Vista gaming will be 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP

Obi_Kwiet said:
The whole thing about Vista, is that it won't have hardly any background processes running after the game starts. It is supposed to do a better job stopping them than XP did.
Click to expand...

I don't think it stops nearly as many processes as it could, as I understand it, it only stops the GUI related processes which take up a lot of memory but in the end you're still going to have a lot more processes running, the total is still likely to be higher.
 
What's the big fuss about? They are still fixing it up and they will also improve it as time goes on. Drivers for Vista are another thing that need to be improved and will improve over time.
 
MH Knights said:
The easy way out would be to just turn off that stupid Aero 3D interface.
Click to expand...


Aero 3d interface wont be using your GPU when you are gaming.


I dont see how ANY one can make the assumption it will be slower, drivers will need to mature from 3rd party dev's - simple as that, sure out of the box when it first comes out it may be slower, but so was XP to 2000, why many benchs ran on windows 2000 on sites, but now they almost all use XP.
 
I'd be interested in comparing WinXP first release, unpatched, with the first round of xp drivers against Vista RC1 with the current beta drivers and see how performance is. This is almost an apples to oranges comparison. One is a 5 year old, well patched OS with mature drivers, vs a RC1 OS with beta drivers for the most part.

Give it a few months after release and a generation or two of driver maturation and I suspect we'll have a robust gaming OS. If not - dual boot...
 
^^^^ EXACTLY!

but of course some fucktards on the Inet need a reason to bash MS more and more, so anything they can.
 
Admittely I haven't installed Vista yet (although I'm considering it), I think a lot of my old games ran 10-15% slower in XP at first. In fact, from RC1 through the retail release of XP (nearly a year), I think I still got that 10% hit in XP. It wasn't until Nvidia started really putting their serious efforts into XP that I got my 98 performance back in most games. I ran betas of XP for a long time and I don't think the final version ended up really being that much different. It was a driver thing more than anything else. Right now everyone's on drivers that are designed to be up and running and little else.

Anyway - let's see what happens with DX10. That seems to be the real "what if" factor right now.
 
Frosteh said:
Yes probably, but the CPU is going to be spending far more time running background processes and you're going to have less RAM to deal with.

Having a CPU bottleneck is more frustrating, because there's not a lot of settings you can turn down or disable that help improve frame rate, and not only that but if you're falling to 30fps because of the CPU it also means your input is lagging (mouse movements) where as at least with lag from the video card you're only slowing down the frames drawn.
Click to expand...

theoretically yea, it would, how ever Vista is supposed to shut down everything you don't need to run the game keeping the extra overhead from new services to a minimal

also with dual core becoming the norm and growing exceedingly fast i can see the new overheard (if any exists while gaming) becoming moot very fast.

Dan_D said:
I don't know what he said. Windows 2000 was 40% slower for games when it came out than Windows 98SE was. At the end of Widnows 2000's "run" that number was reduced to around 11%. The OS simply had too much overhead and a really large foot print in memory. The only thing that changed between the 40% and 11% statistic was drivers. As they matured over the period of a couple of years and hardware vendors actually learned to do NT style drivers, the performance of that OS improved dramatically.
Click to expand...

I never liked Win2k for gaming, it eventually became good but was never on my thought process of ever making it to my gaming machine, either way don't you think if the new OS only sees a 10-15% drop in performance pre SP1 we can actually be ... thank full?
 
I ran a test on 2 identical machines back in college with a Windows vista beta release, march CTP i belive it was, using CS Source stress test. System specs were

Athlon 64 3500+
2Gb DDR 400 Ram
Geforce 6200
Some sata drive

The video card isnt much i know but these were the lab machines i had to work with, with identical settings the XP machine was faster by about 20fps, i brushed it off as being due to the early beta and all the debugging code that was running, mem usage was near 1GB, i havnt really tried vista since then but i sure hope the memusage goes down if it already hasnt in more recent versions.

Thats my experience with it anyway.
 
MrGuvernment said:
^^^^ EXACTLY!

but of course some fucktards on the Inet need a reason to bash MS more and more, so anything they can.
Click to expand...
Well then, it's a good thing Microsoft removed anything remotely innovative or progressive from their OS but kept all the DRM and gloss in place, otherwise we may have even had to *gasp* think about the reasons why Vista sucks.

Please sir, educate us "fucktards" on the 3 reasons why you will be purchasing Windows Vista. I'm on the edge of my seat.
 
MrGuvernment said:
I dont see how ANY one can make the assumption it will be slower...
Click to expand...
Find me a MS OS which is faster than its predecessor and I might reconsider.

I'd still be gaming from DOS if I had the option.
 
finalgt said:
Well then, it's a good thing Microsoft removed anything remotely innovative or progressive from their OS but kept all the DRM and gloss in place, otherwise we may have even had to *gasp* think about the reasons why Vista sucks.

Please sir, educate us "fucktards" on the 3 reasons why you will be purchasing Windows Vista. I'm on the edge of my seat.
Click to expand...
you will be purchasing it because it was released.

thats enough.
 
I'm pretty sure most of us will eventually be on it. You can hold out for a while, but in 3 years I'd be willing to be 90% or more of the people in this forum will be using it.
Right now it's all a matter of WHEN we'll be starting to use it!
 
merlin704 said:
I thought that has already happened? :confused: ;)
Click to expand...


LOL

Some answers are just too funny. Who knows. They have to print articles to keep ppl interested. Vista, unless you need to have newer software, is probbaly a good upgrade after a few months.
 
DX10 is the driving reason behind wanting to get vista, but also after using Beta 2 I'm impressed with the GUI, I know it's not exactly the be all and end all of an OS but the whole point of windows is to allow you to use a GUI instead of a CL OS so any innovation with the style and layout of the GUI is a welcomed one.

I also don't see why it shouldn't look nicer, there's no specific reason why we shouldn't have nicer looking GUI's as OS's progress.
 
finalgt said:
Well then, it's a good thing Microsoft removed anything remotely innovative or progressive from their OS but kept all the DRM and gloss in place, otherwise we may have even had to *gasp* think about the reasons why Vista sucks.

Please sir, educate us "fucktards" on the 3 reasons why you will be purchasing Windows Vista. I'm on the edge of my seat.
Click to expand...

I dont plan on purchasing Vista :)
 
Frosteh said:
DX10 is the driving reason behind wanting to get vista, but also after using Beta 2 I'm impressed with the GUI, I know it's not exactly the be all and end all of an OS but the whole point of windows is to allow you to use a GUI instead of a CL OS so any innovation with the style and layout of the GUI is a welcomed one.
Click to expand...

The Vista GUI has too many layers to get to something. Ever play MOO3? That's what the Vista GUI reminds me of.
 
Vista looks good, but the only game I've tried on it - Titan Quest takes about 30 seconds to get the PC back to speed after exiting, whereas with XP it takes about 15 seconds to get back to speed. It's also a bit slower ingame. I'd say 10-15% feels about right.

Not that big of a deal, I expect some hit because I've got 1GB of RAM and that's double XP's recommendation, but meets Vista's recommendation. The OS has more overhead with VISTA, so the 1GB starts being a limitation when closing a program. I was thinking if I had 2gb's of ram there would probaly be no difference in game exit times.
 
finalgt said:
Please sir, educate us "fucktards" on the 3 reasons why you will be purchasing Windows Vista. I'm on the edge of my seat.
Click to expand...
'cause MS says that it's better than WinXP ;)
And Annaconda is telling us how great it is, since it's now all shiny and stuff...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top