Vista Gaming Performance
- Thread starter toxic
- Start date
So far my gaming experience with Vista x86 is terrible. I've got a 8800GTX and am running the 100.30 beta drivers but it is awful. WoW - Crashes 50% of the time stating the graphics card/driver has stopped responding. When it does work it is noticably slower and more stuttery than under XP. HL2 - Runs miles slower than XP, but at least it doesn't crash.
Benchmarking software crashes so cannot run 3dmark05 or 06 at the minute to actually get a reference
I'm pretty sure that this is down to the drivers and I hope that Nvidia release some better and more stable ones soon because as things stand I cannot use Vista for gaming. It's no problem though coz I dual boot Vista and XP so until it's sorted I'll just keep on using XP for my games.
Benchmarking software crashes so cannot run 3dmark05 or 06 at the minute to actually get a reference
I'm pretty sure that this is down to the drivers and I hope that Nvidia release some better and more stable ones soon because as things stand I cannot use Vista for gaming. It's no problem though coz I dual boot Vista and XP so until it's sorted I'll just keep on using XP for my games.
Yeah, I'm a bit shocked at the state of drivers for vista, especially coming from such big names. ATI drivers are nice and stable, but have no opengl support, so no doom / quake etc. The nvidia ones don't crash for me, but performance isn't great.
2 days from retail release of vista, and creative don't even have a driver that works with my audigy card
2 days from retail release of vista, and creative don't even have a driver that works with my audigy card
Sleepery said:2 days from retail release of vista, and creative don't even have a driver that works with my audigy card
Im sure I read that Creative have released a Vista beta driver for the Audigy range in the last couple of days. Might wanna check it out.
Anyone got some links to some actual benchmark comparisons (or done them yourselves)? It's pretty frustrating as at the moment all I can seem to find are flowery anedotes rather than hard numbers.
I suppose there must be an NDA or something with the major sites but it would be good to see some proper XP-Vista comparisons from people using the same hardware and settings.
I suppose there must be an NDA or something with the major sites but it would be good to see some proper XP-Vista comparisons from people using the same hardware and settings.
HangTime said:
Just for you I booted XP (first time since installing vista a week or two ago) and ran the HL2:Lost Coast Stress Test and Trackmania United Bench. Graphics clocks are at default for the card (525/720) as I can't overclock in vista.. nTune doesn't seem to want to.
Running at 1440x900, Business 32Bit (MSDNAA)
Results (average framerates):
Lost Coast:
all settings on 'high'
---XP
4xAA, 16xAF: 105.39
NO AA, Bilinear: 139.8
---Vista
4xAA, 16xAF: 48.76
NO AA, Bilinear: 97.46
TMU:
all on 'high', postprocess fx, lightmaps, force bloom ticked
---XP
4xAA, 16xAF: 60.1
NO AA, Bilinear: 81.1
---Vista
4xAA, 16xAF: 45.7
NO AA, Bilinear: 54.9
maybe I should have layed those out differently...
funny enough the Lost Coast framerate I got with no AA / AF is exactly the same as the forceware version number.
I don't know if everyone has it this bad... lost coast is particularly shocking. TomsHardware did some benches on RC1 but not on either of these games.
Didn't feel like sitting through 3dmark again twice (don't have any xp ones with clocked processor and unclocked gfx) so I didn't, but having done one a couple of days ago the SM scores weren't that far off, about 50-100 different each at most.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 1,933
- Location
- 1.96 to OcUK on foot
i'll post what scores i have,
3dmark06
10593 (i was getting 10698 in 32bit xp)
sm2 4818
sm3 4811
cpu 2523
lost coast @ 1680x 1050 everything max'd 115 fps
(xp 1600x1200 = 165fps)
running vista x64 ultimate
e6700 @ 3.0ghz (now at 3.1 but not retested yet)
8800gtx at stock with 100.30 drivers
gigabyte ds4
corsair xms2 6400 @ 5-5-5-15
i'm happy with that as i thought i's dake a severe hit running x64 and having the as yet unofficial drivers!
3dmark06
10593 (i was getting 10698 in 32bit xp)
sm2 4818
sm3 4811
cpu 2523
lost coast @ 1680x 1050 everything max'd 115 fps
(xp 1600x1200 = 165fps)
running vista x64 ultimate
e6700 @ 3.0ghz (now at 3.1 but not retested yet)
8800gtx at stock with 100.30 drivers
gigabyte ds4
corsair xms2 6400 @ 5-5-5-15
i'm happy with that as i thought i's dake a severe hit running x64 and having the as yet unofficial drivers!
mark_t50 said:So far my gaming experience with Vista x86 is terrible. I've got a 8800GTX and am running the 100.30 beta drivers but it is awful. WoW - Crashes 50% of the time stating the graphics card/driver has stopped responding. When it does work it is noticably slower and more stuttery than under XP. HL2 - Runs miles slower than XP, but at least it doesn't crash.
Benchmarking software crashes so cannot run 3dmark05 or 06 at the minute to actually get a reference
I'm pretty sure that this is down to the drivers and I hope that Nvidia release some better and more stable ones soon because as things stand I cannot use Vista for gaming. It's no problem though coz I dual boot Vista and XP so until it's sorted I'll just keep on using XP for my games.
Identical situation for me with my X1950XT - it's definitely because there are no official drivers yet.
To the people in this thread complaining about performance, remember you got your copies BEFORE release date.
Both nVidia and ATi are working their drivers towards a release date of the 30th.
If you get your copy early, there will be drawbacks.
Both nVidia and ATi are working their drivers towards a release date of the 30th.
If you get your copy early, there will be drawbacks.
I just reread my first post in this thread and realised it made me sound like one of those MS haters that we have at work. Just to clarify, I'm not having a go about the performance of Vista. I fully understand that this is really early days and I expected these problems. I'm happy with Vista and expect that over the coming months drivers will mature to the point where gaming performance is equal to that of XP. I actually managed to run a few benchmarks on my dual boot system and they don't reflect as badly as I would have thought. Before running the benchmarks I would have sworn blind that the framerates would only be half of what I'm getting in XP, that doesn't seem to be the case. Driver stability is another issue, I'm getting a lot of crashes in games which I'm sure is simply bugged drivers.
System: AMD x2 4400, Nvidia 8800GTX, ASUS A8N-SLi Premium, 2gb Corsair XMS, Audigy 2zs, 2x74gb Raptors RAID0, 2x160gb WD RAID0, DELL2407.
Drivers used - XP: Official Nvidia 97.92 Vista: Guru3d Beta 100.30
3DMark05 (cannot get 06 to run on Vista)
XP - 12515
Vista - 11932
CS:S (1920x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF, Max detail)
XP - 181.11
Vista - 169.23
FEAR (1600x1200, 4xAA, Max detail)
XP - Min: 35, Avg: 95, Max: 227
Vista Min: 22, Avg: 77, Max: 177
Doom3 (1600x1200, 4xAA, Ultra Quality)
XP - 111.4
Vista - 85.6
WoW (1920x1200, 4xAA, Full AF, Max detail. Using Fraps to record a quick run across same map on same server)
XP - 72.14
Vista - 43.10
I think that the figures aren't that bad and I've come to the conclussion that the reason I thought it felt worse is that at the moment in Vista the games initially chug along a bit more than in XP which makes them feel worse. You know how sometimes when you go to a new level in a game or look at something for the first time and it stutters a bit while it loads it, this side of things seems worse in Vista. Also the drops to lower framerates seem to occur more frequently and to lower FPS in Vista. Nothing to drastic and I'm sure this is going to improve with each driver release.
System: AMD x2 4400, Nvidia 8800GTX, ASUS A8N-SLi Premium, 2gb Corsair XMS, Audigy 2zs, 2x74gb Raptors RAID0, 2x160gb WD RAID0, DELL2407.
Drivers used - XP: Official Nvidia 97.92 Vista: Guru3d Beta 100.30
3DMark05 (cannot get 06 to run on Vista)
XP - 12515
Vista - 11932
CS:S (1920x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF, Max detail)
XP - 181.11
Vista - 169.23
FEAR (1600x1200, 4xAA, Max detail)
XP - Min: 35, Avg: 95, Max: 227
Vista Min: 22, Avg: 77, Max: 177
Doom3 (1600x1200, 4xAA, Ultra Quality)
XP - 111.4
Vista - 85.6
WoW (1920x1200, 4xAA, Full AF, Max detail. Using Fraps to record a quick run across same map on same server)
XP - 72.14
Vista - 43.10
I think that the figures aren't that bad and I've come to the conclussion that the reason I thought it felt worse is that at the moment in Vista the games initially chug along a bit more than in XP which makes them feel worse. You know how sometimes when you go to a new level in a game or look at something for the first time and it stutters a bit while it loads it, this side of things seems worse in Vista. Also the drops to lower framerates seem to occur more frequently and to lower FPS in Vista. Nothing to drastic and I'm sure this is going to improve with each driver release.
Funnily enough, I seem to notice disk grinding a lot more in Vista, especially when the OS starts and when a game / level starts up.
I've ordered a 2gb usb drive that's supposed to work with the readyboost feature in vista, should be interesting to see if it makes a difference.
I've ordered a 2gb usb drive that's supposed to work with the readyboost feature in vista, should be interesting to see if it makes a difference.
mark t50
thanks for the comparison and the time you put in...that exactly what I was looking for. Hopefully the next driver release will improve things for NVidia anyway...and bribe me to try Vista. Until then...Ill postpone the change as a lot of games I play have major issues.
Cheers
thanks for the comparison and the time you put in...that exactly what I was looking for. Hopefully the next driver release will improve things for NVidia anyway...and bribe me to try Vista. Until then...Ill postpone the change as a lot of games I play have major issues.
Cheers
