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

ugh, more bullshit from Fuad. I game on my Vista setup and it's fine. (evcept Doom3, but it's not a speed issue.) I've played FEAR, SimCity 4, and WoW with no slow down at all.
 
Yeah, I've already experienced this.

...and that's why I still have XP installed, as well. :)
XP for gaming, Vista for everything else. :p
 
The18thLetter said:
Yeah, I've already experienced this.

...and that's why I still have XP installed, as well. :)
XP for gaming, Vista for everything else. :p
Click to expand...
why are people idiots?


YOU ARE USING A BETA OS WITH BETA DRIVERS. IT IS DESIGNED TO RUN, NOT TO RUN FAST. YOU ARE LUCKY YOU CAN EVEN PLAY GAMES ON IT.
 
wasn't he saying that gaming on winXP would be up to 40% slower then win98SE?

oh wait ... 10-15% slower must be horrible, seeing as our current CPU/VC's completely own DX9 games that any slow down won't be noticed .. and with D3D10 support around the corner when vista is released we'll see even bigger increases ...

how is this article anything but piss in the wind?
 
Trimlock said:
wasn't he saying that gaming on winXP would be up to 40% slower then win98SE?
Click to expand...
Some of my games were ~30% slower under XP.

...our current CPU/VC's completely own DX9 games...
Click to expand...
Tell that to the people with $1200 worth of video card in SLI who still can't get a steady 60fps in Oblivion...

...and with D3D10 support around the corner when vista is released we'll see even bigger increases
Click to expand...
Given that DX10 cards are a radical departure from DX9 in terms of architecture, there's no guarantee that you'll see huge performance gains in DX9 games. May well be the case, but until you've got one in your hands you can't know for sure.
 
My new girlfried came with 30% more breast.

But that info is about as usefull as these other percentage statistics being quoted.
 
Martyr said:
why are people idiots?


YOU ARE USING A BETA OS WITH BETA DRIVERS. IT IS DESIGNED TO RUN, NOT TO RUN FAST. YOU ARE LUCKY YOU CAN EVEN PLAY GAMES ON IT.
Click to expand...
Ok, and?
Even with the full release, Aero 3D and all that shit is still going to bog down performance even a little bit.
Besides, I prefer having XP as my PC gaming platform. Is that a problem?
Smh.
 
Rich Tate said:
Exactly, remember guys it's the Inq talking. Tomorrow they might tell you baby aliens shot out of my ass.
Click to expand...


I thought that has already happened? :confused: ;)
 
Rich Tate said:
Exactly, remember guys it's the Inq talking. Tomorrow they might tell you baby aliens shot out of my ass.
Click to expand...
Steak Gorditas always sound like such a great idea, until 3 hours later...a phenomenon I like to refer to as "Montezuma's Revenge."

btw, how exactly did Fuad Abazovic get a job? I can accept that not every smart guy has the best grammar in the world, but I've seen 15 year olds in the video card forum form more coherent thoughts than Fuad. There's absolutely no credibility either, so where do these guys get their userbase from?
 
It does not surprise me. Games ran slower when DX9 was installed, they also ran slower under Win 2000/XP than Win 98.
 
then i guess when vista comes along for me i'll either have to suffer a drop of a few frames, or bump my rig's speed up 10 to 15 percent.

:shrug: it would be un[H]ard to not consider the proposed solution if that's truly how its gonna be.
 
Isn't direct x 9 emulated in vista? and thus, could be a poor beta version emulation? causing these "said" performance issues?


I do not have vista. So i can only speculate. But that's what it sounds like to me.

And i was under the impression that when games were engaged that aero automatically turned off? correct me if i'm wrong.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
Some of my games were ~30% slower under XP.
Click to expand...

thats funny, i saw maybe a 10% difference at most, nothing was drastic and i prefered XP over win98SE so i stayed with it, if its only 10-15% slower then XP, but proves to be a bad ass OS i think thats enough to switch over.


Tell that to the people with $1200 worth of video card in SLI who still can't get a steady 60fps in Oblivion...
Click to expand...

what world do you live in? a $250 video card from either ATI or Nvidia will give you bad ass frames with tons of eye candy turned on as is, hell you can take the most expensive set up (2x7950GX2's) and still not even get up to $1200, not to mention mentioning a shotty coded game such as oblivion is more then playable on todays midrange cards with lots of selections, maybe not maxed out but i'd say current video cards do smash any DX9 game out right now


Given that DX10 cards are a radical departure from DX9 in terms of architecture, there's no guarantee that you'll see huge performance gains in DX9 games. May well be the case, but until you've got one in your hands you can't know for sure.
Click to expand...

considering since DX7's been released every generation to support the next step in the DX series has seen increadible increases in previous versions of DX, I'd say its safe to assume this trend will continue.

Paladin238 said:
Isn't direct x 9 emulated in vista? and thus, could be a poor beta version emulation? causing these "said" performance issues?


I do not have vista. So i can only speculate. But that's what it sounds like to me.

And i was under the impression that when games were engaged that aero automatically turned off? correct me if i'm wrong.
Click to expand...

not emulated, but you have to figure that we are just now getting our first WHQL drivers for this OS so there has to be some bugs and conflicts in there somewhere that could cause this, not to mention it is still in BETA, and aeroglass does turn off when a 3d app goes up, but who knows whats still going on in the background
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
Tell that to the people with $1200 worth of video card in SLI who still can't get a steady 60fps in Oblivion...
Click to expand...
That's too damn true....
:-(
 
This is wrong. First even the BETA, with beta drivers, isn't that bad. Second the whole deal about the Windows Vista API is that it will disable the desktop and back ground things for the game way better than XP. The desktop won't be loaded at all. This guy has no clue what he's talking about.
 
Trimlock said:
considering since DX7's been released every generation to support the next step in the DX series has seen increadible increases in previous versions of DX, I'd say its safe to assume this trend will continue.
Click to expand...
It is not sofe too assume anything about DX10.
DX7-DX9 were all upgrades too the previous version.
DX10 is completely new from the ground up.
 
Kadarom Douhrek said:
It is not sofe too assume anything about DX10.
DX7-DX9 were all upgrades too the previous version.
DX10 is completely new from the ground up.
Click to expand...

DirectX just tends to layer the new on top of the old, it's how they maintain backwards compatability.

DX7 to DX8 was probably a bigger leap forward in how things are handled than DX9.0c to DX10 will be.
The entire DirectDraw interface was dropped from DX8, any and all 2d work needed to be handled through D3DX::Sprite or similar.
Couple that with the first indroduction of vertex and pixel shaders in DX8, and you really have two fundemental chnages to how DirectX works with graphics.
But your DX7 games continued to work fine - because both DirectDraw and D3D7 continued to sit there in the DX API untouched.

You can still run MDX1.1 apps under the XNA libraries availble now in beta, and XNA is intended to target both the Xbox360 and PC / Vista market. Retaining good backwards compatability (ie working, and fast) is essential to get people moved over to DX10 / Vista.

I would be very surprised to find that DX8 or DX9 was not fully implemented in DX10 for legacy support.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
This is wrong. First even the BETA, with beta drivers, isn't that bad. Second the whole deal about the Windows Vista API is that it will disable the desktop and back ground things for the game way better than XP. The desktop won't be loaded at all. This guy has no clue what he's talking about.
Click to expand...
QFT.

When you launch a game in Vista, you'll notice Aero is the first thing to get turned off.
 
Hate to break it to you kids, but The inq might not be too far off.. Considering they are this close to release, it's not looking too well:
Anand's test of RC1

Granted that's RC1, but how much tweaking is left this close to release? We shall see..
 
Barnaby said:
Hate to break it to you kids, but The inq might not be too far off.. Considering they are this close to release, it's not looking too well:
Anand's test of RC1

Granted that's RC1, but how much tweaking is left this close to release? We shall see..
Click to expand...

Well I noticed a huge performance gain between 5600 and 5728. And then a slight gain from 5728 to 5744. Also there's debugging code still running in there. When Vista goes gold it won't have a lot of that in there, so it'll be faster yet.
 
Barnaby said:
Hate to break it to you kids, but The inq might not be too far off.. Considering they are this close to release, it's not looking too well:
Anand's test of RC1

Granted that's RC1, but how much tweaking is left this close to release? We shall see..
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is up to Vista NVida/ATI GFX drivers to improve.
 
Yeah games are going to run slower, the OS will have greater overhead than XP, that's just the way it goes, more features, more code, more CPU time spent.

But then again I disable roughly 2/3rds of all XP Pro (SP2) services because I simply don't need/want them, when vista is out its' going to have a massive list of services you can simply disable and save some CPU power and RAM.

I think the biggest hit will be CPU and RAM, vista on a 2Gb machine is chomping away over 500Mb on a default boot and that was just Beta 2, a lot of that was aero (about 125mb IIRC)

But remember that vista disables all its visual components when a 3d App starts up which means a lot of that memory is free'd up, also that DX10 has had a complete re-make and a lot of the technology has been optimised to run better, this breaks the trend in driectX being backwards compatible however also breaks the trend of DirectX building all its new features on a system of older features which is always slower, starting from scratch is always going to be faster/more efficient.

I doubt that we'll ever run games faster on Vista than on XP, however thats really to be expected, however I think the gap between frame rate between vista and XP will be quite small when you disable all the vista rubbish.
 
Question. Since Vista disables all its visual components when running a game, what about when I alt-tab from game to desktop? Does it take a while to load that stuff up (say... compare to xp identical systems)? How is it you Vista Beta'ers?

During games, I alt tab when I'm dead and waiting.
 
FreiDOg said:
DirectX just tends to layer the new on top of the old, it's how they maintain backwards compatability.

DX7 to DX8 was probably a bigger leap forward in how things are handled than DX9.0c to DX10 will be.
Click to expand...
DX10 aims to be a far bigger leap forward than any previous iteration, and it's achieving this precisely by not maintaining backwards compatability.

Which is why I raised this as a possible performance issue in the first place. When you're running software on an incompatible piece of hardware, you typically do it through some sort of virtual machine. The performance hit may not be as crippling as it is in some other cases (console emulators, for example), but I'm not expecting huge gains over current-gen cards in DX9 apps.
 
Theres no emulation being done to acheive backwards compatability, they have the fall back (9Ex or 9.0L) which also takes advantage of the decreased overheard that vista will bring

so if your card is DX9 (FX+, R300+) it will be faster under this OS

not to mention you are talking about the API side, the hardware side will always have the DX9 dedicated portions, theres no point to have a GPU dedicated to only D3D10 functions

edit: I'd like to emphasize on the fact that this generation would be the safest to assume that previous support for DX would be greater seeing that alot of performance is going to come from windows handling it alot better and doesn't need to rely so much on the driver/GPU handling. If you want to talk about DX10 performance you have to wait, but I'll still say these new cards are going to ROMP DX9 games like no other, thus negating this 10-15% negativity
 
UnlimitedMP said:
Question. Since Vista disables all its visual components when running a game, what about when I alt-tab from game to desktop? Does it take a while to load that stuff up (say... compare to xp identical systems)? How is it you Vista Beta'ers?

During games, I alt tab when I'm dead and waiting.
Click to expand...

Although I've not personally tried it I head that alt+tab times are waaay up, not supprising really but until I've tested it on the final release I can't really say.

Either way a lot of RAM is going to help no ends, if your having to swap stuff in and out of RAM it's killer for games, as games like BF2 use upto 1.5Gb and Vista uses 500mb i'd suggest for getting decent performance you have at least 2Gb. When vista is released I'll grab a copy and boost my 2Gb to 4Gb I think, that should be more than enough for DX10 games like Crysis and other newer games like UT2007

so if your card is DX9 (FX+, R300+) it will be faster under this OS
Click to expand...

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.
 
I'm going to chime in and blame the drivers. The NVidia drivers I was using for Vista were pretty bad. They'd cause desktop corruption on my secondary monitor when returning from D3D games or screensavers, and any Source games ran as slow as hell with AA turned on. When I installed 5728, I just stayed with the MS drivers and didn't game because the desktop corruption problem wasn't there for MS's driver.

Oh, and Vista is great about scaling its RAM usage. On my desktop, with a typical amount of programs open (Trillian, WMP, Opera, Outlook, etc) it was using a whopping 2 GB of RAM. On my notebook, which only has 1 GB of RAM, it was using a mere 512 MB with a very similar load. And, if you look around the forums, most people who have 2 GB of RAM are saying things like "OMG it uses 1 GB of RAM!!!" Notice that in all three cases, Vista was using just about 50% of the memory.

With Vista's big new focus on gaming, you can bet that a lot of that RAM gets reallocated the second you open any game that's more intensive than Quake III.
 
to the OP: bologna.

they are testing RC1 vs. release. There will be major differences still. Even RC2 is much different from RC1. Plus drivers are likely beta.

Mikeblas had an excellent point in the programming forum the other day: Doing any type of performance analysis on a non-release build is a fruitless effort. Before you can compile and run the software as release, there is no point in trying to optimize anything.

On a similar note: people are trying to analyze performance on a beta OS with beta drivers. Am I the only one who sees that this a pretty pointless effort? Why don't you wait for Vista to be in retail, look at what your favorite review site says about whether performance is better/ worse and then make up your mind? It's like saying "omfg the alpha silicon of [insert your favorite overhyped processor here] performs 10% slower than the tweaked and released current performance leader."
 
Trimlock said:
wasn't he saying that gaming on winXP would be up to 40% slower then win98SE?
Click to expand...

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.

Windows XP was about the same when it was launched as Windows 9x for game performance. It lagged behind a bit in some titles, and excelled in others. XP has done nothing but improve as the years have gone by.

Vista will be the same. As the driver development improves, and as the OS gets patched and as time goes by, Vista will eventually out peform XP.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Martyr said:
why are people idiots?


YOU ARE USING A BETA OS WITH BETA DRIVERS. IT IS DESIGNED TO RUN, NOT TO RUN FAST. YOU ARE LUCKY YOU CAN EVEN PLAY GAMES ON IT.
Click to expand...

Considering Vista is at RC2 and only a few months away from retail release it better damn well be able to play games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top