Nvidia and Vista, is the performance as bad as believed. Read here ;)

[Dark_Angel]

Well, I assums some of you have read this already, however I will post the link to any that have missed the comparisons.

FiringSquad Tests

Some games, like Oblivion aren't so bad, however Quake 4 players may as well not even consider Vista at the moment it seems.

A little food for thought however.

 

[Duff-Man]

From the anandtech performance review it seemed that the direct-x games took very little performance hit - some even running better on Vista. The OpenGL games (like quake4 and any other doom3 engine based game) seemed to utterly tank though.

I'm sure OGL performance will turn the corner with improved drivers.

 

[Lanz]

Lets hope it gets better soon for Quakewars, as that will be a massive game.

 

[Graeme43]

MS said that DX9 was supposed to be faster on Vista pffft

 

[Lanz]

XP is mature, it has mature drivers, the only thing Vista can do will be to match the performance, once that happens it'll be worthy of installing on your gaming PC. But to say it would be quicker in DX9, is just a blatent lie as it's all down to drivers, so if they could squeeze 10% more fps using a Vista driver, they could do the same with XP surely.

 

[bfar]

XP is mature, it has mature drivers, the only thing Vista can do will be to match the performance, once that happens it'll be worthy of installing on your gaming PC. But to say it would be quicker in DX9, is just a blatent lie as it's all down to drivers, so if they could squeeze 10% more fps using a Vista driver, they could do the same with XP surely.

Nah, the Vista drivers were a complete rewrite, so they're a bit patchworked and incomplete. They need to be optimised.

 

[Vogon]

Not sure if it was re-thought by MS, but I do remember something about them saying they would not support OGL in Vista ???

 

[Lanz]

Nah, the Vista drivers were a complete rewrite, so they're a bit patchworked and incomplete. They need to be optimised.

Yeah but what Im saying is, XP drivers are so mature now, they are probably getting 95% efficiency from the hardware - you cant make the hardware work faster than it's capable of, so it's probably impossible for Vista to make say a X1900 work quicker than in XP using the same image quality - As you can only get so much performance out of a given card. There can't be some magic vista driver than makes your GPU work quicker.

 

[Dark_Angel]

At the moment I am trying to decide if I should try Vista out for a while, especially since I havent tried it yet.

I will be getting an 8800 GTS soon, so really not sure if I want to suffer the performance drop in openGL

 

[Vogon]

As with most MS software, wait until its at SP1 at least IMO

 

[bfar]

Yeah but what Im saying is, XP drivers are so mature now, they are probably getting 95% efficiency from the hardware - you cant make the hardware work faster than it's capable of, so it's probably impossible for Vista to make say a X1900 work quicker than in XP using the same image quality - As you can only get so much performance out of a given card. There can't be some magic vista driver than makes your GPU work quicker.

Unless the driver path in Vista is quicker, which is quite likely.

 

[bfar]

At the moment I am trying to decide if I should try Vista out for a while, especially since I havent tried it yet.

I will be getting an 8800 GTS soon, so really not sure if I want to suffer the performance drop in openGL

My monitors only 1280*1024, so with the rig in my sig, it makes absolutely no odds. Everything still runs pretty much at 70fps+, even OpenGL titles, so I'll never really see much difference. Minimum fps are still very high, so its all working out quite well. My only problems are with the Nvidia drivers. Can't save control panel options without disabling UAC, and S3 resume is still broken for 8800's.

 

[tomanders91]

wow, a GTX at 1280x1024.