Vista vs XP performance comparison.

[Im a Chef]

actually no the website i used called photobucket condensed them and thats why they might look less detailed but I do promise you that is 1280 x 1024 if anyone else wants to take a look. Im not trying to argue, thats what usually happens with my screen shots

[Respen]

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.

I come to this forum to lie about how many framerates I'm getting, it's my new favorite past time. That and being labled a liar by people I don't even know. I don't give a sh*t what you believe... I'm enjoying "liquid" gameplay on an apparently worthless OS. I'm no MS fanboi either, my main rig would be linux exsclusive in a heartbeat if it were more gamer friendly.

I don't dual boot, I have xp and haven't bothered to dual boot for about 3 months as my xp partition was just collecting dust. As hard as it may be for you to believe, some people are running vista with little to no trouble. Do I have issues? Of course there are a few... they aren't deal breakers though for me.

[Im a Chef]

well said respen

[mossa]

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.

hehe why the hell would I want to dual boot... i got 4 systems sitting here.

2 full game rigs one with vista one with xp, the other two would prabably run ut3 at a reasonsable fps but use them for other stuff... only one of the systems has xp the others all have vista... but to be honest the xp sys is going to vista in the new year... why?

because I actually think vista is better...

I dont have any problems with vista or gaming on vista...

2cd E6750
asus p35 p5k
2gig mem
nvidia 8800 gts
raptor hd

oh and I too build my own systems

150+ fps was @ 1280-768 my prefered play setting ( old and eyes not what they used to be)
120-130 fps @ 1680 - 1050

but online everyone capped @ 90 fps so why worry

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

Online its capped at 90FPS? Try Netspeed 10001 or 15000 in console, maybe it will run higher after this.

[Latera1us]

*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.

you must be a wicked guy with magic eyes. how the hell do you need 100 fps for fluid gameplay? 40 fps is just enough, even if i'm moving fast i have no problems owning people on that framerates, and i play on a crt, most of the time with 100hz on 1280x1024 or 85 on 1600x1200. but i do not have the retail yet and if i can play it always higher than 40 fps on a nice resolution with crazy aa i'll be happy.

[Green_Day_584]

hahahaha! all u vista-haters think you know ALL about it. i bet half of you have never even used it.

i can PROMISE you, its incredible for gaming. im NEVER going back... dark side al the way!

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

you must be a wicked guy with magic eyes. how the hell do you need 100 fps for fluid gameplay? 40 fps is just enough, even if i'm moving fast i have no problems owning people on that framerates, and i play on a crt, most of the time with 100hz on 1280x1024 or 85 on 1600x1200. but i do not have the retail yet and if i can play it always higher than 40 fps on a nice resolution with crazy aa i'll be happy.

You will notice the difference quite easy. Is your monitor running at 100Hz in games? if your CRT is turned back to 60Hz in games (Without special Monitor driver in XP or locking to max Frequenzys with tools the Hz of the Monitor will be always resetet to 60Hz)

Test it out. No magig eyes. 40 Frames on a CRT in a shooter is unplayable. 85 is good playable, but its not perfect. The story of "your eye can only see 25 Frames per second" is complete nonsens. 25 Frames per second is the point where eyes cannot differ from each frame. But its not fluid. Because the Monitor refreshes the image, so your eye is only feeded with an image for a ms and than it turns black again. I can even see a difference of 100FPs @ 160Hz or 160Fps on 160Hz. but atz this high refresh rates i cannot say anymor if i have 120 or 140 Frames, so its very good. But i can see if its below 100.

My favority resolution is 1024x768 @ 160Hz. For multiplayer games.

[Arnout]

I can guarantee you that you will perceive a major difference in fluidity, particularly in input response, between 60Hz and 100Hz refresh rates. Hell, I can feel a difference between 120Hz and 150Hz, and I can even see it. Especially when turning rapidly, there are more frames between point 1 and 2 of the turn, so during this movement every object that comes through view is more visible.

I can't back it up with science, but I know what I see and feel. All I can say is try out playing on a 150Hz CRT for a while, and then go back to 100 or lower. You will see. I know I'm right because sometimes (when installing new drivers for instance) my refreshforce will reset and my monitor will run at 85Hz. I immediately see it.

[DX860424]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/....html#3d_games

[Mosh]

My guess would be trying to justify to yourself not spending the money on a new OS.

All I can say is lol.

It takes 15mins to get it for free

[Latera1us]

You will notice the difference quite easy. Is your monitor running at 100Hz in games? if your CRT is turned back to 60Hz in games (Without special Monitor driver in XP or locking to max Frequenzys with tools the Hz of the Monitor will be always resetet to 60Hz)

Test it out. No magig eyes. 40 Frames on a CRT in a shooter is unplayable. 85 is good playable, but its not perfect. The story of "your eye can only see 25 Frames per second" is complete nonsens. 25 Frames per second is the point where eyes cannot differ from each frame. But its not fluid. Because the Monitor refreshes the image, so your eye is only feeded with an image for a ms and than it turns black again. I can even see a difference of 100FPs @ 160Hz or 160Fps on 160Hz. but atz this high refresh rates i cannot say anymor if i have 120 or 140 Frames, so its very good. But i can see if its below 100.

My favority resolution is 1024x768 @ 160Hz. For multiplayer games.

yes it runs at 100hz, you can set it manually in rivatuner. 40 fps is perfectly playable for me, i never said anything about 25 fps because everything under 40 is **** easy to notice. but it really doesn't matter to me if a game always stays over 40 because if i even could notice minimal improvements with 60 fps the game runs smooth for me. its noticeable in crysis, it feels slower when it dips below 40 and especially under 30, but if it stays higher its really smooth, even if you can notice that 60 fps runs a bit better. but 40 is in no way unplayable.

i'm probably gonna play the retail on 1280x1024 with 16af/4aa on vista, as the demo ran from 60-120 fps with this quality. no need to get aa higher because it's **** hard to notice if it is 4, 8, or 16. but the difference between 2 and 4 is likely to notice and i don't want to risk falling below 40.

[oldkawman1]

QFT all the way.

I don't buy these stories of people running under vista with their 8800's getting 150+ fps. That's a total line of bull and I'd stake money on it.

They may be a 1024x768 or less. Most people boast the fps they get, but do not qualify it with the screen resolution and quality settings. Without those, what they say is meaningless.

[Benfica]

About the fps issue: cap to 50 or so. Start a map and turn around slowly. Turn around quickly. See the difference now?

About OS: since the thread title is "Vista vs XP performance comparison", I wonder how the hell guys that don't dual-boot, manage to know that A is better than B

[Doomgater]

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.

Yes. But unfortunately, UT3 seems -compared to UT2004- not to be an improvement at all. Gameplay, performance _AND_ compatibility are decreased.
But wait - Hey! It eats up more disk space! And it looks better, too!
That's all we want, don't we?