Vista-Performance Gain or Loss In Games?

[Deleted member 143938]

With the release of Vista new effects and higher memory+CPU usage will come into play, will this affect games negativly? Or will the Vista Platform boost games performance so it will equal out/be better?

 

[Archer75]

With the release of Vista new effects and higher memory+CPU usage will come into play, will this affect games negativly? Or will the Vista Platform boost games performance so it will equal out/be better?

Vista is supposed to shut down all unecessary resources when gaming. So gaming performance should actually be better. I will test this with the new vista build soon.

And with direct X 10 it should be better still as it's all new code with no legacy support.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

Right now gaming performance isn't where it should be, but I blame the NVidia drivers.

 

[djnes]

Right now gaming performance isn't where it should be, but I blame the NVidia drivers.

I'm sure they Nvidia drivers aren't up to par, but it's also a beta OS. Judging by some of these Vista threads, I'm not quite sure if everyone realizes this.

 

[brighton]

Right now gaming performance isn't where it should be, but I blame the NVidia drivers.

just be glad its not ATi, ha i had to disable one of my cpu cores to get Catalyst loading correctly. So ya performace is BAADD

 

[darkpark]

It's definately too earlier to talk about gaming performance but I can't imagine that Vista and its directx-10 will magically make games (current and new) a lot faster. My hunch is that current games will have the same or slightly slower performance since they're written for an older version of directx but newer games which are written for directx10 might be faster, but I can't imagine a significant (more than 15 percent) increase. That's just my guess, of course.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

Actually, the word is that Vista's version of DirectX 9 is faster than XP's because of the new driver model.

 

[Calibur]

I'd try it but, ATI drivers = no OpenGL.

 

[Tazman2]

Actually, the word is that Vista's version of DirectX 9 is faster than XP's because of the new driver model.

Word being from Micro$h*t i assume? Obviously they'll say its faster. They also said XP will fix all security issues and here we are years later on a 2nd SP and about 50 patches SINCE sp2!

 

[J-Mag]

One thing going for Vista is QUAD GPU support in DX games through 4-Way AFR, that's something you will never see on XP, so definitely performance improvements there.

I think one of the reviews I read was comparing vista gaming performance was with a 1gb of main memeory. Personally I think it should be tested with 2-4gb, because it has a larger resident footprint, no?

 

[GreNME]

Word being from Micro$h*t i assume? Obviously they'll say its faster. They also said XP will fix all security issues and here we are years later on a 2nd SP and about 50 patches SINCE sp2!

I challenge you to name a major software that has not had loads of patches. Apple-- yeah, they're patching X on a regular basis. Various Linux-- hrm, patches come out at least as often as they do for comparable Windows components. 3rd-party vendors-- looks like everyone is putting out patches on a fairly (relatively) consistent basis.

I don't know what orifice your noggin is stuck so far in that you don't understand such a fundemental concept as software patches and who puts them out, but if all you're going to do is thread-crap, you're not going to make many friends.

To the OP: right now, it's too early to say. Basically, everything is too beta, 3rd-party software is inconsistent, and there isn't sufficient driver support to say with certainty one way or another if performance is going to be better or worse. Judging by the progress made in the last three major builds, I'd say Vista will go a long way to making some damned good attempts, but in the end we may not really know until at least RTM time.

 

[djnes]

They also said XP will fix all security issues and here we are years later on a 2nd SP and about 50 patches SINCE sp2!

What's the problem with that? Would you rather they not patch anything? Are you forgetting that Win2k went to SP4, and NT 4.0 went to SP6? By my count, they are greatly improving things.

 

[Tazman2]

Since you people are confused by what i wrote. I was trying to get a point across that MS says alot of things that usually aren't true. XP and its patches and SPs was a EXAMPLE not a rant about its crappyness that it needs more patches then a sinking boat!

 

[Hupo]

Im suprised ATI hasnt done too much to update there radeon drivers. Been the same for months.

 

[Archer75]

My ATI card works just fine.

 

[Archer75]

Since you people are confused by what i wrote. I was trying to get a point across that MS says alot of things that usually aren't true. XP and its patches and SPs was a EXAMPLE not a rant about its crappyness that it needs more patches then a sinking boat!

As soon as I install Ubuntu there are a ton of patches to download. Same with OSX.

 

[djnes]

Since you people are confused by what i wrote. I was trying to get a point across that MS says alot of things that usually aren't true. XP and its patches and SPs was a EXAMPLE not a rant about its crappyness that it needs more patches then a sinking boat!

If that was just an example, and not a rant...I'd hate to see your actual rants. What confused us, is the fact your example (wolf) was wearing a rant's clothing (sheep).

 

[Tazman2]

If that was just an example, and not a rant...I'd hate to see your actual rants. What confused us, is the fact your example (wolf) was wearing a rant's clothing (sheep).

Well stop undressing my sheep!

PS: You must be new if you haven't seen any of my "real" rants!

 

[djnes]

I'm definitely not new...check my post count and join date.

 

[As I Lay Dying]

On a side note I havent installed vista yet on a partition, on my primary machine, I run it as a virtual os, and I cant really game on that so I cant comment, but to my understanding games should run faster, I would like to see benchmarks though from people running vista and xp.


Ummm I would like to point out one thing, in regards to ubuntu and linux. First off there is a difference between an update and a security fix. Updates = updates to software, the beauty of the repository system, I had compiz updates every other day, not because of fixes but either bug fixes or added features. Also there are back ports which provide updated stable software updates, this can include libraries, etc, etc. So yeah alot of distros take advantage of the repository system, so a windows update != linux update. Yes there are security fixes but definitely less then windows, I can't speak about osx but thats my experience. There are security fixes for all of them, some more then others.