Vista vs XP

-)G(-Sawyer

-)G(-Sawyer

-)G(-Sawyer

Associate
Joined
4 Mar 2007
Posts
185
Location
Essex England
I Have been using Vista 64 Ultimate for over a year now for the most part I like it but as all my games still run faster on XP I find my self never using Vista now as I game most of the time. It's all upto date with drivers etc and both XP and Vista are on the same PC with the same hard Drives.

I have run many benchmarks and also some of my own and in all cases XP wins by a lot, Now I would just like some advice, info, help I would rather not go into a OS war in this topic.

CSS Stresstest
Vista = 244.46fps
XP = 272.85fps

GTR2 Test
Vista = 76fps
Xp = 111fps

GTL Test
Vista = 74fps
XP = 109fps

3DMark06
Vista = 13753
XP = 14844

No test with Team Fortress 2 but it does run much better in XP.

Processor: Q6600 @ 3.40GHz
Motherboard : Asus P5N32-E SLi nForce 680
Memory: OCZ 4GB -6400 Dual Channel Platinum Revision 2 XTC Series DDR2
Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 320GB X3
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 640 X2
Sound Card: Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Gamer 7.1
 
Do you notice a difference between 244 and 272 fps? Or even between 74 and 109?

I thought so.
Notice running faster ? Placebo effect tbh, dump the fps counters, unless you truly see games running below 40-45 fps.

Although XP gives more fps in games indeed, the OS itself is a lot slower due to not being able to use ram properly.


No test with Team Fortress 2 but it does run much better in XP.
Click to expand...
So you claim, that your SLI 8800's cant run TF2 fast enough ( xp runs it ''much'' better ?) yet I seem to have no problem playing it at mostly high settings on a 6800GS ( sure it aint sky rocketing above 30 fps, but it's playable, and 2 gpu's each 4x the power of mine shouldn't run it 100% smooth @ sky high fps in any OS) ?


Finally: is it me or is your 3dmark06 score way too low?
I score 11965 with a single 8800GTS and an E6420.


But anyways, 74 fps aint nowhere near running slow :confused:, and I highly doubt 100 fps runs better than 74.


ps. I'm not a Vista fanboi, I love xp, the durability and compatibility are far better than in Vista imo.
I just disagree with what you said, the fps gains you named are no reason to use xp.
 
Last edited:
Its something I've thought about though. I ditched my older single core 1.6g centrino laptop with 512mb running XP for a shiny new Dual core 1.7g 2gig of ram running vista.

Sure the new one has better performance opening another window while burning a dvd but other than that I swear my xp system was faster.

Its why I'm reluctant to build a new system.

Surely they should be building systems that use less resources rather than more, that's progress in my opinion. The same for power usage.
 
dannyjo22 said:
Its something I've thought about though. I ditched my older single core 1.6g centrino laptop with 512mb running XP for a shiny new Dual core 1.7g 2gig of ram running vista.

Sure the new one has better performance opening another window while burning a dvd but other than that I swear my xp system was faster.
Click to expand...

That's odd, vista should have cached any window/app/whatever you used before to open instantly anytime. Is superfetch running fine? It may boot a bit slower ( due to having to dump 4 gb of data into the ram at startup, but once it's up and going, it runs all over XP in terms of speed imo. (if you turn off all the power saving rubbish of course like turning off the hdds which only increases wear on them and causes a wait time for spinning up.))

Its why I'm reluctant to build a new system.

Surely they should be building systems that use less resources rather than more, that's progress in my opinion. The same for power usage.
Click to expand...

Imo a good os is an OS that uses it's presented resources, I hate waiting for (iexplorer) tabs to load from the hdd/pagefile coz I haven't used em for ages, in Vista they always load instantly, coz they stay in the RAM as they should.

And for power usage: Although for laptops I agree, I see nothing wrong with an actual pc using more power. Is there anything wrong in upgrading from a 1100cc car to a nice big V8 ? It's progress, the pc is faster, has raw more power, runs games faster and stores more things.

I doubt top range pc's will ever use less power. You don't see Bugatti's and Ferarri's with 1100cc engines.
Want less power: Change class, don't use top of the range gfx cards, don't use top of the range cpu's, etc...
 
Last edited:
snowdog said:
Do you notice a difference between 244 and 272 fps? Or even between 74 and 109?

I thought so.
Notice running faster ? Placebo effect tbh, dump the fps counters, unless you truly see games running below 40-45 fps.

Although XP gives more fps in games indeed, the OS itself is a lot slower due to not being able to use ram properly.



So you claim, that your SLI 8800's cant run TF2 fast enough ( xp runs it ''much'' better ?) yet I seem to have no problem playing it at mostly high settings on a 6800GS ( sure it aint sky rocketing above 30 fps, but it's playable, and 2 gpu's each 4x the power of mine shouldn't run it 100% smooth @ sky high fps in any OS) ?


Finally: is it me or is your 3dmark06 score way too low?
I score 11965 with a single 8800GTS and an E6420.


But anyways, 74 fps aint nowhere near running slow :confused:, and I highly doubt 100 fps runs better than 74.


ps. I'm not a Vista fanboi, I love xp, the durability and compatibility are far better than in Vista imo.
I just disagree with what you said, the fps gains you named are no reason to use xp.
Click to expand...

I paid a lot of money as most do for this PC and the games I play on it so I want them to run the best there can and that is on XP.

I run all my games with Vertical Sync on so the higher the frame rate the less chance there is of frame dropping below 60 Hertzs, because GTR2 on Vista drops below at points in the game it stutters and the same in TF2 but on XP both games run well with no stutters.

My post was about facts not claims as you put it try reading it again all I wanted was for someone to explain why Vista is slower.
 
vista has always been a bit crap compared to xp when it came to games in its early days....especially ones that use cpu power more.

from what ppl have been posting in these forums (of late)i gathered that with sp1 on vista there is no difference....ive just installed vista today with sp1 but havent got round to do any fps tests to see if its improved any.

im hoping it will match xp for performance or atleast stay close but from your results it seems to still be way behind which isnt good.

just curious do you have sp1 installed on vista ?
 
memory said:
vista has always been a bit crap compared to xp when it came to games in its early days....especially ones that use cpu power more.

from what ppl have been posting in these forums (of late)i gathered that with sp1 on vista there is no difference....ive just installed vista today with sp1 but havent got round to do any fps tests to see if its improved any.

im hoping it will match xp for performance or atleast stay close but from your results it seems to still be way behind which isnt good.

just curious do you have sp1 installed on vista ?
Click to expand...

Yes SP1 installed and no SP1 made no changes to the poor 3D performance, it was some time after SP1 when a gave up using Vista sure like me you can have dual boot but the problem with that is as I play games most of the time I never need to use Vista anymore. I was hopping by now that I would be talking about XP in past tense but the fact is when my games run in XP its like XP was the upgrade.

Worst thing is it's not just my PC I belong to a gaming clan hence the -)G(- tag and we have many members who have the problems. It's a shame I like Vista for everthing else but one i'm in a full screen game I dont care about how pretty the desktop looks or how fast IE opens.
 
There really shouldn't be that much difference if everything else is equal. Have you made sure all the graphics settings are identical? As the drivers are different they may have different out of the box setups.
 
-)G(-Sawyer said:
Yes SP1 installed and no SP1 made no changes to the poor 3D performance, it was some time after SP1 when a gave up using Vista sure like me you can have dual boot but the problem with that is as I play games most of the time I never need to use Vista anymore. I was hopping by now that I would be talking about XP in past tense but the fact is when my games run in XP its like XP was the upgrade.

Worst thing is it's not just my PC I belong to a gaming clan hence the -)G(- tag and we have many members who have the problems. It's a shame I like Vista for everthing else but one i'm in a full screen game I dont care about how pretty the desktop looks or how fast IE opens.
Click to expand...

I don't get anywhere that much of a difference in gaming between XP and Vista(which runs all my games just fine),did you make sure you disabled Windows Defender real time scan?

Also remember to install latest DX9.0C update (Dated March 2008) its for all Vista versions as well,a lot of Vista users forget DX9 updates since they think DX10 is all they need,link is below.

http://www.filehippo.com/download_directx/
 
Last edited:
-)G(-Sawyer said:
Yes SP1 installed and no SP1 made no changes to the poor 3D performance, it was some time after SP1 when a gave up using Vista sure like me you can have dual boot but the problem with that is as I play games most of the time I never need to use Vista anymore. I was hopping by now that I would be talking about XP in past tense but the fact is when my games run in XP its like XP was the upgrade.

Worst thing is it's not just my PC I belong to a gaming clan hence the -)G(- tag and we have many members who have the problems. It's a shame I like Vista for everthing else but one i'm in a full screen game I dont care about how pretty the desktop looks or how fast IE opens.
Click to expand...

what i meant to type was "from what ppl have been posting in these forums (of late)i gathered that with sp1 on vista there is no difference between it and xp"

but ive just tested a cpu intensive game...an online demo which i recorded using the ingame demo recorder(lots of players so lots of work for the cpu).....with xp i got between 330-360 fps depending on drivers.
with vista i got 185......which shows no improvements with sp1.


*edit* guess its time to uninstall vista...thing is i actually read a couple of articles claiming that vista could match xp for performance....clearly was just bs or maybe sp1 works better with newer games as i tested an old one.

now i dont play any games online anymore but if i were to then there is no way i would be using vista.....as every fps counts.
i know some ppl are saying that it doesnt really matter but if your serious about online gaming and play first person shooters then every fps counts.

sp games then yeah i agree you really dont need super high fps but online it matters.
 
Last edited:
My vista 32 is a fair bit slower than my XP32, but not as bad as the differences you've got.
My Vista64 fairs much better against XP, even JUST beating it by teeny amounts here and there on CERTAIN tests.

As for "you wont notice".....
If 10-25% of your system's performance vanishes, you want to know why. it's the equivalent of halving the OP's overclock. Now, reducing performance by 10-25%, can anyone please explain to me how that constitutes an upgrade? "Hey, I just got this new video card for £200, it's great, it dropped my framerates 25%" is not a statement you will hear too often. Maybe there's no difference in 100 and 75.....but what about next year, on a newer game when it's the difference between 24FPS and 18FPS?
Each new OS should be MORE effiecient, more streamlined, more optimized....not fatter and slower.
 
thegoonden said:
My vista 32 is a fair bit slower than my XP32, but not as bad as the differences you've got.
My Vista64 fairs much better against XP, even JUST beating it by teeny amounts here and there on CERTAIN tests.

As for "you wont notice".....
If 10-25% of your system's performance vanishes, you want to know why. it's the equivalent of halving the OP's overclock. Now, reducing performance by 10-25%, can anyone please explain to me how that constitutes an upgrade? "Hey, I just got this new video card for £200, it's great, it dropped my framerates 25%" is not a statement you will hear too often. Maybe there's no difference in 100 and 75.....but what about next year, on a newer game when it's the difference between 24FPS and 18FPS?
Each new OS should be MORE effiecient, more streamlined, more optimized....not fatter and slower.
Click to expand...

Vista is, compared to XP at the same point in it's development cycle, better optimised and more efficient. Try running XP on hardware from the same point in it's development cycle as Vista and see which one uses more system resources as a percentage....

People forget that XP is a seven year old OS, optimised for hardware that old. Vista does a lot more behind the scenes than XP did, and does it in a more advanced way, so to actually equal or nearly equal the performance of XP, it is clearly well optimised. Perhaps you mean the OS should do less and therefore be faster, but I'm not sure how that is progression.

Do you think Quake is better than Quake 3 because if you run them on the same machine, the first will be faster than the second?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom