So I borked my Vista install yesterday when messing around, which is something I was going to stop doing. Anyway, figured I would take the opportunity to re-install XP seeing as I have been using Vista over a year now, I think, and was curious to see how it now compared to Vista for gaming.
After finally getting everything installed, the only game I had time to install was Crysis. That was the game I was most curious about anyway.
There is a massive difference. On Vista, to get it playable at the same level it was running alst night (1680x1050, everything high, DX9) I have to OC my CPU to 3.8GHz, and OC the 4870 to 790/1100. On XP with everything on stock, it was smooth as silk and don't think it dropped under 30 fps int he time I was going through it, and was usually hanging around 40 fps.
I was under the impression that Vista and XP were now on an equal footing gaming wise, but obviously not.
Now I don't know whether to keep running XP, or to re-install Vista. I do prefer the look and feel of Vista, but I can't help but wonder how much slower it is on other things still - I know network copying is still slow.
It might only be this one game that shows any real benefits using XP, but still I do like to play through the jungle scenes of the game, but get really annoyed at the dodgy performance under Vista, which then tempts me to start playing with OCing, or I just leave the game, which is silly after having paid good money for it.
Anyone else done a recent compare of XP/Vista, and did you notice a fair difference between the two for gaming? I only ask because, as I said, I thought the performance of the two was on par, so perhaps there was just something wrong with my Vista install.
After finally getting everything installed, the only game I had time to install was Crysis. That was the game I was most curious about anyway.
There is a massive difference. On Vista, to get it playable at the same level it was running alst night (1680x1050, everything high, DX9) I have to OC my CPU to 3.8GHz, and OC the 4870 to 790/1100. On XP with everything on stock, it was smooth as silk and don't think it dropped under 30 fps int he time I was going through it, and was usually hanging around 40 fps.
I was under the impression that Vista and XP were now on an equal footing gaming wise, but obviously not.
Now I don't know whether to keep running XP, or to re-install Vista. I do prefer the look and feel of Vista, but I can't help but wonder how much slower it is on other things still - I know network copying is still slow.
It might only be this one game that shows any real benefits using XP, but still I do like to play through the jungle scenes of the game, but get really annoyed at the dodgy performance under Vista, which then tempts me to start playing with OCing, or I just leave the game, which is silly after having paid good money for it.
Anyone else done a recent compare of XP/Vista, and did you notice a fair difference between the two for gaming? I only ask because, as I said, I thought the performance of the two was on par, so perhaps there was just something wrong with my Vista install.
