XP vs. Vista - A Tale of Framerates

Associate
Joined
15 Jun 2006
Posts
2,178
Location
Amsterdam
vistaxp.jpg



Before you upgrade your Windows XP system to Windows Vista or replace it with a new Vista system, it would be helpful to know how your upgraded or new machine's DX9 gaming performance will compare with that of your current XP-based model. The chaps over at HardOCP have pit Windows XP versus Windows Vista in an all out gaming framerate comparison. If you are a gamer contemplating the upgrade, you seriously need to read this article. Here's an excerpt:
As you can see, some games fared better than others with the new OS. For some titles, especially Company of Heroes and Need for Speed, we saw dramatic framerate discrepancies. What's more, both of these titles have recently released patches! Other titles showed a slight, but essentially negligible difference, such as BF2142, World of Warcraft, and Prey. Really, there was only one instance where Vista was able to pick up a few more frames than XP - World of Warcraft at greater than 90fps, where the human eye can't even see the difference. To see this overall trend against Vista is very interesting and makes us wonder as to the cause.

We wanted to look at image quality because we were interested in how the games actually "looked" as much as we were interested in how they "performed." This is something that hasn't been looked at much critically, and, it appears, for good reason. Between the implementation of the same graphics driver on the two OSes, we found that was no difference in the appearance of the game.

This article is not to slam Vista and label it as a poor gaming operating system. However, we will say that at the current time, gaming is not what it could be on Vista. Given all of the variables, it's hard to dismiss the fact that Vista is the common denominator. Many (including us) have pointed at poor driver support being the Achilles heel of Windows Vista. In this case, we used two different graphics drivers and got essentially the same results: worse performance in Vista. If we then say, "Okay, maybe it's not the graphics drivers," then at what else do we point the finger? Chipset drivers? Hard drive access? RAM? Though we've seen upgraded chipset drivers improve system stability, it's rare that we see it improve gaming performance.

In the end, it looks like the the new, bulky, poorly supported operating system is at the root of it all. This is not to say that this is a final verdict. If Microsoft keeps to its pattern, we can expect a service pack that may do some Spring cleaning with the OS and improve its ability to support better performance in games. We think that we'll also see more driver and patch revisions from graphics chipset designers and game publishers.
 
are there any like that for ATI cards? As the drivers (and hence the company that makes them) are probably playing a huge part in the difference.
 
Shame they didn't do one for a 7950GX2 (SLi) because the performance is so bad in Vista that the framrates are nearly triple the difference.
 
Putting NFS:Carbon to one side you are looking at roughly up to 10fps.

Are you telling me you can actually tell the difference, none of the benchmarks drop below 30fps so I very much doubt it.

As many would agree this is a driver issue and not the fault of the Vista.
 
Take with a massive pinch of salt as this only includes nVidia cards as that would make the greatest impact. ATI cards show a different picture with much better driver support at the moment.
 
So basically Vista is in a pretty darn good position compared to what XP and 2000 were like for months after their launch day.
 
They don't appear to say anywhere what version of drivers they used.

Pretty suspicious if you ask me, i'm sure the Vista bundled nVidia drivers would be about 8 months old and very poor in comparison to the latest XP ones.

Also if they bothered benchmarking ATi cards they would have seen a different result.

Looks like the article is engineered to be anti-Vista to me. :rolleyes:
 
Durzel said:
Why what did they say?

Well it was a while ago, but they were basically saying that it wasn't such a big deal and there was no point in upgrading from an AMD. For example the game tests were tested using high resolutions which, obviously didn't show any advantage over AMD, and when people questioned this on their forums, they were banned/their topics deleted.

Overall the review was incredibly biased towards AMD. There was more but I can't remember that much as it was around a year ago, and I can't remember what I did yesterday!
 
Last edited:
killer_uk said:
Well it was a while ago, but they were basically saying that it wasn't such a big deal and there was no point in upgrading from an AMD. For example the game tests were tested using high resolutions which, obviously didn't show any advantage over AMD, and when people questioned this on their forums, they were banned/their topics deleted.

Overall the review was incredibly biased towards AMD. There was more but I can't remember that much as it was around a year ago, and I can't remember what I did yesterday!

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxMSwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

BigLOL! :D

As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything. The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up. Overall, the performance difference isn’t enough to amount to any gameplay experience differences in these games.
 
Haha what an excellent quote.. that speaks volumes.

Aside from that ridiculous AMD-bias, I'm more inclined to believe - like others - that driver maturity is the big issue here. I'd also like to see some ATI comparisons, I personally haven't "felt" any difference positive or negative going from XP to Vista.
 
killer_uk said:
Are you agreeing with me or laughing at me? I can't tell. :p

I did say it was a while back, my memory is shocking.

Agreeing mate, the LOL was at the article. They did a Conroe performance review... and didn't bother to overclock it!

Do they have any clue what they're doing?
 
its a case of driver support and not Microsoft's fault , its not like Microsoft just sprung this new OS on manufacturer's, they have known about it a long time.
some have just been lazy getting new driver out for vista.
i haven played a lot of games on my vista laptop, but GTR 2 runs great on it.
1.8 x2 cpu AMD
256mb geforce 7600
2gig ddr2 ram
 
Tute said:
Agreeing mate, the LOL was at the article. They did a Conroe performance review... and didn't bother to overclock it!

Do they have any clue what they're doing?

Yeah, that's the key advantage of the C2D. Clock-for-clock both CPUs perform pretty similar, but it's the scalability / power consumption of the C2D that give it the crown. Not many AMD X2s overclock to 3GHz+ on air!

With regards to the actual topic, I haven't found any issue going to Vista but I play mainly BF2 which gives me 80 fps anyway. Sure, so I lost 10 fps but it's not like I'll notice. Maybe if I played Oblivion or other resource hungry games such a drop would be significant (especially since I game at 1920x1200), but anything over 30-40 fps is fine by me.
 
dafloppyone said:
vistaxp.jpg



Before you upgrade your Windows XP system to Windows Vista or replace it with a new Vista system, it would be helpful to know how your upgraded or new machine's DX9 gaming performance will compare with that of your current XP-based model. The chaps over at HardOCP have pit Windows XP versus Windows Vista in an all out gaming framerate comparison. If you are a gamer contemplating the upgrade, you seriously need to read this article. Here's an excerpt:
As you can see, some games fared better than others with the new OS. For some titles, especially Company of Heroes and Need for Speed, we saw dramatic framerate discrepancies. What's more, both of these titles have recently released patches! Other titles showed a slight, but essentially negligible difference, such as BF2142, World of Warcraft, and Prey. Really, there was only one instance where Vista was able to pick up a few more frames than XP - World of Warcraft at greater than 90fps, where the human eye can't even see the difference. To see this overall trend against Vista is very interesting and makes us wonder as to the cause.

We wanted to look at image quality because we were interested in how the games actually "looked" as much as we were interested in how they "performed." This is something that hasn't been looked at much critically, and, it appears, for good reason. Between the implementation of the same graphics driver on the two OSes, we found that was no difference in the appearance of the game.

This article is not to slam Vista and label it as a poor gaming operating system. However, we will say that at the current time, gaming is not what it could be on Vista. Given all of the variables, it's hard to dismiss the fact that Vista is the common denominator. Many (including us) have pointed at poor driver support being the Achilles heel of Windows Vista. In this case, we used two different graphics drivers and got essentially the same results: worse performance in Vista. If we then say, "Okay, maybe it's not the graphics drivers," then at what else do we point the finger? Chipset drivers? Hard drive access? RAM? Though we've seen upgraded chipset drivers improve system stability, it's rare that we see it improve gaming performance.

In the end, it looks like the the new, bulky, poorly supported operating system is at the root of it all. This is not to say that this is a final verdict. If Microsoft keeps to its pattern, we can expect a service pack that may do some Spring cleaning with the OS and improve its ability to support better performance in games. We think that we'll also see more driver and patch revisions from graphics chipset designers and game publishers.
Anandtech members got it right about that terrible review here

It's not even worthy of a thread like this.
 
Back
Top Bottom