Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vista vs XP performance comparison.

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

    Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
    Hickeroar..

    i'm not going to bother explaining anything in detail to you.

    It's not a horribly hard to logical think about concept that various hardware combinations have been proven to lead to horrible performance figures..... Or in some cases, poor System setup by either the manufacturer or the operator....

    You've already made up your mind about vista.... while your opinion may be right, the fact is that the statement about the product is utterly rubbish....

    Sorry, but your poor system just wasn't ment to run vista... i'm sorry for you... course it doesn't help that your running a nforce 680i motherboard and a nvidia video card..... which the combination of both have a bit of a history that alot of people seem to ignore or refuse to accept as having very VERY poor performance in windows vista usually.

    Granted, nvidia is makeing vast improvements to the video drivers, the board is still a bit of a mess

    Stick to your windows XP... you'll be happier, and don't judge vista on your machine... sorry but it's unfortuneate that you just don't have the experience to make a educational and logical conclusion about vista.


    Try running vista on an intel P35 or x38 chipset with your 8800, guaranteed you'll see a much MUCH better boost... and likely see a much more "balanced" frame rate between the 2 oses....

    Course ATI's been ahead of the game in the video department for XP vs Vista.... still so many factors to consider though..


    Um dude, 680i is one of the premier chipsets on the market. Definitly not for the noobs. I would never recommend a 680i based board to a inexperienced builder. But if you know what your doing, there is no better chipset right now. Not sure what you mean saying AMD/ATI are ahead of the game. Im thinking that might be a typo??... Anyways Youl never see that big a difference in performance based on your chipset. The x38 may be an exception in the future with pci express 2.0 and ddr3 support. But right now as far as benchmarks, the p35 and x38 chipsets are both a tad behind the 680i. When they start manufacturing ddr3 with lower timings Im sure well see some performance gains for x38 based boards but thats not happening any time soon. I own systems with both the p35 and 680i chipset, very happy with both of them. Have a Shuttle sp35p2 pro and my mid tower has an Asus Striker Extreme inside. Both machines have c2d e6850's and 8800gtx's. They are virtually identical performance wise in both vista and XP.

    Either way you should all stop arguing because you all have valid points. If you have a beast of a system with about 4 gigs of ram then you will not feel TOO much of a difference in the two OS's regardless of the frame rates. But as far as sheer numbers go, xp wins hands down in almost every benchmark for pretty much every game out today. So ya everyones right on both sides. I personally dont notice any difference at all between the two. I know the numbers dont lie but niether do my eyes. This is gonna sound wierd but the only thing Ive noticed is the mouse movement feels a tiny bit smoother in XP. I almost get a tearing effect at the edges of the screen when moving the mouse in vista. Its not there when running XP.

    I dont know how all you guys running c2d 6600/6750/6850 or amd 6000+ processors paired with 8800s or 2900's can play without vsync. To me tearing is almost as bad, maybe even worse than low framerates. Il sacrifice high resolutions any day to get the best performance I can.My machine running as smooth as butter helps me get over it REAL fast. I get an absolute constant 60 frames no matter how many people are running around in front of me. But whatever floats your boat I guess.

    Comment


      Originally posted by DX860424 View Post
      This is not for UT3 only btw, Vista just sucks for gaming (and in general but thats just my opinion) when compared to xp.
      LOL! dude, Vista Ultimate is made for gaming...
      living in the past, your going to have to go to Vista soon,
      M$ only supporting it for another 6 months, sucks to be you

      Comment


        I have two nearly identical systems here (amd x2 4000, 2x1gb ddr2-800, 8600gt ), one running xp pro the other vista ultimate, both running the current nvidia whql drivers, I've compared the fps while spectating and the xp system consistently has double or more the fps. also starting the game and loading maps takes much longer on my vista pc.

        For example staring down the corridor in Deck from the flak to the sniper I get about 50fps on my XP system running at 1280x1024, I get about 25 on my Vista system running at 1024x768.

        OTHERWISE THE SETTINGS ARE THE SAME! Only reason I am running Vista on the other pc is for the new MCE.

        In TF2 the fps difference is negligible.

        Comment


          Vista is slower than XP. Why anybody is defending Vista is beyond me, if it's fine for you, then it is fine for you, but every benchmark I've seen has XP with a huge increase in performance.

          Preliminary benchmarks on XP SP3 show a noticable performance increase, about 10% faster than XP SP2. The officebench 2007 benchmark has XP SP3 over 2X faster than Vista SP1.

          Comment


            last i checked..

            all the top end machines are running the x38 chipset with either ddr2 or in some rarer cases, ddr3....

            Comment


              OMG VISTA SUCKS!!

              lol,just thought id join in the complaining party. although i have vista and it runs perfectly for any game ive thrown at it. i honestly dont understand what is so bad about it.

              40 fps vs 100 fps ...considering the human eye can only see change in framerate up to around 30 with little noticable difference 30+. with that said whats the difference whether you get 40 or 140,you see basically the same thing. idk what framerate ut3 runs at for me,and i dont really care cause its smooth. if i had to guess id probably say around 50-60

              Comment


                Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
                last i checked..

                all the top end machines are running the x38 chipset with either ddr2 or in some rarer cases, ddr3....
                Umm, yeah about that...

                You actually think that every single high-end system has an x38 chipset? Maybe you can show us where you get these awesome statistics.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by killerbynight View Post
                  OMG VISTA SUCKS!!

                  lol,just thought id join in the complaining party. although i have vista and it runs perfectly for any game ive thrown at it. i honestly dont understand what is so bad about it.

                  40 fps vs 100 fps ...considering the human eye can only see change in framerate up to around 30 with little noticable difference 30+. with that said whats the difference whether you get 40 or 140,you see basically the same thing. idk what framerate ut3 runs at for me,and i dont really care cause its smooth. if i had to guess id probably say around 50-60
                  actually, the human eye can see up to a maximum of 60fps, anymore than that, and its unnoticable.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Exley View Post
                    Ive been using vista for a long time and really like it. No major issues to speak of. i understand Xp may be slightly faster in games but FOR ME it is not woth switching back when i find vista on the whole to be a superior OS

                    i would say im getting about a 30FPS avg at 1280x1024 with both sliders at 5
                    Absolutly the same thing for me but I have a Radeon X1950XT 256MB at 650/2000 instead of ur X1800XT. I know XP is faster as seen on most benchmark but I never seen it to be 2x (100%) faster. Maybe because you haven't done a few tweaks to Vista and disabled that horrible Windows Defender that scan in real-time and reduce considerably the HDD performance.

                    Comment


                      how bout for starters...

                      notice how most if not all of the top performers not to mention the followups are all running x38's

                      http://www.futuremark.com/community/halloffame/

                      btw, don't bother getting started on what a human eye can see... there are so many factors involved.... it's laughable to debate FPS seen.

                      Technically we can see thousands of frames per second.. however 24/30fps is considered by most to be "smooth"..... however the more you can get, the better and smoother things will look, and if you get used to a low frame rate to begin with, typically huge increases won't seem any different then a doubleing increase.

                      Not going to go into any further then that....

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
                        how bout for starters...

                        notice how most if not all of the top performers not to mention the followups are all running x38's

                        http://www.futuremark.com/community/halloffame/
                        Well those benchmarks might have something to do with the fact those guys are running QX9650's. Im not going to argue with you though because If I were building a machine today I would definitly be looking into X38 boards. I was just responding to your idea that the 680i boards cause poor performance with vista. The chipset certainly has its flaws but performance isnt one of them. Voltage issues, issues with 4gb of memory, and the fact that they arent compatible with the new 45nm processors are the biggest problems with them as far as Im concerned. Ive had to manually configure the voltages for every machine Ive slapped a 680i based motherboard in. With all that said its still a top notch chipset with a but load of features. And if you wanna run SLI its the way to go atm.

                        Comment


                          unfortuneately yes, it's the only way to go if you want SLI... gotta give nvidia **** for simply refusing customers to be able to run sli on anything other then thier own boards....

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Respen View Post
                            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.
                            late reply, but: u have got a TFT. 60Fps is max on them (with Vsync)
                            On CRTS, you will nedd 85 -160 FPS to get flueid gameplay. On a CRT with 60FPS > ugly slideshow.

                            Comment


                              XP doesn't accept my motherboard drivers. As easy is that. XP = no sound

                              So I bought Vista and I didn't even have to insert my driver CD. Eat that!

                              I also have Sidebar, Aero and Transparency enabled when running UT3 and I never get below 40 fps!

                              Comment


                                I lost my XP disc when i was moving, so im stuck with Vista haha. Honestly i dont mind as long is my FPS stays above 35, which it always does.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X