Xp vs Vista? Will Vista ever be the winner?

eyetrip

eyetrip

eyetrip

Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
9,237
It seems like there is pretty much nothing out there where Vista performs better than XP for gaming.

I thought the whole point of DX10 was to improve speeds. DX9 still seems to offer better performance than DX10.

Whats the problem here? Is it that Vista really is a step back in terms of gaming performance? Is it likely that MS will be able to improve this?

Is it a driver/software issue? Are games developers implementing DX10 badly? Or is it the GPU manufacturers not getting out solid drivers?

Just wondering.
 
I wouldn't say it's that much of a step backwards these days but certainly doesn't seem to anything noticeably better games-wise than XP. The DX10 titles so far released seem to have had very minor graphical tweaks that seem to cripple the frame rate when enabled. Not sure though whether this is down to bad coding or the OS though.
 
I would say the two are incomparable purley because vista offers more in complexity and functionality (i.e DX10).

If not had any game problems on Vista including a few old one like RTCW..:) Drivers have been a problem but this is hardly MS's problem tbh.
 
In terms of the use of the actual operating system (ie, networking, security etc etc) Vista is already a step ahead of XP imo. In terms of game performance, Vista is slightly behind, but not enough to put me off using it. The same happened with windows xp iirc - games were far slower in XP than they were in win2000, a few updates and service packs later and that was solved.
 
DX10 improves on graphics, it’s to be expected that better graphics will come with a performance hit.

I don’t think it has anything to do with Vista, from what I’ve seen most games perform better in Vista than in XP these days.
 
Vista is certainly a far superior Operating System to XP for general use but still is no good for games. I have a dualboot setup now and games just work in XP but have all sorts of problems in Vista.
Take a look at the direct comparions between Vista and Xp, link in my signature. It seems Vista still needs a lot of work where gaming is concerned, and particularly with SLI.
 
Well, thats kind of the thing I don't get about DX10. Its supposed to be faster, yet anything they add as a DX10 only option usually cripples performance.

I don't get the point of that. It eithers offers nothing noticeable, or something noticeable which renders games near unplayable.

Take Crysis for example. I would expect it work work like this:
High settings has exactly exactly the same visual quality on both DX9 and DX10, but DX10 runs better.

Or perhaps I am just not getting the idea of what DX10 is supposed to offer.
 
dr. sarf said:
Take a look at the direct comparions between Vista and Xp, link in my signature. It seems Vista still needs a lot of work where gaming is concerned, and particularly with SLI.
Click to expand...

The bottom three tests show less than 1 FPS difference between XP and Vista. The rest only apply to SLI. Its hardly a big issue imo.
 
Kobrakai said:
DX10 improves on graphics, it’s to be expected that better graphics will come with a performance hit.

I don’t think it has anything to do with Vista, from what I’ve seen most games perform better in Vista than in XP these days.
Click to expand...

Err not quite. Because of the way DX10 is coded you should see an improved framerate running the same kind of scene as DX9. With the extra eyecandy you should see the same FPS as the DX9 version.

Alas, this is the theory. DX10 is brilliant, the OS it's attached to however frankly isn't. Because of the bloat that is Vista unless you've got stacks of RAM and a stonking CPU the performance hit makes it not worth it.... For now.

XP was the same when it was first released and I'm sure it's just the same for Vista. Given time hardware will far exceed the OS like we have with XP at the moment and all will be well... I hope! :D
 
Yeah but they arent writing these games purely for Dx10 yet are they. So you would expect a performance drop. Or am i wrong?

How many games actually use Dx10 at the moment?
 
MS need to sort out the LAN slow down issues, until that happens it's the "Windows ME" of recent years. as usual as the poster above said rather making the OS more efficient it's just more bloated.
 
I'd have thought developers would have Vista working the same as XP now but no Crysis runs considerably better than it does on Vista.

I'm talking about the retail game too so it's nothing to do with it being a demo bug, sure it could be a bug with the final game but it's not really acceptable since this is happening on many other games.
 
Same thing happened with Win98 and XP.

When XP came out everything was slower on it, drivers didn't work properly, people called it every name under the Sun.

Give the developers time to start using DX10 well, once the games coded around DX10 start comming out you'll find Vista will start to pull ahead until we are all wondering why we stuck with XP for so long.

Though MS have made it harder this time round with DX10 being Vista only games developers have to decide wether to code just for DX10 and make it really optimised and use it to its fullest, but in doing so cut out a large chunk of their userbase...

Or stick with DX9 so everyone can play, but forego the extras DX10 can give...
 
I am only running Windows Vista Ultimate 32Bit now. And my games are running well, not better but same as Windows XP. Crysis didn't run any better on XP then it did on Vista. Then again, I'm not one who cares about FRPS. I don't know the frame rates, nor do I want to know them. As long as the game is playable, I couldn't care less. I even use Windows Vista at work, and find no problems. :)

It will, no doubt get better for Vista, though. :)
 
Streeteh said:
In terms of the use of the actual operating system (ie, networking, security etc etc) Vista is already a step ahead of XP imo. In terms of game performance, Vista is slightly behind, but not enough to put me off using it. The same happened with windows xp iirc - games were far slower in XP than they were in win2000, a few updates and service packs later and that was solved.
Click to expand...

Do gamers need security though, the last thing I want is an OS that thinks everything is a threat, I have a better common sence than the OS.
SP2 in xp was annoying enough for me in terms of security, asking for confirmation on loads of stuff I know are safe, Vista is worse, the first thing I did when I installed vista is remove all the security, never installed AV there either and so far I'm fine with just an AV on xp.

The only plusses are imo
Superfech (!!!!!!!)
Readyboost
Interface improvement in SOME places ( it's actually worse in other places )
 
What about DX10.1?

I'd heard from a friend that the DX10 architecture wasn't that great and the DX10.1 upgrade would be much better, but you'd also need a DX10.1 compatible graphics card (which don't exist yet).

DX10 does seem to have been a way to sell stupid numbers of GF8800 series cards and little else imo.
 
tbh i dont think the dx will be the winning factor

its when you will be needing at least/more then 4gb of ram people will proberly make the switch
 
Vista and DX10 were released to early

Vista didn't feel complete. It's getting better and better, but that doesn't happen fast enough. Disk and network access times are still all over the place.

DX10 took forever to find it's way into game code. So far it clearly doesn't add as much impact to visual quality as DX9 did. It also appears to hit peformance very hard. It looks great on paper, but from a practical point of view it's a huge disapointment.

The marketing and spin that came with all this is a big joke. It also complicated upgrading and system building.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom