Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vista vs XP performance comparison.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    I use Vista myself with a Q6600, 2GB and ATI X1600XT.
    I get about 30-50 fps in Vista home premium 32bit.
    And about 35-60 fps in XP. Its not a very big difference in my eyes.
    I will get my 8800GT very soon and my FPS will be even better.
    XP does perform slightly better... but not over 50 fps better.
    At least not on my system...

    The reason I have stick to Vista is because my XP is home edition wich doesn't support Quad Core very well. At least I have noticed many software applications run worse on XP. Like internet web browsing for example.
    At least it gave me that impression... if I'm wrong then I guess I was just hallucinating :P

    I also tested 3Dmark 06 and my score only increased by aproximately 50 or so in XP home... thats a laughable difference. Nothing to make a big fuss about no?

    I for one love the good looking Aero interface interface and menus are better orginized.

    XP may perform better then Vista yes but Imo I think people are way overeacting in here.

    Comment


      #92
      Originally posted by stephen_wq View Post
      I'm not sure if its related to peoples dvd drive issues and other problems, but if you have a spare 10-20 mins read this. Its an analysis of basically the DRM in Vista.

      One of the reasons i'm not going to go vista for at least a long while.
      Another is Someone i know's laptop doesn't work with drivers for almost anything at all, from USB flash drives to digital cameras. I have no idea why, even when you update drivers.
      DRM in vista is a overly critizised... there is less issues with DRM in vista then there is with xp.... i can only things in vista that i couldn't in xp... go figure....

      Comment


        #93
        Originally posted by brdempsey69 View Post
        Negative, you can get the full Vista software package for X-Fi cards at this link:

        http://www.youp-pax.org/viewthread.p...extra=page%3D1

        You can get the full package, but most of the critical portions of creatives cards are mostly hooched...




        i'm quite familare with the pax drivers.... Actually have one of the modders on my list which i talk to frequently....

        It still remains that the xp vs vista creative support is still a horrid mess.. and even with full fuctionality.. it's likely that not everything will work 100%

        Auzentech is a better card by far....

        Comment


          #94
          Got to love the 20 to 25% of fanboys on this thread that are full of opinions but don't prove ****

          Comment


            #95
            honestly, vista uses so many sys. resources it just cant keep up with xp, end of story. if that is wat u want, great. if u want to game xp or even better, linux, is the superior choice

            Comment


              #96
              I'm sooo tempted to post yet another computer nerdish rant

              Comment


                #97
                more tests

                Thanks for all the tests everyone!

                I think Vista has more (or more greedy) background processes; has anyone benchmarked Vista vs XP after stopping all unneeded processes? I use BlackViper's excellent "services" research:
                http://www.blackviper.com/Articles/O...#Windows_Vista

                Or tested Vista w/Readyboost using a USB RAM?

                Seems XP is faster with Office & IE programs also, esp after the new service packs in Jan:
                http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11...nce-gains.html

                cheers

                Comment


                  #98
                  Well, i've created my own vista install(stripped out most of the bull and got it down from 3gs to 650mgs) using vlite. If you don't know how to customize your system, well then chances are, you're never really going to see true performance. It all comes down to the user and his or hers level of knowledge. I for one can squeeze out every last drop of performance while still being able to play games at full blast. I'm talking 1920x1200 resolution with all the quality settings turned way the hell up. Sure, I don't get "150" fps, but 30fps+ is enough for me to enjoy the game. After all the human eye can't distinguish anything over 30fps, but we can recognize things over 60fps...that's where future upgrades come into plan. =]
                  [edit]
                  Take note, after getting rid of all the useless components within vista.
                  I've noticed that it's about twice as fast as xp at full performance settings.

                  I guess I could benchmark my peformance edition of xp against vista and give you all a valid response...

                  Comment


                    #99
                    For all those who don't know.
                    Use Nlite to create your custom version of XP and Vlite to make your own custom versions of Vista.
                    But before doing a clean install with your new untested custom version of windows, make sure you first test it out on a virtual machine.
                    VMware is the best virtual machine program out there, so get that and goto town. ^^

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by illincrux View Post
                      I guess I could benchmark my performance edition of xp against vista and give you all a valid response...
                      That would be cool! PM me if you get around to it plz

                      Comment


                        It's all very valid for ppl agonising over an expensive decision ... but for me my new (5th personal machine since I began) build was all 64 bit arch., so i wanted a 64 bit OS. Vista with DX10 was the obvious choice for my build for the "future". So Vista 64 I have.

                        At first I had some issues with my hardware (specs later), very minor and completely solved now ... all new hardware bought since the build has installed flawlessly.

                        I'm a gamer, and it's really important i get good performance from my system, it cost me £900 quid, I had high expectations.

                        As an OS, for general stuff, office, browsing, movies, multitasking etc ... it beats XP with a fish... it looks great and feels fantastic (after the first 2 weeks thinking wtf!!!11) ... it's fast, faster than any other build ... as you would expect with the upgraded hardware - but the feature rich Vista is awesome in the Control Panel area ... it's just 100% better imo.

                        As for gaming ... well, every single PC I ever built, including my first was for playing UT, that's all I play (tho I did get BioShock to test my rig for obvious reasons - nice sp game btw), I play online so that's all that matters, fps in online matches.

                        I run at 1400*900 (I have some SS in the stickied Screenies thread ... no fps though , so useless I s'pose for relevance here), alll maxed, no aa (full version will be aa'd immediately, cos I can afford the drop.)

                        I get steady 60+ at all times, maybe hitting 50 in extremely crowded carnage. If I stand still like the OP's "benchmark" (lol) 100+ steady.

                        I'm still waiting for the 64 bit UT3 release ... and then I think we'll see the whole combo working like it should for the first time ever.

                        I'm glad XP users aren't forced to go Vista for increased FPS, to the point of playability, it's even impressive that those sytems will run better fps.

                        But to try to say that Vista sucks or we are losing out if we use it ... I call BS. Somebody said you need atleast 60 fps on a crt ... well I had a 21" crt for a long time ... and 30 - 40 was just fine, and at that time I owned many, many servers ( now I'm old, busy, and rubbish) ..., so I don't buy the accuracy stuff.

                        Anyway - vista rocks btw, as did XP after ME. I went through all windows OS since 95, ME was an abomonation - if you think Vista is comparable, you're entitled to your "just wrong" opinion.

                        Comment


                          I must be the luckiest ********* I have no probs what so ever Running Vista. It kicks *** for me.

                          OK here is my basic info:

                          ---------------------
                          Vista Ultimate 64 bit
                          AMD 6000+
                          4 Gigs Buffalo Firestick Ram 800mhz ( it may be cheap ram but it kicks *** )
                          Asus M2N32-SLI Delux motherboard
                          BFG Nvidia 8800 GTX 768 OC video card
                          X-FI Fatal1ty Sound ( Vista Drivers )
                          Vizio 47" HDTV/Monitor Running UT3 @ 1920X1080p
                          ---------------------

                          hard drives dvd etc etc

                          So it runs awesome I cant complain

                          Sorry to hear people have so many problems

                          Comment


                            Well I switched from Vista to XP and did not see any change.

                            Comment


                              I tend to agree that Vista isn't as bad as people say.

                              The main thing is games and drivers haven't been optimized (DX10) on it yet. This is why people think it is a P.O.S. operating system among various gaming communities. Once this happens... And it is happening as we speak... I think Vista will be OK. It is definitely a far more feature rich OS for general tasks and just has a more solid feel to it than XP, in my opinion.

                              The main thing (as we all know) is Vista has higher system requirements than XP and previous windows did. Most PC gamers already exceed these requirements which is why it baffles me there is so much Vista-hate... Not that I am a Bill Gates, or MS fanboy by any means. But in all fairness, Vista isn't as bad as the e-communities would have you believe. It might be bad for certain applications that people do outside of gaming (graphics; movies; web design), but in my experience it is a lot more stable than even XP in overall general use.

                              Comment


                                i never touch my vista boot anymore, i just use XP. I used vista solidly for about 6 months tho, its very good. It just doesnt give me what i need for gaming - I spent a lot of $$ to get these fps that i loose in vista.

                                I have the 8800gts 320. I get much steeper performance degradation on crysis and ut3 than the higher vram cards have, such as the gtx, gts640 and gt, when switching from xp to vista. Perhaps its the drivers, i dunno. But i do know that its not handling the vram as well as XP does, crysis just runs terrible with constant vram hitches on my card in vista but very nicely on xp with higher details. and yeah, yeaps of vram dips in vista for UT3 as well, much less in XP.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X