Pages: 1

 

2007-05-07 22:16:46
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7071|132 and Bush

The entire article.

Seldom has the rumor mill turned faster than when gamers talk about gaming in Vista. Some folks are staying away from the new OS simply because they feel it doesn’t game well. We set out to put some hard numbers on those claims.

https://i17.tinypic.com/6crdf84.jpg

https://i15.tinypic.com/61x7n5y.jpg
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-05-07 22:22:22
tthf
Member 5307
+210|7228|06-01
i'm a vista user. i suck just the same when i was using xp...
2007-05-07 22:22:50
{M5}Sniper3
Typical white person.
+389|7230|San Antonio, Texas
Oh yeah! I'm getting Vista for sure now! Look at those numbers for WoW on a 8800 GTS!
2007-05-07 22:23:49
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6993|...

interesting ... wow is some how unaffected
2007-05-07 23:00:04
IonYou
Member
+3|7104
When windows 95/98 came out with lower performance on the same hardware than win3.1 I said, well going from 16bit to 32bit OS has its advantages I can expect lower performance cause the OS is doing more.

Then when winxp replaced win 98 and lower performance on the same hardware again, but the memory management was better and XP was a lot stabler. You didn't have to reinstall the OS every 6 months like you did 98. You also didn't have to reboot every so often. So the lower performance was offset by a stabler platform so that was worth it.

But now with Windows Vista, what are we getting to make this lower perfomance worht it? Aero glass? meh. DIrectx10? Ok that's nice but why not patch XP to DX10 instead of a new OS altogether? It's not like it's never been done before. DX8 --> DX9 anyone?

Methinks this is just a ploy for MS to make more money of the lemming sheep that buy their products on opening day "just cause". (just cause its new, just cause their friends are..etc.)
2007-05-08 03:28:36
Zimmer
Un Moderador
+1,688|7226|Scotland

That is with the whole version of vista running. Not tweaked.
In the magasine right infront of me they tested Vista tweaked for performance ( nothing major ) and XP.
They either turned out the same or Vista was slightly better on average.

They tested that unfairly, Vista has many more things running at once, not as visible apps, compared to XP.
2007-05-08 05:03:09
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7052|SE London

They used FRAPS to get the FPS. That says it all if you ask me.
2007-05-08 05:06:18
motherdear
Member
+25|7122|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)
the advantage of the new os is that you ca use DX10 and dual core processer which wasn't possible in xp. just wait till the dx10 games and dual core games come out, first then will vista truly show it's might.
2007-05-08 05:15:45
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7052|SE London

motherdear wrote:

the advantage of the new os is that you ca use DX10 and dual core processer which wasn't possible in xp. just wait till the dx10 games and dual core games come out, first then will vista truly show it's might.
XP takes advantage of dual core CPUs. The real multicore processing benefit in Vista should be for discreet multicore CPUs, like the FX-74, for example.

There should be noticable benefits of running 64-bit Vista for gaming though. As for DX10 stuff, we'll just have to wait and see, it's mostly speculation at this point.
2007-05-08 07:24:11
Zimmer
Un Moderador
+1,688|7226|Scotland

Bertster7 wrote:

motherdear wrote:

the advantage of the new os is that you ca use DX10 and dual core processer which wasn't possible in xp. just wait till the dx10 games and dual core games come out, first then will vista truly show it's might.
XP takes advantage of dual core CPUs. The real multicore processing benefit in Vista should be for discreet multicore CPUs, like the FX-74, for example.

There should be noticable benefits of running 64-bit Vista for gaming though. As for DX10 stuff, we'll just have to wait and see, it's mostly speculation at this point.
Wrong. 64-bit vista compared to 32-bit may be different. But not for games. It has been tested, and frankly, it is one 1-2 FPS lower than 32-bit.
64-bit only shows its might for specially made 64-bit programs, or ones that support it. For example, Paint.net supports 64-bit, and it is approx. 10 times faster while running Vista 64-bit. But Adobe CS3 currently does not have a 64-bit version, so it is not as noticeable, although there is a huge difference in saving time and opening time. 64-bit vista will only shows its true might once 99% of the population have 64-bit processors and all programs are made 64-bit compatible. Then the true difference will appear.
2007-05-08 07:32:43
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7186

Zimmer wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

motherdear wrote:

the advantage of the new os is that you ca use DX10 and dual core processer which wasn't possible in xp. just wait till the dx10 games and dual core games come out, first then will vista truly show it's might.
XP takes advantage of dual core CPUs. The real multicore processing benefit in Vista should be for discreet multicore CPUs, like the FX-74, for example.

There should be noticable benefits of running 64-bit Vista for gaming though. As for DX10 stuff, we'll just have to wait and see, it's mostly speculation at this point.
Wrong. 64-bit vista compared to 32-bit may be different. But not for games. It has been tested, and frankly, it is one 1-2 FPS lower than 32-bit.
64-bit only shows its might for specially made 64-bit programs, or ones that support it. For example, Paint.net supports 64-bit, and it is approx. 10 times faster while running Vista 64-bit. But Adobe CS3 currently does not have a 64-bit version, so it is not as noticeable, although there is a huge difference in saving time and opening time. 64-bit vista will only shows its true might once 99% of the population have 64-bit processors and all programs are made 64-bit compatible. Then the true difference will appear.
Future proofing by buying 64bit vista...
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2007-05-08 08:21:46
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7052|SE London

Zimmer wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

motherdear wrote:

the advantage of the new os is that you ca use DX10 and dual core processer which wasn't possible in xp. just wait till the dx10 games and dual core games come out, first then will vista truly show it's might.
XP takes advantage of dual core CPUs. The real multicore processing benefit in Vista should be for discreet multicore CPUs, like the FX-74, for example.

There should be noticable benefits of running 64-bit Vista for gaming though. As for DX10 stuff, we'll just have to wait and see, it's mostly speculation at this point.
Wrong. 64-bit vista compared to 32-bit may be different. But not for games. It has been tested, and frankly, it is one 1-2 FPS lower than 32-bit.
64-bit only shows its might for specially made 64-bit programs, or ones that support it. For example, Paint.net supports 64-bit, and it is approx. 10 times faster while running Vista 64-bit. But Adobe CS3 currently does not have a 64-bit version, so it is not as noticeable, although there is a huge difference in saving time and opening time. 64-bit vista will only shows its true might once 99% of the population have 64-bit processors and all programs are made 64-bit compatible. Then the true difference will appear.
Which is exactly what I was talking about. New games like Crysis are set to take advantage of 64-bit extensions and according to Crytek it runs 10-15% faster on 64-bit platforms. That is where we're going to see benefits that we can be sure of. DX10 speed improvements are less certain, since there is no current basis for comparison.

There are a few games that do take advantage of 64-bit extensions at the moment but not many. It is the next generation of games that will really show the benefits.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard