XP vs. Vista - A Tale of Framerates

What is the market share of ATi to nVidia?

If it is 80% ATi to 20% nVidia then sure moan about this artical
If it is around 50% what is all the noise?

Also where are the DX10 cards from ATi ? if one existed then sure again moan, but hey they don't exist :rolleyes:
 
Dekoth said:
<<major snip job>>and believe it word for word <<more snipping>>
Click to expand...

Word for word, the final conclusion said that:

We have every confidence that gaming in Vista will come around. At the moment, however, if you’re concerned about squeezing every last framerate out of your system, there is not a compelling reason to leave XP.
Click to expand...

That is very different than saying "Vista is crap" Now, as I've said, I think the article is far from perfect, but please don't read more into it than is said. (Maybe Jason feels that way - nobody can speak for him - but the article doesn't say it.)
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
Actually when you post that I do hope you realize that the Enthusiast Market is the minority while the Consumer market is the Majority. Although I understand what you are saying, there simply isn't enough of Enthusiast to make premium cards a "top" priority.
And, other premium products like sound cards, video cards, CPUs, ram, PSU's, etc are simply not common place in Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA and other brick/motor and online stores. There is a reason for that and no real explanation is needed.

Those consumers who have average computer setups will see that having Vista is not for them. How do you sell Vista to a XP user who only:
Reads email
Browse the net
Use MS Office
Let his kid or grand kid use the computer for a report for school
and maybe a shareware game here and there like pool or pinball?

I am not lumping all consumers in that category. There are many consumers out there with a wide variety of uses for their PC be it Home use or Office use, etc. This is were the article begins to shine when you review the benchmarks. Once you walk in the shoes of a consumer will you understand why they have their opinion of Vista.
Click to expand...

Of course I realize that. But those people largely aren't reading [H]Enthusiast articles either.

I understand why some people have the opinion of Vista that they do (though I think much of it is unfounded). How would I sell Vista to the people you describe? Very simple. I wouldn't. I practically begged my father not to go with Vista when I gave him my old PC for Xmas. He needed to buy another 1GB of RAM just to get satisfactory performance out of it. And for what? He got nothing he couldn't have gotten from XP-MCE. But, like me, he suffers from a need to have whatever the best out there is.

But really that has nothing to do with this article and its' significant problems.
 
mikeblas said:
Because most of the people who claim that Vista offers them nothing haven't tried it, or haven't tried it long enough, or haven't studied it enough to learn about the features and improvements that really would be interesting to them -- if they knew about it.
Click to expand...

What concerns me is the amount of bad press from what many people might consider highly respected sites. I don't know if it's just a case of piling on but it isn't encouraging.

I dunno, perhaps it's just the old DOS dude in me were I'm accustomed to eliminating everything I don't need or want. Vista just has a lot of stuff I don't want. I suppose that's what it really comes down to.
 
yagisencho said:
Another sloppy article. Not a good trend guys.
Click to expand...

so because the conclusion reached don't meet with your views you slate the artical...
So lets see your artical then :rolleyes:

There are quite a few combinations of hardware that could of been chosen, the [H]ard lot chose some and well you can't really argue on their conclusion drawn for their setup since well.. they tested it

you don't like then you go out and spend +£10,000 and get a complete wide-range of hardware covering all bases and do a similar test and then write a report on it

its easy for those who cannot write a report fit for peer review to criticize
 
Dekoth said:
I must admit, I am fairly disappointed in this review from HardOCP after all the preaching they have done about Game play experience vs Canned benchmarks.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point. I saw little to no difference playing CS:S in Vista. Sure the numbers might have been smaller, but what happened to gameplay experience and image quality being of paramount concern? I couldn't notice a difference.
 
Its right there in green and red.
At this point in time, there is no reason to migrate to Vista.

I hope things will change once DX10 becomes the norm.

Good article.
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
Those consumers who have average computer setups will see that having Vista is not for them. How do you sell Vista to a XP user who only:
Reads email
Browse the net
Use MS Office
Let his kid or grand kid use the computer for a report for school
and maybe a shareware game here and there like pool or pinball?
Click to expand...

This is a gaming article not a general Vista vs Xp comparison. The purpose of the article wasn't to decide whether Vista or Xp is overall the better OS. Anyway, it's clearly labelled as a [H]Enthusiast article instead of a [H]Consumer article. We're the Enthusiasts crowd. That's why the responses here are different from those on Digg or Slashdot. And why the review is under such scrutiny. That's what Enthusiasts do. Some articles are focused to look from the perspective of a general consumer and some articles don't. Unless I'm wrong, this article is supposed to be from the Enthusiasts point of view. Anyway, I can't help but feel that there is a conflict when the article needs to pander to the Digg and Slashdot crowd and yet retain the characteristics of an Enthusiast article.

eeyrjmr said:
so because the conclusion reached don't meet with your views you slate the artical...
Click to expand...

No, it's because the tests are insufficient to prove the conclusion. And there have been alot of posts above me explaining why. Hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling that this thread is gonna degenerate into a generic XP vs Vista thread.
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but the human eye CAN see more than 90 and definitely more than 60 frames per second. In some instances, fighter pilots can see up to 250+ fps. I'm sad to see the myth still going strong and sadder to see it as being a lead up to a conclusion in an [H] article.
 
magoo said:
Its right there in green and red.
At this point in time, there is no reason to migrate to Vista.
Click to expand...
That's not what the article says. The article says that (with old drivers, mind you) Vista performs worse in games than XP. I may be an exception to the rule as far as users around here go, but I do not spend a majority of time on XP gaming.
 
calebb said:
Very good point - a fresh install of Vista will perform significantly worse than a several-day-old install of Vista: Superfetch, Indexing services, etc.
Click to expand...

IrishRangerWingMedic said:
How long after install of the games did you test the rates? It takes some time (?1-2 weeks) for Vista to learn what applications you use regulary and cache them for superfetch.
Click to expand...

Those are rather interesting questions. I wonder if Superfetch has any impact on in-game performance, since that was measured here. I wonder if we need to disable these services in the future in order to make benchmark results repeatable?
 
mentok1982 said:
Article typo:

In the table for the system specifications you list the 7600 as a Gigabyte 7600 GS and not a
7600 GT. 7600 GS also appears at the bottom of the table next to the price.
Click to expand...

I noticed this as well.. It happens plenty of times throughout this article.

C'mon, [H], they're not even the same card.

:)
 
SnakeIRye said:
I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but the human eye CAN see more than 90 and definitely more than 60 frames per second. In some instances, fighter pilots can see up to 250+ fps. I'm sad to see the myth still going strong and sadder to see it as being a lead up to a conclusion in an [H] article.
Click to expand...

You are correct that we can "sense" greater than 60FPS. However, the laws of diminishing returns apply as well. You have to pick a point somehwere to benchmark on....otherwise, how can you benchmark?
 
eeyrjmr said:
What is the market share of ATi to nVidia?

If it is 80% ATi to 20% nVidia then sure moan about this artical
If it is around 50% what is all the noise?

Also where are the DX10 cards from ATi ? if one existed then sure again moan, but hey they don't exist :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You have to look past the percentages to the amount of people that percentage represents.

In reality, it is closer to 60% Nvidia, 40% ATI in the Discrete card category. The mobile and integrated markets are heavily dominated by Intel. The numbers change all the time, but 60/40 is a rough estimate from the past 6 months.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/06/q3_06_graphics_market/

BTW...did you even read the article? The article was comparing performance of XP to Vista, not another NV vs ATI comparison. No DX10 games were played. There are none out there yet. So your argument that the DX10 ATI cards aren't out has no basis in this comparison. Its a meaningless, thoughtless comment that only serves to raise your postcount. If the test is for DX9 games and how Gaming is under Vista, why weren't the other 40% (ATI card owners) represented to prove/disprove its the OS causing the problems?
 
Jason_Wall said:
Certainly a valid point. The reason is that we only had NVIDIA hardware available at our offices when I cooked up the idea to do an article like this. It actually would have been rather interesting to see what ATI is doing with Vista. As Kyle said in the Digg thread, a follow-up to this experience will definitely be explored. Adding ATI to the mix would be one thing that we could do. Thanks for the feedback.
Click to expand...

What I would like to know is this...

It is well documented that Nvidia drivers are still not working correctly with most 3d games. We dont need more information about how Nvidia dropped the ball on this.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070206-8784.html
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI3NCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://apcmag.com/5215/waiting_for_vista
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/990/nvidia_forceware_vista_driver_blunder_thermal_management/index.html

the list goes on...and on...and on

What would be much more interesting is a compairison on ATI products because they seemed to be on top of the Vista launch ion respect to drivers.

How I percieve this article is more of "nvidia sucks...ati is better" rethoric.

Lets try to act like we are a little objective here. Articles like this remind me of when THG started going downhill. I would be real sad/dissappointed if HCP followed in their footsteps.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
You have to look past the percentages to the amount of people that percentage represents.

In reality, it is closer to 60% Nvidia, 40% ATI in the Discrete card category. The mobile and integrated markets are heavily dominated by Intel. The numbers change all the time, but 60/40 is a rough estimate from the past 6 months.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/06/q3_06_graphics_market/

BTW...did you even read the article? The article was comparing performance of XP to Vista, not another NV vs ATI comparison. No DX10 games were played. There are none out there yet. So your argument that the DX10 ATI cards aren't out has no basis in this comparison. Its a meaningless, thoughtless comment that only serves to raise your postcount. If the test is for DX9 games and how Gaming is under Vista, why weren't the other 40% (ATI card owners) represented to prove/disprove its the OS causing the problems?
Click to expand...

I did read the artical, likewise I have read this thread. my post wasn't in response to the artical, it was in responce to the response to the artical

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031020189&postcount=3
I feel that each new release of drivers is an improvement in vista. We should see how the ATI cards fare in the comparison.:)
Click to expand...

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031020301&postcount=7
Not everyone uses Nvidia video cards, so why did you only use Nvidia hardware?

None of these games were DX10, so why couldn't you test an X1900 series and an X1600 series to show if ATI has the same driver issues in Vista?
Click to expand...

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031020348&postcount=14
Like practically all Vista testes so far - it's always the drivers!!!

And why on earth was NV used?! It's like [H] has a boycott on ATI cards.
Click to expand...

and so on. Don't like the fact they did it with an nVidia card (and from yr stats they were right to 60% is quite significant) then go write your own peer-reviewed artical
 
eeyrjmr said:
I did read the artical, likewise I have read this thread. my post wasn't in response to the artical, it was in responce to the response to the artical
Click to expand...
Just so you know, it's spelled "article".
 
Thanks for all the feedback, sorry it was not as complete as you guys have expressed wanting. I have an X1950XTX on the way to Jason now so he can do some follow-up testing.

We did want this to be focused on XP and Vista, not an ATI Vs NVIDIA article. That and a few other issues bound what we did here.

I would expect an ATI DX10 part to be in the works later this month as well.
 
mikeblas said:
Just so you know, it's spelled "article".
Click to expand...

Thanks, could see it wasn't spelt right, its just my spelling is worse then my sons :( even FireFox spell couldn't correct.
It is because of my spelling and/or language skills I don't write many papers for peer-review. And those few that I have to are highly technical engineering papers where I can fumble through with technical info and theory. It is also why I don't heavily slate other peoples write-ups since if I don't think I could of done better (from the testing or writing) then I ain't going to criticise it since well a bit do as I say, not do as I do kind of thing
 
Fraishus said:
This article is worthless.
It's just taking up space on [H]'s front-page.
Because there's nothing to be learned from it.
As a reader, what could possibly be taken away from this article?
That old Nvidia drivers are slow?
Wow! Useful information.
Why would we care?

He didn't compare with ATI drivers.
He didn't use the latest NVidia drivers.
one-two punch, worthless article.
It says he put a bunch of work into this article, and then new drivers came out-- so what?
We're the customer. It doesn't matter what he did. We're the ones who are viewing the ads.
Don't come out with a bunch of obsolete information for your customers and then justify it with "well I spent time on it." -- that has no use for us. Why would we care?
You should have said "well, gosh, I spent some time on this, but the article isn't ready, so I'll need to spend some more." That's your job man.
Click to expand...

I've never seen someone flamed in 14-line Sonnet form before...
 
Axiomatic said:
I'll be the first in line to say that the DRM and other anti-consumer ware in Vista are a big turn off for the new OS. But as far as the Vista video drivers go I think nvidia has done a good job recently. I realize they basically had to be coerced at gunpoint to create them, but now that we have them its looking upward.

This may sound like a desire to bolster my blogs hit rate, but in this case I did a small (very small) performance test of 64 bit Vista ultimate with the latest nvidia drivers and found that they were very good for DX9 games. In fact, the non-overclocked 64 bit Vista scores took second place to only an overclocked XP-SP2 install on my limited test. I was mildly impressed. If you are interested here is the link: http://www.gamingsignal.com/2007/04/64_bit_windows_vista_ultimate.html

edit - Please be nice on commentary about my blog. Its mainly for my work friends and I to have a place to talk about games. We aren't trying to be a "premier" blog so as I said, we are not trying to increase hits. I just thought my study on 64 bit Vista video performance might apply to this discussion. ;-)
Click to expand...

Axiomatic:

SCIENCE!

That's the way you do it! :D Great blog post!
 
Axiomatic said:
I'll be the first in line to say that the DRM and other anti-consumer ware in Vista are a big turn off for the new OS.
Click to expand...
What "anti-consumer ware" are you referring to? How will these things affect your day-to-day usage of the OS?
 
hahah well all i know is that with the new nvidia drivers I get almost the same framerates as I did in XP.

finally..
 
I find it rather funny nit-picking about a couple of frames in games between each OS. If that isn't trying to find a reason to hate Vista I don't know what is.

A point I want to point out is Vista is the best thing for gaming since the 3DFX Voodoo2. What I mean is Vista will make everything grounded and optimized for PC gaming as it will be the only OS supporting DX10. What this will in turn force is what the console industry has had for years now, and that is one thing to optimize for. One operating system to really worry about. Game makers will know that in a few years everyone will be using Vista in some form (if they want DX10 in games) and that is the only operating system they have to worry about. NVIDIA and ATi will only have to worry about Vista drivers. No more of trying to optimize for 3 or 4? other operating systems anymore. One OS for DX10...

I think this is a long time coming. The PC gaming industry needed something like this for a long time now. Everyone on this forum will be running Vista soon enough so why not embrace it now and try to make it better? I think giving it countless negative press is only slowing down the inevitable! It is a step we all will have to take if we want to see DX10 in our PC games....
 
Hypernova said:
That's good to know, IMO many complaints are due to the fact that this is the second time we had a NV only article.
Click to expand...

Shit happens. ;) I am sure we will be pissing off the Red Team very soon and we will be NVIDIA fanboys once again. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D
 
mikeblas said:
What "anti-consumer ware" are you referring to? How will these things affect your day-to-day usage of the OS?
Click to expand...

I think you know what he's referring to...

Call it what you will. I personally prefer the term "useless apps".
 
Win 2k vs XP all over again, was anyone expecting any different?


"World of Warcraft at greater than 90fps, where the human eye can't even see the difference. "
Click to expand...


hasnt this been proven otherwise time and time again for people ? Some can, some cant.
 
The same thing was said from DOS / Win3.1 to Win 95...

And the same arguments people made when XP came out. I remember Sound, Modems, Scanners, Printers, etc... not having any drivers. I remember games performing horribly, compatability errors etc...

If you search enough you will find reviews of XP that have the same arguments and complaints regarding what a bloated memory hog XP was. About all the excess services eand usless Luna interface etc...

First results from google search:

http://www.firingsquad.com/games/winxp/default.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/games/winxpperf/default.asp

Maybe I'm the only one old enough to have gone from Dos to Vista and remeber all the growing pains.

It will work itself out in time and everyone will be using Vista eventually.
 
C'mon peopel, these types of "attackable" articles are written at least in part to drive traffic through impassioned response. It's a sound business model and created an entertaining artcile.

Good read, [H].
 
Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, Microsoft told us months ago that DX9 games would take a hit under Vista. What I want to see is what happens when DX10 games start to be released. You don't even need DX10 for XP, I'd imagine those games will still work with DX9 as well. But then both systems can compete on their own strengths.
 
Sup w/ the [H] quantity over quality lately? ...more supcomquad style reviews please! :D
 
Cinge said:
I jumped on XP when it released but Micrsoft screwed up on a LOT of things in Vista.
Click to expand...


No, the HARDWARE manufacturers screwed up with Vista by not getting even half ass drivers decent ready in time. It's not as if Vista popped up on them out of the blue.

That being said, all of my hardware has great support, at the time of the public Vista release, save my 8800GTS which was sketchy at best until this latest 158 series driver.

As the article stands, it's a bit weak, based on current driver standards, and lacking sorely due to leaving ATI out of the picture.

Reminds me of the linux vs. windows article....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top