Vista vs XP performance comparison.

[Ikaros]

I played online last night for the first time with UT3. All visual settings maxed out. I didn't measure it but it felt great and smooth to me, just like the single player. I died a lot because I wasn't familiar with the map yet. But in fact I was surprised it had no lag at all which I always got a lot of the time with UT2004 or maybe its the servers? Anyway Vista seems to work good as a gaming platform to me.

[Athlonix]

ok i'm new round here, but i'm not new to PC's so dare not mistake my new entrance to this forum in relation to my background knowledge.

i worked on the Beta team designing Vista, and there is no way in hell your running Vista faster than in a XP environment, the new core program it more complex, and unfortunatley it means it bottle necks down, so the performance is reduced. It was done at the expense of some of the new features, but don't try and BS this forum about your amazing skillz cos your lieing through your teeth. I've been with Vista since the first builds, builds like 5038 (off the top of my head) and I am a system builder and IT consultant at my job, so please don't give me a mile long whinge of how your system is so l33t, and mines not from "config" issues, as i'm well aware of what i'm doing.

I recently up'd my pc spec to;

AMD X2 6000+
OZ DDRII-800 2gig's
MSI 790FX Platinum
MSI 7900GTX 512mb

BUT more to the point, my previous computer;


AMD X2 3500+
OZ DDRI-200 1gig's
MSI 790FX Platinum
MSI 7900GTX 512mb

and under Vista Crysis was almost unplayable and Call of Duty 4 wasn't far behind, I switched back to my XP OS and what a suprise it works flawlessly. my new systems all built up and running and it's now on XP, and will be till DX10 is mainstream and the service pack for Vista comes out, which i'm working on too.

Vista is a lovely system but it's no good for gaming, it's too bogged down with system resources, and other system tasks which drain your machine all round.

so Green_Day_584, you are talking complete rubbish, i used to run Vista, until the problems arised, which i knew would happen, but don't harp on about all these vista-haters as i love Vista but it's not streamlined enough...

if you wanna bring on some real world facts, or some test, and benchmarks i'm all ears. but XP is faster FACT END.

[Athlonix]

I played online last night for the first time with UT3. All visual settings maxed out. I didn't measure it but it felt great and smooth to me, just like the single player. I died a lot because I wasn't familiar with the map yet. But in fact I was surprised it had no lag at all which I always got a lot of the time with UT2004 or maybe its the servers? Anyway Vista seems to work good as a gaming platform to me.

with all due respect your system is pushing up to the upper limit of gaming machines, is it any suprise your getting no lag, i mean how good was your net connection back in UT2k4?

[Xuho]

I wonder how many people said windows 98 was LOADS better then XP in the beginning days of XP

Lets see in half a year or maybe abit more, and ask again

[TPSFan]

I am not a PC noob, but I do have a question for all you techies:

How much impact (or not) does having a sound card have vs. using an integrated sound chip like the ACL889?

(Realtek 5.1/7.1 DD surround sound; top of the line most recent version)

The reason I ask is with all of this cross-platform development and porting of games, I find I get better performance on XP without my Sound Blaster Audigy 2 installed (because consoles don't have dedicated sound cards). The same with Vista since they removed the Direct Sound.

Is this true across the board? Or does it vary from game to game?

[Benfica]

i worked on the Beta team designing Vista, and there is no way in hell your running Vista faster than in a XP environment, the new core program it more complex, and unfortunatley it means it bottle necks down, so the performance is reduced.

Does DX10 encrypt the command buffers passed to the graphics card? ****, is all PCI-e traffic encrypted?

[msny]

The difference between 71 and 120fps is not a big deal to me. Most peole would actually see no visual difference anyways. Gameplay would be smooth.

What I'm more interested in does DX10 bring more visuals to the table then DX9 did?

[Athlonix]

because the new realtek is a inbuilt audio chip rather than codec system chip, it is in line with the south and northbridge, so it's optimal, where as an external card requires communications via a port which is obviously queued IRQ, because of so it has to wait to cut in on the south to northbridge gateway and communicate rather than being part of the integral loop.

i've always found onboard better for performance.

[Athlonix]

Does DX10 encrypt the command buffers passed to the graphics card? ****, is all PCI-e traffic encrypted?

can you define what you mean by encrypt?

[Benfica]

can you define what you mean by encrypt?

I mean, key negotiation between the CPU and the GPU and then scrambling all the buffers passed. nvm, I don't care

[Ikaros]

with all due respect your system is pushing up to the upper limit of gaming machines, is it any suprise your getting no lag, i mean how good was your net connection back in UT2k4?

I understand what you are saying. I'm not saying Vista is actually faster than XP. I just got this new PC in July and made it as beefy as I could afford just to get myself ready for UT3 (and other new games) to have the best possible experience at this time. I don't have two identical machines to compare too. I have the same Comcast cable connection though and last played UT2K4 as recently as two days ago online. I could expereience lag as more people get online with UT3. I'm just saying to me it feels better than UT2K4 does right now. At the moment I'm happy with UT3.

[Athlonix]

What I'm more interested in does DX10 bring more visuals to the table then DX9 did?

I can only comment on the work i've done with the distribution aspect, it will be a core program based on Directx 9, but it works more with lighting, shaders to create a more realistic look, it will also add in extra skybox materials and debris and the like.

one of the best examples is this





it increases the realism with the light, and shading.


only thing i'm not fond of is that the Directx10 is off loading hardware audio support on to software audio run by the CPU

the plus is Shader engine 4.

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

because the new realtek is a inbuilt audio chip rather than codec system chip, it is in line with the south and northbridge, so it's optimal, where as an external card requires communications via a port which is obviously queued IRQ, because of so it has to wait to cut in on the south to northbridge gateway and communicate rather than being part of the integral loop.

i've always found onboard better for performance.

rofl *cough* *cough* lol

Seems you never saw a AWE32 or Audigy/ Sblive/ X-Fi in action. *caugh* *gnarghll* Even a C64 will rock a Realtek away.

[Athlonix]

it isn't to my knowledge, there should be a non encrypted code for faster processing.

in Directx10.1 you'll be getting mandatory aa 4x
32bit floating point filtering,
and shader engine 4.1

i'm not happy about microsoft forcing aa 4x

[Athlonix]

rofl *cough* *cough* lol

Seems you never saw a AWE32 or Audigy/ Sblive/ X-Fi in action. *caugh* *gnarghll* Even a C64 will rock a Realtek away.

with respect the Realtek is now into HD audio, with spdif, and optical, the real question was whether addin card reduced performance and i would concur with that arguement, i'm not saying for a moment that the audigy sound quality is surpassed by an onboard card, just you will recieve a fps hit of approx 2-3 fps, and i do find you get some audio clipping/looping in high stress situations.