Is XP still better than Vista for gaming ?

Amnesia · 27 Jul 2009 at 14:14

Mattus said:
They all refer to the same tests as before, which you don't know because you didn't read them. What's the point discussing something you haven't read?

7 is amazingly streamlined. At idle, my CPU usage in 7 RC is a flat line at 0%, which I never saw in Vista. The Windows processes that use 150MB RAM in Vista seem to use 50 in 7. Bewilders me how anyone could choose XP over 7.

no they are not the same tests

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/601470/vista-vs-xp-performance-tested-and-vista-is-slower/page2.html

how is that the same ?

and i never chose xp over win7 ? i hadnt even mentioned windows 7

i said that before sp1 that vista was clearly slower than xp which i had tested.
you have been arguing that it wasnt the case.

Mattus · 27 Jul 2009 at 14:21

Amnesia said:
no they are not the same tests

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/601470/vista-vs-xp-performance-tested-and-vista-is-slower/page2.html

how is that the same ?

That's a report from pre-SP1 Vista, which shows that even then it was about 5% slower in 3DMark, and that when they loaded an actual game - FEAR - there was barely any difference.

and i never chose xp over win7 ? i hadnt even mentioned windows 7

i said that before sp1 that vista was clearly slower than xp which i had tested.
you have been arguing that it wasnt the case.

I was addressing jigger and OspreyO's points about 7 - should probably have made that clearer

jigger · 27 Jul 2009 at 14:24

Mattus said:
Bewilders me how anyone could choose XP over 7.

If its slower then its a down grade. If you are happy to pay for a down grade then thats just plain silly.

I cant see why you are amazed at a idle CPU usage of %0

If you look at the comparisons between SP1 and SP2 for Vista the performance is about the same.

Mattus · 27 Jul 2009 at 14:30

jigger said:
If it slower then its a down grade. I you are happy to pay for a down grade then thats just plain silly.

I wouldn't say it's noticeably slower. I'd say that the OS uses more CPU and RAM than XP does. That's the price you pay for a much better user interface, indexing, prefetching, much better security, miles better file management , better audio stack...

If you're rather have slightly lower CPU usage than all that, then I guess you're welcome to stay in the dark ages

Amnesia · 27 Jul 2009 at 14:38

Mattus said:
That's a report from pre-SP1 Vista

thats what i said all along...before sp1 vista was clearly slower than xp

jigger · 27 Jul 2009 at 14:39

We are not getting anywhere now as you are getting a little abrasive and disregarding anything that could show your favourite in a bad light.

Mattus · 27 Jul 2009 at 14:44

Amnesia said:
thats what i said all along...before sp1 vista was clearly slower than xp

Well, you didn't really... most of your posts sound like they refer to Vista in general, and since nobody would use Vista now without SP1, I assumed we were talking about SP1 as pre-SP1 isn't relevant!

jigger said:
We are not getting anywhere now as you are getting a little abrasive and disregarding anything that could show your favourite in a bad light.

If that's directed at me, show me one thing I've disregarded and I'll regard it

Amnesia · 27 Jul 2009 at 14:57

Amnesia said:
thats what i said all along...before sp1 vista was clearly slower than xp

Mattus said:
Well, you didn't really... most of your posts sound like they refer to Vista in general, and since nobody would use Vista now without SP1, I assumed we were talking about SP1 as pre-SP1 isn't relevant!

oh ..i thought this is where it started and ive clearly said before sp1

Mattus said:
3fps is a number that I pulled out of the air. It actually exaggerates the problem a bit - this review shows that the difference is normally less than 3fps. And bear in mind that it's from 2007 - the gap has got narrower still since then.

Amnesia said:
no offense to you but i wouldnt always go by reports from websites but i'd rather ask ppl on forums.

now im not sure but is that before sp1 for vista ?
i remember testing 2 games with mp timedemos before sp1 for vista...counter strike source and rtcw but there was over 100fps difference in both of them compared to vista.
i do remember posting the results in the windows forums too.

ive also stated in this thread that vista's(referring to after sp1) performance is pretty close to xp...so why the confusion

Mattus · 27 Jul 2009 at 15:04

Mm, crossed wires. Makes this debate pretty pointless

No point talking about Vista pre-SP1 unless you're comparing with XP pre-SP1, neither of which anyone uses!

So would you agree that Vista is now not noticeably worse than XP for gaming, assuming you're running Vista SP1 or SP2?

Amnesia · 27 Jul 2009 at 15:10

not in terms of fps it isnt ...they are about the same or close enough on most games.
but its still not as responsive...it probably isnt very noticable unless u play fps games online and take them seriously though.

kylew · 27 Jul 2009 at 19:52

Amnesia said:
should i just laugh at you then ?

Just give me a few minutes to finish laughing at you. Then you can inform me what you think you need to laugh at me about.

Amnesia · 27 Jul 2009 at 20:21

kylew said:
Just give me a few minutes to finish laughing at you. Then you can inform me what you think you need to laugh at me about.

wait not yet....i cant tell if my video drivers are installed

OspreyO · 27 Jul 2009 at 22:59

Mattus said:
....I was addressing jigger and OspreyO's points about 7 - should probably have made that clearer

I can't even remember what I said anymore, so throw us a bone of a quote if you drop comments like that.

Nelly · 27 Jul 2009 at 23:01

I've been using Vista 64bit Ultimate since Christmas, all my games work fine, theirs a couple of bugs like right clicking the mouse button on desktop is abit slow etc.

I'm moving to Windows 7 when its come out got it on pre-order.

Dont know why people are debating this, if people want to stay in the stone age let them keep running Windows XP SP2 or 3 who really cares their loss probally because they got crap systems anyway but Windows 7 sorts that.

When more games start using 4GB of ram for optimum performance they wont have much choice but to go Windows 7, especially when you have 1GB+ cards eating the memory in XP.

uv · 27 Jul 2009 at 23:17

Amnesia said:
not in terms of fps it isnt ...they are about the same or close enough on most games.
but its still not as responsive...it probably isnt very noticable unless u play fps games online and take them seriously though.

In what way is it "not as responsive"?

Are you trying to infer that Vista has an input lag, or a network lag?

In my own personal experience, Vista has no input lag - and the networking is considerably better

Amnesia · 27 Jul 2009 at 23:54

*edit* nm

jigger · 28 Jul 2009 at 22:32

Was that a Microsoft Bot !

Edit: Bong! Bot alert.

Diakatarnis · 28 Jul 2009 at 23:23

eeep it knows my name :s its going to come get me if i dont pre order the software now :S

DavyBoy · 28 Jul 2009 at 23:48

I used to think XP was better than Vista, as I tried Vista not long after it was released, but it didn't run very well on my old Athlon system, so I went straight back to XP..

But I gave Vista x64 another shot a short while later, and I have never looked back..

I have still to give Win7 a try, but I am still a bit unsure about it.

Caracus2k · 29 Jul 2009 at 00:20

Got to love all the Vista haters gushing over Win7 when we all know its far less of a jump from Vista - Win7 than was XP - Vista. Used Vista from launch...few teething problems as expected but mostly great. Running Win 7 at the moment and the fact that I have not had any problems with hardware/ software shows how similiar it is in many ways to Vista. Still cant undertsand how pre Win 7 RC though people still slated Vista so much. XP 64 never had the support or the take up and if you have a half decent rig your wasting your time now with a 32 bit OS