -Razorfold

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

Lets face some facts. For those who hate Vista, no amount of colorful bars and numbers is going to convince them otherwise. They've swallowed too much FUD, and they are welcome to use whatever OS they prefer.

(Y)

Vista rocks! and with SP1 it's even better.

[Sethos]

Sounds good, although the Crysis chart is a load of horse manure - I always get 10FPS + More on XP compared to Vista.

[MMaster23]

Magical words: Your milage may vary!

[alpha_omega]

The sad thing is that when Windows 7 comes out, everyone here whos calling Vista rubbish will be praising it and calling it the greatest microsoft OS ever, and then will go on long rants as to why Windows 7 sucks...

I seriously doubt that or do you see anyone praising Windows Me? :laugh:

[ANova]

Vista wins? Where? I see basically equal graphs well within the margin of error.

Vista still hogs up memory as well.

The sad thing is that when Windows 7 comes out, everyone here whos calling Vista rubbish will be praising it and calling it the greatest microsoft OS ever, and then will go on long rants as to why Windows 7 sucks...

Happenned with XP, happenned with Vista, and will keep happenning....

The sad thing is you don't get it. When 98 came out people weren't praising 95, when 2000 came out people weren't praising 98. People like XP because it's a good os, not really hard to figure out!! Vista, not so good.

If Win7 is better than Vista and XP people will like it and move to it, if not than people will stick with XP again (or in your case and many who seem to love Vista unconditionally stick with it).

Edited May 13, 2008 by ANova

[Typhon]

Vista wins? Where? I see basically equal graphs well within the margin of error.

Vista still hogs up memory as well.

Correction Vista utilizes your memory.

[Stuge]

Nice to see Vista going ahead ,but as said my other people I will still prefer Xp over vista for gaming purpose :)

[Edi]

I really don't understand you... the general performance of Vista is similar to XP (even if it's a bit lower).

What matters the most is the productivity... you can do usual things in Vista a lot faster than in XP.

Yeah... you get 10+ more frames in games when using XP... so what?! Well... actually... if you're a hardcore gamer, that really matter indeed. But most of us just play games for fun... it doesn't matter a few less or more frames.

Those who hate Vista are those who stay all day long playing games and probably having the best (or close to) hardware available.

Grow up.

PS: I understand those playing in official game competitions and gaining money from them. But not the average Joe sitting at his desk and playing until he can't stay awake anymore.

[Eoin]

I had exactly the opposite experience with Supreme Commander, it was virtually unplayable under Vista.

[MonatanFX]

I dont believe those figures are correct. I have always heard people getting better speeds under XP. I have never compared the 2 myself as I only have Vista.

I wouldnt change Vista for XP if given the choice though. As I am relatively happy with my setup ATM.

[ANova]

Correction Vista utilizes your memory.

Yeah, because it needs it to run decent.

[bobbytomorow]

Strange, every other bench mark I read has XP sp2 and sp3 owning vista w\SP1...now one random benchmark comes along and all the vista users feel like they can justify their purchase? lol

if i posted every article showing XP>Vista there would be a thousand threads :laugh:

[Osiris]

w00t, celebratory spank in Vista's honour!

[Pink Floyd Veteran]

If I had a 3GHz double core cpu with 4gb of ram, I'd switch. But for now, I am staying with Windows XP. I dont play games anymore and the only thing I do is picture editing. I have tried Vista and it was too slow compared to XP, no graphs are going to convince me.

[rtk]

The sad thing is you don't get it. When 98 came out people weren't praising 95, when 2000 came out people weren't praising 98. People like XP because it's a good os, not really hard to figure out!! Vista, not so good.

Are you new? When 98, people were very much praising 95. when 2000 came out people hailed win98 as the greatest OS ever made and 2k was garbage. In fact, even when XP came out a year later this was still the case.

When XP came out, well actually until the day after Vista was released. XP was considered Microsoft's biggest failure by the ABMer community.

XP is only a good OS now that there's a new OS to irrationally complain about.

If Win7 is better than Vista and XP people will like it and move to it, if not than people will stick with XP again (or in your case and many who seem to love Vista unconditionally stick with it).

Windows 7 will be better than Vista, and Vista is better than XP. That being said, you can be straight sure that the same people that currently spread FUD about Vista will be back spreading the same (word for word) nonsense about 7.

Strange, every other bench mark I read has XP sp2 and sp3 owning vista w\SP1...now one random benchmark comes along and all the vista users feel like they can justify their purchase? lol

Even the early benchmarks were close, XP never "owed" Vista. More recent benchmarks have all been in line with the results posted here.

And FPS are hardly a great benchmark for the average computer user anyway.

[pixated]

Nice graphs. However, I did my own tests and Vista's performance was far worse than XP. And I'm not talking about 10-20 FPS differences, I'm talking about 60+ (depending on the game). While I don't "hate" Vista, I will not use it and period. If it works like on the above graphs for some people, then great, glad they find the OS good. :)

[Rebdomine]

^ What are your pc specs?

[MtnDewCodeRedFreak]

Yawn - more FUD from the Vista haters.

I have been using Vista *on* a 2004-era computer - with a 3GHz P4 with HT - since 2006 when Beta 2 came out .... and it performs faster than XP and is more responsive.

Yes I know it uses more memory, but so what? Memory is dirt cheap nowadays - you can get a gig for 30 bucks!

[Rebdomine]

Yeah, because it needs it to run decent.

I didn't buy 4000MB ram, to have 500 of em being using like in xp :)

[anonymous_user]

Yes I know it uses more memory, but so what? Memory is dirt cheap nowadays - you can get a gig for 30 bucks!

So you dont care if a program/OS** uses a lot of memory because you can buy more?

I think my Firefox is telling me to go to Newegg

**I know some programs like Photoshop or games are supposed to use a lot of memory. I dont refer to them.

[ANova]

Are you new? When 98, people were very much praising 95. when 2000 came out people hailed win98 as the greatest OS ever made and 2k was garbage. In fact, even when XP came out a year later this was still the case.

When XP came out, well actually until the day after Vista was released. XP was considered Microsoft's biggest failure by the ABMer community.

XP is only a good OS now that there's a new OS to irrationally complain about.

Maybe you're just searching for reasons to like Vista?

I don't like Microsoft in general and I was mostly indifferent to 95 and 98 but I have to give MS credit for doing a job well done for the most part on 2k and XP. I really couldn't care less if some think XP to be a failure (even though I think you're making up such a notion to furthur your baseless argument), I switched a few months after XP hit RTM and never regretted it. The stability improvements over 98 were worth it alone for me. The general consensus on the net seemed to be positive for XP as well, of course there will always be some people finding something to complain about.

Windows 7 will be better than Vista, and Vista is better than XP. That being said, you can be straight sure that the same people that currently spread FUD about Vista will be back spreading the same (word for word) nonsense about 7.

Contrary to what those MS branded goggles tell you everything that comes out of Microsoft isn't perfect. You know why Vista is getting so much bad press, because that's reality! Sure some people can be stubborn and anti-new things but when lots of people don't like it maybe, just maybe theres something to that. Come now Microsoft have admitted to themselves that they fell flat on Vista, you might as well move on by now too.

Even the early benchmarks were close, XP never "owed" Vista. More recent benchmarks have all been in line with the results posted here.

And FPS are hardly a great benchmark for the average computer user anyway.

You're grasping, only there aren't enough straws to support you.

I didn't buy 4000MB ram, to have 500 of em being using like in xp :)

Ah so you'd rather programs be inefficient and gobble up ram huh. Well guess what, if your os needs gigs of ram what happens when a program needs it as well? Buying more is like throwing wood (and your money) on the fire.

Edited May 13, 2008 by ANova

[Dashel]

Is there anything you aren't an expert on ANova? I find your technical input as accurate and useful as your social commentary.