• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Any recent Vista/XP comparison benchmarks?

7

7331

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
220
I've been using Vista only for around 6 months, anticipating Crysis. Now that it's out, I can see that Dx10 doesn't make much difference, and it's unplayable even on a 8800 GTX. Other Dx10 games are similar, so there's no reason to use Vista anymore.

I'm thinking of returning to XP, but I don't know if it'll bring me any speed increase. 6-7 month old comparisons show a large speed advantage, but recent Vista drivers improved a lot, so I don't know if that advantage still exists.

So does anyone here know of any Vista-XP comparisons using recent drivers? Or can dual-booters give any info? (It's got to be gaming becnhmarks only, I'm not interested in Office performance.)
 
last one i saw as at firing squad and showed almost identical vista and xp performance which is what im seeing also.
I have vista/xp dual booted with 169.12 drivers.
 
odin30 said:
last one i saw as at firing squad and showed almost identical vista and xp performance which is what im seeing also.
I have vista/xp dual booted with 169.12 drivers.
Click to expand...

Really? I used to play TF2 under Vista (169.04) and it would sometimes crash. Once I went back to XP (now on 169.09) it's more stable and feels faster to boot. No more Vista thanks.
 
hungryJonJon said:
Really? I used to play TF2 under Vista (169.04) and it would sometimes crash. Once I went back to XP (now on 169.09) it's more stable and feels faster to boot. No more Vista thanks.
Click to expand...

"Sometimes" could be "setup issues" or "driver issues". "Feels faster" is also, subjective, but not always true.

If you went to Vista for gaming, that's a poor reason to switch OS's. I use and love Vista, but not because of the way games are, although mine play fine. I actually use some of Vista's "features" if you want to call them that, that XP does not offer.
 
TheRapture said:
"Sometimes" could be "setup issues" or "driver issues". "Feels faster" is also, subjective, but not always true.

If you went to Vista for gaming, that's a poor reason to switch OS's. I use and love Vista, but not because of the way games are, although mine play fine. I actually use some of Vista's "features" if you want to call them that, that XP does not offer.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly the problem. I also like Vista more than XP, except when it comes to gaming. If I have problems, even 'sometimes', due to drivers or whatever (it's basically a barebones install, I use other computers for regular stuff), that is a reason to not use Vista right there. I went to Vista for DX10 and other stuff but overall the gaming experience is certainly worse for almost no -gaming- benefit.
 
if both are running good, then no differenence. When I switched I didnt notice anything different in my games.
 
Vista is fine for gaming but what most people are saying is that gaming is not a reason to switch to Vista. I like it because I can use 4 GB of memory :)
 
Haven't done any hard testing, but I just reinstalled FEAR and it flies. The numbers are higher than I remember getting under XP, but either way, they are in line with FEAR benchmarks for XP for systems similar to mine. There will always be quibbling over a couple percent, but basically I think on nVidia at least Vista is now "as fast" (to within a few percent) as XP.

So if you are someone who agonizes over 10 3DMark points, well then you may find cause to whine. However in terms of gameplay you should find no major speed difference.

Now I will note, this assumes you give the Vista system what it wants, mostly RAM. XP I set my RAM recommendations as 256MB/512MB/1GB meaning I absolutely wouldn't recommend using it if you have less than 256MB, 512MB is what I'd call the realistic minimum for normal operation, and you need at least a gig for best performance. Vista I'd double that to 512MB/1GB/2GB.

That means for gaming, 2GB is the minimum to go. If you don't, your system may suffer performance wise. However, given that RAM is now like $40 for 2GB, there's no room to bitch. If you can afford $300+ for Vista, you can afford $40 for enough RAM to keep it happy.
 
I Have 2 gig of mem. and 8800 gt, not sure if i should upgrade. are the directx 10 hacks in xp close to the quality of directx 10 ?
 
gepetto said:
so vista is not good for gaming ?
Click to expand...

Out of all the posts before yours in this thread that indicate otherwise, you still find some sort of WHATEVER to come up with that question?

Many people have said already, performance is up to par now, updated vista and updated windows xp will yield no difference, I used vista and xp and I still consider vista as being superior to xp.
 
RangerSVT said:
Out of all the posts before yours in this thread that indicate otherwise, you still find some sort of WHATEVER to come up with that question?

Many people have said already, performance is up to par now, updated vista and updated windows xp will yield no difference, I used vista and xp and I still consider vista as being superior to xp.
Click to expand...

I am the opposite, I duel boot Vista and XP and can clearly see some performance hit in most games using Vista, BUT the importance of the hit depends on the game itself and what quality settings are used. Who cares if you get 80FPS in XP and 75FPS in Vista for example.

As for DX10 I still very much consider it a bad joke, when we get native DX10 games in another year + maybe this will change.


I can confirm the performance gap has closed dramatically, however XP is still faster for gaming as I confirm for myself with nearly every new game I get.

For an example Crysis i can get around 10% better frame rate in XP using tweaked ini's for the same visual quality, and that includes tweaking ini's for vista as well. Crysis is however one of the more extreme examples but the extra frame rate is actually very important as the game is such a GPU killer.
 
Battleneter2 said:
I can confirm the performance gap has closed dramatically, however XP is still faster for gaming as I confirm for myself with nearly every new game I get.
.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, I can confirm that Windows 98SE will give me better frames per second in either new games I install on it, as well as with Windows 2000, but do people still use Windows 98SE or Windows 2000 on their gaming rigs?

Be realistic here, it's a new OS with a shit load of security features and well as implemented software that works pretty dang good, like Vista Firewall and Windows Defender, as well as some very good security improvements in the 64bit version (which I use).

For general usage, I can easily do more work on Vista, plus it's prettier.
 
RangerSVT said:
If that's the case, I can confirm that Windows 98SE will give me better frames per second in either new games I install on it, as well as with Windows 2000, but do people still use Windows 98SE or Windows 2000 on their gaming rigs?

Be realistic here, it's a new OS with a shit load of security features and well as implemented software that works pretty dang good, like Vista Firewall and Windows Defender, as well as some very good security improvements in the 64bit version (which I use).

For general usage, I can easily do more work on Vista, plus it's prettier.
Click to expand...

The problem is XP is a excellent mature stable OS (by MS standards). Windows 98 was a huge step back from XP. The jump form XP to Vista is very small for the average user.

Most of us enthusiast here are running third party firewalls and AV, so the security improvements are a mute issue. No arguments over Vista security it is far more secure than the built in XP security.

I cannot recommend anyone to run out and buy a copy of Vista to replace XP, there is simply no good reason YET, if its a new PC sure definitely get Vista thinking ahead.

Vista Users should not claim current gaming performance is the same, better off saying 5-10% "so what". While XP users that have barely touched Vista need to stop overstating the performance gap. The whole DX10 debacle has not helped Vista at all with the gaming community, but that will change over time.
 
Battleneter2 said:
The problem is XP is a excellent mature stable OS (by MS standards). Windows 98 was a huge step back from XP. The jump form XP to Vista is very small for the average user.

Most of us enthusiast here are running third party firewalls and AV, so the security improvements are a mute issue. No arguments over Vista security it is far more secure than the built in XP security.

I cannot recommend anyone to run out and buy a copy of Vista to replace XP, there is simply no good reason YET, if its a new PC sure definitely get Vista thinking ahead.

Vista Users should not claim current gaming performance is the same, better off saying 5-10% "so what". While XP users that have barely touched Vista need to stop overstating the performance gap. The whole DX10 debacle has not helped Vista at all with the gaming community, but that will change over time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you dont have the $$, upgrading isnt needed.
The 5-10%, i cant comment on since I dont know if there was a loss when i switched over.
 
Not trying to threadjack but is there any way to dual boot and for testing purposes not having to install the same game twice? I know the way the OS works this may seem pretty stupid to ask but Ive seen people come up with even more amazing solutions before and it doesnt hurt to ask. :D
 
7331 said:
I've been using Vista only for around 6 months, anticipating Crysis. Now that it's out, I can see that Dx10 doesn't make much difference, and it's unplayable even on a 8800 GTX. Other Dx10 games are similar, so there's no reason to use Vista anymore.

I'm thinking of returning to XP, but I don't know if it'll bring me any speed increase. 6-7 month old comparisons show a large speed advantage, but recent Vista drivers improved a lot, so I don't know if that advantage still exists.

So does anyone here know of any Vista-XP comparisons using recent drivers? Or can dual-booters give any info? (It's got to be gaming becnhmarks only, I'm not interested in Office performance.)
Click to expand...

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/

Latest ones that i know of
 
The same story here in this thread. Everyone's saying the performance gap has closed, but no one has any hard numbers. A lot of people have dual-boot setups, but I guess everyone's too lazy to benchmark.

I'll set up a dual boot system myself this weekend and see the results with the latest drivers. If the difference is more than 5%, I'm returning to XP.
 
And I'd need a 50% performance hit to even make me think about returning to XP. :)

I'm happily trading a few FPS in games for a faster, snappier, more stable and visually appealing OS.
 
The gap narrows all the time while XPs unstable antics stay the same
 
I dual boot xp and vista and I've found little to no difference in framerates for the most part. I've grown to appreciate using vista's interface though, the look and feel of it is nice, and that bloated feeling on lesser system's doesn't translate to a higher end rig that works (if you can score 5.9 on the exp index, doubtful you'd feel vista was slow)

By comparison, I have a laptop with cd2 1.5ghz and 2gb ram and a 8600 mobile with 256mb. It "feels" slower in everything from boot to loading of programs to just doing things.

All the programs I use work in vista (some required some minor updates, or give warnings to use newer versions ) but they still work.
 
RangerSVT said:
If that's the case, I can confirm that Windows 98SE will give me better frames per second in either new games I install on it, as well as with Windows 2000, but do people still use Windows 98SE or Windows 2000 on their gaming rigs?

Be realistic here, it's a new OS with a shit load of security features and well as implemented software that works pretty dang good, like Vista Firewall and Windows Defender, as well as some very good security improvements in the 64bit version (which I use).

For general usage, I can easily do more work on Vista, plus it's prettier.
Click to expand...

Did people ever use windows 2000 for their gaming rigs? :p

To echo what others have said though the performance difference has dropped dramatically between Vista and XP.
 
Although I'm not a big fan of Vista, I can confirm that the interface is just as fast as XP if you have RAM to waste. That's why this thread is about video drivers performance only.
 
funny win2k is mentioned, my previous gaming rig used that.

I found that to be less "bloated" than xp and got mine performing within a few percentage points of xp, if not exceeding it in some games. I had xp in other systems, but just didn't use it for gaming because of how bloat free 2k was.
 
OK, I've just tested Crysis on Vista and XP with the same settings (Dx9, High, with a few .cfg hacks)

Vista GPU Benchmark: 23.7
XP GPU Benchmark: 24.6

So, a %4 difference in XP's favor. Not much...
 
7331 said:
OK, I've just tested Crysis on Vista and XP with the same settings (Dx9, High, with a few .cfg hacks)

Vista GPU Benchmark: 23.7
XP GPU Benchmark: 24.6

So, a %4 difference in XP's favor. Not much...
Click to expand...

Yep. DX9 XP to DX9 Vista, the gap is not noticeable any longer. I can play Crysis on Vista DX9 mode exactly the same settings as XP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top