Info: No longer a reason not to use vista when it comes to gaming

[Deluxe Pepe]

Although the test machine is not bleeding edge, its certainly above average imo, and i wonder if there is a tipping point at which Vista runs better. try the test on a budget end or more common PC spec (ie a 18-24mth old) for a proper reflection.

I forgot to add, 18-24 months is very old for a PC expected to run the latest games.

Regardless, dual-cores were creeping into off-the-shelf home PCs by the end of 2006, and Vista was made for them IMO. Dual cores are now pretty much a standard.

I agree that Vista on a single core CPU is just disappointing.

 

[e-lite]

Uh what? Why wouldn't DX10 gfx cards work on XP? I run DX10 on my XP installation without any problem at all...

Of course the lack of XP availability will trigger an upsurge in Vista uptake, but the OEM version will remain available until to 2010, and that's unrelated to the gaming point anyway. Many PC gamers pay a lot for their kit and try to stay on the cutting edge -- overclocking their processors, buying the latest graphics cards, etc) -- often for only marginal gains. How many are going to be happy buying DX10 compatible graphics cards when XP can't utilise many of their features.

So, gamers sticking to XP for two years? I don't see it.

If GTA IV for the PC utilises DX10 and is available around Sep/Oct this year as anticipated, I see mass gamer migration before the end of 2008. Many of them are already there of course.

 

[Etopia]

Uh what? Why wouldn't DX10 gfx cards work on XP? I run DX10 on my XP installation without any problem at all...

You mean the Alky version ?
Because M$ said directX X will be only on vista...
Som rumor say directX L would be on XP to make it compatible vista , som other say the L is for make vista compatible with 9.0c ...

 

[MonkeyCreamy]

Vista owns if u turn all the stupid areo off. I had vista come default on my laptop and im lovin it. I turn all the transparency off so its just a black bar and everything is very good. No desktop lag, no problems. Runs like a dream. And DX10 is nice. So far I have no complains with it. I just think people are afraid of change, same thing when XP came out, everyone said oMFG, Win98 is way better, then a year or so later everyone is clutching it saying XP is way better.

 

[Sub-Zero]

hahaha that video is so funny

 

[e-lite]

You mean the Alky version ?
Because M$ said directX X will be only on vista...
Som rumor say directX L would be on XP to make it compatible vista , som other say the L is for make vista compatible with 9.0c ...

Yeah the alky. Sure it's some hacking, but it works good.

 

[Dion Red Strike]

people always complain about new operating systems. i can remember it was the way when xp and windows 2000 came out (not to mention Windows ME lol).

Heh... it took me years to install win 3.1.... and a mouse at the time seemed silly.... bad MS ripping off Apples ideas... and it wasn't even an integrated OS... Then to upgrade from win 3.1 to 98... meh, took me years again... then 98 to ME, then back to 98, then to 2000 (in 2002)... then, many years later, XP (my server still runs 2k).... maybe 2005ish.... now Vista... meh... I upgraded last week...

Yes, people complain, and hold off upgrades to new OS's everytime....

 

[Etopia]

Yeah the alky. Sure it's some hacking, but it works good.

Does it improve EU ?
XP 32 or 64 , sp2 or 3 ?

 

[SeamusO]

Pass... If I wanted to slow down my comp to half its speed.... sure install vista... LOL Even if you had the latest in hardware, it still takes up massive amounts of system resources for its eye candy.... Bloated!!!!??? LOL Theres talk about abandoning vista altogether... and sales are still no-where near that of XP's when it first came out.. although the choices at that time where upgrade to XP or stay with 98!! lol Oh well I guess I'll wait to see what the new sp1 and further updates bring to the table before I make the final jump!!

Nice to know that they're looking into these problems... Maybe there's hope after all!! Thanks also for posting this update

Not true .. Half speed? The only bad theing about vista SP1 is that it slowed down vista enough to remove it from the top spots ..

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1772

XP Professional:

    * XP RTM
      PassMark rating: 1001.4
    * XP SP2
      PassMark rating: 891
    * XP SP3
      PassMark rating: 990.8

Vista 32-bit:

    * Vista RTM
      PassMark rating: 1002.4
    * Vista SP1
      PassMark rating: 972.3

Vista 64-bit:

    * Vista RTM
      PassMark rating: 1183.1
    * Vista SP1
      PassMark rating: 1128.8

you'll notice that Vista scores higher until vista sp1 is installed. The top 3 spots in the passmark test were the RTM versions of vista ..

The only real issue with vista remains the lack of support due to lack of adoption. I use Vista x64, but even now, when I build a system for someone, if it's a 3GB ram or less setup, I still push them into XP.

I think the biggest issue has been the hardware requirements. Vista needs a lot, but if you feed it, it works well.

 

[Deluxe Pepe]

Uh what? Why wouldn't DX10 gfx cards work on XP? I run DX10 on my XP installation without any problem at all...

If you are using the Alky libraries (which are essentially a bunch of proxies sitting between the game and DirectX, translating and forwarding API calls), you are not running DX 10 *natively* so there is a degradation in performance.

If performance is your aim, then I'd consider that a problem.

Certainly DX10 (native) on Vista will run games faster than DX10 (with Alky) on XP. Brian Thompson (the developer) hoped to address this problem, but Alky was discontinued in January so it remains.

 

[Deluxe Pepe]

Vista owns if u turn all the stupid areo off. I had vista come default on my laptop and im lovin it. I turn all the transparency off so its just a black bar and everything is very good. No desktop lag, no problems. Runs like a dream.

I have all that enabled and my system runs like a dream.

What's your hardware like?

 

[aridash]

If performance is your aim, then I'd consider that a problem.

if out right performance is your aim then it has been well established that DX10 is slower than DX9, you dont get the extra rendering for no cost.

 

[SKULL]

i use xp and i like it dont see the need for vista but the next os of microsoft is more my liking

thats rumored to be a very basic OS without the eye candy and bells and whistles

and you can choose to add more functions

 

[e-lite]

Does it improve EU ?
XP 32 or 64 , sp2 or 3 ?

No, it doesn't improve EU. It's more or less the same performance with dx10 as with dx10. I tested it on xp32 sp2

 

[e-lite]

I have all that enabled and my system runs like a dream.

What's your hardware like?

Well my Vista "runs like a dream" too while in desktop environment. We are talking about gaming performance. And then I can say that vista is everything else but a performance "dream". It's facts, everyone must face it: Vista has lower gaming performance. (Period)

I have also had some benchmarking programs give me slightly higer score in vista then in XP, but still when I play EU and other games I get higher FPS and a smoother and more stable experience in XP. As I said, with XP I get 250+ FPS in EU, but under Vista I get 100-125 FPS MAXIMUM.

 

[Warpath]

Been using Vista since it came out and have never had an issue anyway.

 

[e-lite]

Been using Vista since it came out and have never had an issue anyway.

Mhm, and what performance tests did you do? What did you compare with, what was the result and so on ?

 

[Koister]

XP3 for Windows XP was released not to long ago.

Many people report an increase in performance of up to 15%.


For me it was roughly a 10% increase in frame-rate on many of my games.


VIVA LA XP!

 

[Warpath]

Mhm, and what performance tests did you do? What did you compare with, what was the result and so on ?

Was heavy into oblivion at the time i upgraded (if i recall correctly) and didn't even notice a difference. Just from a players stand point, i'm not a huge tech head or anything.

 

[Deluxe Pepe]

Well my Vista "runs like a dream" too while in desktop environment. We are talking about gaming performance. And then I can say that vista is everything else but a performance "dream". It's facts, everyone must face it: Vista has lower gaming performance. (Period)

I have also had some benchmarking programs give me slightly higer score in vista then in XP, but still when I play EU and other games I get higher FPS and a smoother and more stable experience in XP. As I said, with XP I get 250+ FPS in EU, but under Vista I get 100-125 FPS MAXIMUM.

Uh, you can hardly blame Microsoft for lower framerates in EU when Mindark don't officially support Vista. The fact other DirectX games perform the same or better in Vista suggests Mindark are at fault. Particularly given such an enormous FPS different like that.

And yes, I have tried Bioshock (for example) on this computer running XP (32-bit) and also after I installed Vista x64, and I get around 20fps more on Vista. This is hardly news though because other users have reported the same, and reliable benchmark reports out there confirm it too.

The fact is that with a dual-core (45nm) processor, 4GB of fast RAM, a good NVidia card, and Vista x64 (which performs around 10% better than Vista 32bit donchya know) yes indeed all my games run the same or better than they did under XP -- with the exception of EU which is no surprise because Vista is not supported -- but if you want to convince yourself otherwise, be my guest.

If it performed worse, I would simply revert to XP, but it doesn't so I won't. Now, if I was still using my old Pentium 4 3.8 Ghz single core processor, I might agree with you because Vista has certainly upped the hardware ante, and it seems to hate two year old and/or single core computers. But that kind of system is hardly a decent gaming rig even with XP installed.

 

[Deluxe Pepe]

I have also had some benchmarking programs give me slightly higer score in vista then in XP.

And by the way, the first thing I look at is framerate in games, and then startup and rendering times in desktop applications I use daily (mainly CGI, animation, video editing software). Under Vista x64 (with recent, fully supported hardware), I've yet to find discrepancies beyond unsupported programs like EU in my comparisons to XP Professional which was installed previously.

Benchmarking programs are useful, but secondary to actual observations.

 

[Deluxe Pepe]

if out right performance is your aim then it has been well established that DX10 is slower than DX9, you dont get the extra rendering for no cost.

It really depends on the GPU you use.

With ATI cards the situation is horrendous, with DX9 easily outperforming DX10. ATI need to get on top of that.

With NVidia cards (like 8800 series upwards), performance is the same or negligible -- no more than a 3-5fps hit at worse, which is unnoticeable during actual gameplay, and hardly unforgivable given the extra rendering required.

Surprise! Every DirectX release has had higher requirements than the previous release.

 

[Legion]

XP3 for Windows XP was released not to long ago.

Many people report an increase in performance of up to 15%.


For me it was roughly a 10% increase in frame-rate on many of my games.


VIVA LA XP!

sure they might.. but a shitload of ppl also cant even start their comp any longer

 

[e-lite]

sure they might.. but a shitload of ppl also cant even start their comp any longer

lol, well, same thing happens to a shitload of people that install vista

 

[Legion]

lol, well, same thing happens to a shitload of people that install vista

true that, but if you use hardware that supports vista your not that likely to get into trouble, most ppl i read about has used hardware not fully supported by vista.

 

[e-lite]

Uh, you can hardly blame Microsoft for lower framerates in EU when Mindark don't officially support Vista. The fact other DirectX games perform the same or better in Vista suggests Mindark are at fault. Particularly given such an enormous FPS different like that.

And yes, I have tried Bioshock (for example) on this computer running XP (32-bit) and also after I installed Vista x64, and I get around 20fps more on Vista. This is hardly news though because other users have reported the same, and reliable benchmark reports out there confirm it too.

The fact is that with a dual-core (45nm) processor, 4GB of fast RAM, a good NVidia card, and Vista x64 (which performs around 10% better than Vista 32bit donchya know) yes indeed all my games run the same or better than they did under XP -- with the exception of EU which is no surprise because Vista is not supported -- but if you want to convince yourself otherwise, be my guest.

If it performed worse, I would simply revert to XP, but it doesn't so I won't. Now, if I was still using my old Pentium 4 3.8 Ghz single core processor, I might agree with you because Vista has certainly upped the hardware ante, and it seems to hate two year old and/or single core computers. But that kind of system is hardly a decent gaming rig even with XP installed.

I am not convincing myself anything. I am talking from the experience that I have had myself. And my PC is very far from outdated. It is 10 months old and I allways buy a new PC every 12 months. When I buy my PC's I usually get the best components availible at the time. Sometimes I even get hardware that is so new that it is not even out on the market yet. My now 10 months old PC that is due to be exchanged in 2 months is a AMD x2 dual core 5800+ professionally tuned to run at 2x3.55Ghz, Nvidia 8800GTX 640 also tuned, and I have 4Gb performance matched RAM. My computer get at total of 5,6 points in Vista's own "performance index" benchmark. And trust me, it is not user error or mis-configuring.

 

[NightwolfAA2k5]

true that, but if you use hardware that supports vista your not that likely to get into trouble, most ppl i read about has used hardware not fully supported by vista.

Then you just end up with everyone using what is in effect the same PC Where's the fun in that?

 

[SeamusO]

Then you just end up with everyone using what is in effect the same PC Where's the fun in that?

... depends on whether the "same pc" is an xbox360 or a ps3 ...

 

[Djarro Morgari]

Vista , do i have to say more ?????

 

[Koister]

true that, but if you use hardware that supports vista your not that likely to get into trouble, most ppl i read about has used hardware not fully supported by vista.

Yeah..

The people who can't start because of SP3 upgrade are the ones using HP machines with AMD cpu's.

HP bundled the wrong drivers in the SP3 updated, causing major issues to people with HP machines..

Windows has re-released SP3 and the issue has been fixed.