Vista vs XP performance comparison.

[Hickeroar]

look at page two at the post I made, if you think vista is bad then don't get it after you see the fps I posted and this will probably go with everyone else that is running a high end video card and also vista


EDIT: what I mean above is anyone who has vista and a high end card should notice improvement.

You snapped a screenshot of you facing a ridiculously low detail area where you happened to be getting 95fps. Try standing on the outside edge of the Shangri La courtyard facing the whole scene and showing us a 1440x900 screenshot of the whole scene using maximum detail settings.

[Im a Chef]

my max is 1280 thats the best is that a problem???

[Hickeroar]

I prefer UT2004. This runs on the better operating systems. No problem and high framerates with Debian and Windows 2000 . Dont' buy UT3.

That's just a natural progression though. The game has been out a while and it's going to run well on modern hardware across the board. When UT2003 came out people were saying basically the same line.

[Respen]

Are you guys serious? My fps in vista sticks to the hardcap of 60fps CONSTANTLY, I get 80fps if I remove vsync... but why the hell would I? I also don't care if an xp machine will get 10-20 more fps because you can't notice. Guess what else, it's completley normal for a newer OS to be a bit slower, because it's built around current hardware.... no need to cry on the internets because you don't want to upgrade yet.

1680x1050 resolution everything maxed, on a single 8800gtx e6600 and vista premium 64 bit. Why the hell do posts like this exist? My guess would be trying to justify to yourself not spending the money on a new OS.

[Hickeroar]

my max is 1280 thats the best is that a problem???

nope. That'll work.

[Hickeroar]

Are you guys serious? My fps in vista sticks to the hardcap of 60fps CONSTANTLY, I get 80fps if I remove vsync... but why the hell would I? I also don't care if an xp machine will get 10-20 more fps because you can't notice. Guess what else, it's completley normal for a newer OS to be a bit slower, because it's built around current hardware.... no need to cry on the internets because you don't want to upgrade yet.

1680x1050 resolution everything maxed, on a single 8800gtx e6600 and vista premium 64 bit. Why the hell do posts like this exist? My guess would be trying to justify to yourself not spending the money on a new OS.

I already own a license for XP and Vista. It has nothing to do with money. There's a BIG difference between "good" framerate and "liquid" framerate.

[Respen]

ohhh so 80fps isn't "liquid" enough for you? give me a break.

[[FfFC]_-(MAD)-_]

Are you guys serious? My fps in vista sticks to the hardcap of 60fps CONSTANTLY, I get 80fps if I remove vsync... but why the hell would I? I also don't care if an xp machine will get 10-20 more fps because you can't notice. Guess what else, it's completley normal for a newer OS to be a bit slower, because it's built around current hardware.... no need to cry on the internets because you don't want to upgrade yet.

1680x1050 resolution everything maxed, on a single 8800gtx e6600 and vista premium 64 bit. Why the hell do posts like this exist? My guess would be trying to justify to yourself not spending the money on a new OS.

*cough* 60FPS? Fine on a TFT, but if you have got a CRT, this isnt enough. And dont say i should buy a TFT... My Monitor would bang your TFT out of the office in milliseconds... (2048x1536@85Hz 22 Zoll 140KHz)

i need 100 FPS or more to get a fluid gameplay. 60 is playable, but is really bad for multiplayer, even on 85FPS there are still problems with aiming, because on fast movements with your mouse you will easyly lose your target.

[Im a Chef]

Hick here are some screenshots of the map u were talking about with my max res and it was a solid fps the whole time





I did not know what corner but here are two corners lol bad bot bad

[Hickeroar]

ohhh so 80fps isn't "liquid" enough for you? give me a break.

Well, it's mainly that I find it VERY hard to believe you maintain anything like that framerate at your listed resolution with all settings cranked using Vista. Sounds like another person fanboying over something not worth fanboying over.

Several dual booters have testified in this thread already that they've seen the same massive Vista vs XP performance drop. The only ones attempting to argue it are people who haven't done the same.

[Hickeroar]

Hick here are some screenshots of the map u were talking about with my max res and it was a solid fps the whole time





I did not know what corner but here are two corners lol bad bot bad

These aren't 1280 shots.

[Arnout]

Windows Vista is the OS equivalent of a riceburner. All looks, but when you look under the hood...

[Im a Chef]

oh yes they are thats the max I said it would go and those are 1280 shots if they had a command on showing your res I would type that in to but they don't

[gargorias]

I already own a license for XP and Vista. It has nothing to do with money. There's a BIG difference between "good" framerate and "liquid" framerate.

And there is a big difference between an operating system that was designed for DX10 with DX9 only thrown in for backwards compatibility and one that has had several years of DX9 optimization occuring for it!

[Hickeroar]

oh yes they are thats the max I said it would go and those are 1280 shots if they had a command on showing your res I would type that in to but they don't

Those screens are 1024x819. I think your resolution scaling is at less than 100%....