PDA

View Full Version : Vista and gaming


Pages : [1] 2 3

blenky
06-14-08, 03:55 PM
Been out of the loop for awhile with gaming. Looking to upgrade soon as was wondering if Vista is now a decent gaming platform or is XP still the way to go?

Thanks

Greg
06-14-08, 08:32 PM
There is no reason not to use Vista.

Drivers are present except for very old hardware.
Performance is comparable (at least 32bit is nearly identical).
Overall compatibility is good. The only issues might be with HW specific software like DVD writing applications.
If you don't like the extra security measures you can disable them.
OEM pricing for Vista is similar to XP.
64bit version is very robust.
Vista includes Media Center as standard.

Having said all that, you might not notice much real difference between the two, except that some options have moved around and window borders can be translucent.

mailman2
06-14-08, 08:54 PM
I still find games to run slightly smoother and faster in XP myself. Being a stickler for performance I'll take every frame I can get. I dual boot though, so Vista x64 is never far away just in case that day comes...:)

blenky
06-14-08, 09:10 PM
Thanks. So next question would be Vista 32 or Vista 64?

Q
06-14-08, 09:49 PM
I think it really depends what games you play. If its all modern games, Vista 32 is the way to go unless you have 4GB+ of ram, then Vista 64. If you play any old games, I highly recommend sticking with XP if you can. Vista 32 will get you by in most scenarios with older games (2-however many years old), but you'll have a handful less of compatibility issues with XP.

walterman
06-14-08, 10:27 PM
This is what i discovered in my machine, using XP32 & Vista64 (using my custom software):

- You lose a 10% of your framerate (better than expected).
- You lose a 25% of your CPU power (Turns quads into tricores).
- You lose 1GB of RAM.

http://www.coopdb.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1603

Until all the software is 64bit, we'll be losing up to a 25% of raw CPU performance (wow64 is like a translator for the 32bit apps). About the ram usage, well, if you have 4GB and a 8800GTX, you'll only have 3.25GB under XP32, so, +- you have the same free ram under both OSes.

GFX power is almost the same today under both OSes (i hope). My main concern about Vista64 is the poor CPU performance with the 32bit apps. A 25% drop is something that you will miss in CPU intensive tasks.

Yaboze
06-14-08, 11:15 PM
My god that page is annoying. There's this 'kerplunk' Windows XP sound that keeps repeating, I think it's from an Ad at the top.

EDIT: I refreshed and it went away, different Ad.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe that I using Vista you are losing 25% of your CPU. Quad core acting like a tri core? Come on. Vista uses multi cores much more efficiently than XP.

Benchmarks are very close in 32bit games, which use GPU, CPU and RAM like crazy. You can't just run a compiler and base it on one test.

CapnKirk
06-14-08, 11:31 PM
There is no reason not to use Vista.



There was no reason to make Vista aside from MS being greedy a$$wipes.
XP can use DX 10 which has been proven and works.
And yet Bill Gates said it could not be ported to XP...
You don't need 150+ services running in the background or an OS that uses almost 2 gig of ram while looking at the damn desktop!


There is no reason to have four cores running to play the current games.
Tri SLI is not needed, nor is a 64 bit OS for gaming.

There is no "state of the art" for PC's, unless you you want to waste money upgrading every 3 months for the newest and bug filled hyped to the max hardware that games can't even take advantage of...

If there wasn't any reason to use Vista, why the heck did MS bother to code SP3 for XP?

Support for XP was supposed to end!

MS and PC users = :nanahump:

mailman2
06-15-08, 12:04 AM
This is what i discovered in my machine, using XP32 & Vista64 (using my custom software):

- You lose a 10% of your framerate (better than expected).
- You lose a 25% of your CPU power (Turns quads into tricores).
- You lose 1GB of RAM.

http://www.coopdb.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1603

Until all the software is 64bit, we'll be losing up to a 25% of raw CPU performance (wow64 is like a translator for the 32bit apps). About the ram usage, well, if you have 4GB and a 8800GTX, you'll only have 3.25GB under XP32, so, +- you have the same free ram under both OSes.

GFX power is almost the same today under both OSes (i hope). My main concern about Vista64 is the poor CPU performance with the 32bit apps. A 25% drop is something that you will miss in CPU intensive tasks.


Wow, informative post. There are gonna be some haters on you for this. I prefer XP myself, but those results are pretty conclusive for what you do on your PC. Definitely XP FTW.

walterman
06-15-08, 12:11 AM
...
Anyway, I find it hard to believe that I using Vista you are losing 25% of your CPU. Quad core acting like a tri core? Come on. Vista uses multi cores much more efficiently than XP.

Benchmarks are very close in 32bit games, which use GPU, CPU and RAM like crazy. You can't just run a compiler and base it on one test.

It was Vista64, and running my 32bit SSE3 ultra optimized assembler code, which means, keeping all the functional units of your CPU busy & stressing your memory subsystem with manual prefetches to avoid delays in the code execution, based on my observed heuristics.

I think that the problem is the wow64: http://blogs.msdn.com/craigmcmurtry/archive/2004/12/14/301155.aspx

Games use tons of calls to the system, and they idle most of the time waiting for the system calls (to the graphics api, or to the kernel of the os) to finish (check the kernel time in the task manager when you are running any game).

But my code makes a heavy use of the CPU, with few system calls (just to sync the threads across the cores). It's pure CPU performance, and it runs a 25% slower on Vista64, than on XP32. The 4 cores were at 100% on Vista64 (like under XP), but the test needed a 25% higher time to finish. That is why i said that it turns quads into tricores.

Hope this helps.

Lfctony
06-15-08, 01:41 AM
Walterman, I like you but I don't buy it. Sorry.

Vista 64 tests included...
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72298

The difference in the vast majority of tests is non-existent. Vista even outperforms XP in some of the tests... And the tests are done with a dual-core, so you can forget about blaming the quad-core having extra power thus showing no difference etc...

Zenoth
06-15-08, 01:46 AM
There is no reason not to use Vista.

Hum, well yes there are.

If one is happy with XP why should he/she absolutely move to Vista? And Microsoft will continue to officially support XP until 2014, no need to hurry for Vista just because "it's there". Besides, in my case, I'm not using Vista not because I don't want to, but because I can't, simply because I'm still on a CRT monitor (flat screen, yes, but CRT still).

And CRT monitors + Vista + gaming = 60Hz bug. Imagine the very bad surprise when I realized I bought it (OEM) only to see that it wouldn't be worth it, if only I knew in advance I wouldn't have bought it, and even if I cracked it I wouldn't even be able to use it anyway due to that bug. I have no need to burn my eyes with 60Hz in games that don't support in-game refresh rates adjustments, and no need to get my older OGL games getting all those mixed up colors compared to XP. The day I'll get an LCD I might make the move permanently.

K007
06-15-08, 02:47 AM
I am on CRT as well, i didn't know about this 60hz bug as well...man there is no way i want to use Vista as well till that is fixed...

I wanted to get into LCD as well...but i really don't think i want to worry about the 'dead pixels' or buying a bad monitor with ****ty ghosting effect...i did look around, and those who do game on LCD usually have to spend a bit more..and tbh..i am more than happy with my CRT ><..till it breaks i won't upgrade the monitor.

Phyxion
06-15-08, 03:59 AM
Hum, well yes there are.

If one is happy with XP why should he/she absolutely move to Vista? And Microsoft will continue to officially support XP until 2014, no need to hurry for Vista just because "it's there". Besides, in my case, I'm not using Vista not because I don't want to, but because I can't, simply because I'm still on a CRT monitor (flat screen, yes, but CRT still).

And CRT monitors + Vista + gaming = 60Hz bug. Imagine the very bad surprise when I realized I bought it (OEM) only to see that it wouldn't be worth it, if only I knew in advance I wouldn't have bought it, and even if I cracked it I wouldn't even be able to use it anyway due to that bug. I have no need to burn my eyes with 60Hz in games that don't support in-game refresh rates adjustments, and no need to get my older OGL games getting all those mixed up colors compared to XP. The day I'll get an LCD I might make the move permanently.
This is rubbish, I never had any 60Hz bug and I've been using x86 and x64.

I'd go for Vista and take the x64 version since its faster then the x86 for me.

Muppet
06-15-08, 04:03 AM
Vista 64bit here and loving it. Personally I was a big fan of XP, but now i'd never go back.

CapnKirk
06-15-08, 04:28 AM
Vista 64bit here and loving it. Personally I was a big fan of XP, but now i'd never go back.

WOW! damn nice 3dmark scores there man!

post the compare links, like to see the details on those. :cool:

Phyxion
06-15-08, 07:21 AM
Vista 64bit here and loving it. Personally I was a big fan of XP, but now i'd never go back.
Yes, me too. I came from XP, then moved to Vista x86 but then decided to try x64, and it's lovely. Biggest mistake from Microsoft was to release an x86 build of Vista.

andy_nv
06-15-08, 07:45 AM
If you're building a new system with a DX10 card (9600GT/HD3850 at least) and 4 gigs of ram, there is no reason not to install Vista 64. Screw the few hundred points you loose in 3DM, games run well. As for refresh rates, I'm using Refresh Lock in Vista, let's not forget XP also needs refresh rate overwriting (either through drivers or third party tool).

walterman
06-15-08, 08:21 AM
Walterman, I like you but I don't buy it. Sorry.

Vista 64 tests included...
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72298

The difference in the vast majority of tests is non-existent. Vista even outperforms XP in some of the tests... And the tests are done with a dual-core, so you can forget about blaming the quad-core having extra power thus showing no difference etc...

I said that a 32bit program that makes a heavy use of the cpu, with few system calls, will perform slower on Vista x64, due to the wow64 translation.

The 4 cores are at 100% under XP32 & Vista64, so, both OSes do a good job keeping the CPU busy, but, under Vista64, there is an extra translation layer, that needs extra cpu time, and this is why the performance is slower.

Take a look here at the h264 & xvid encoding: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-5.html

Those apps make a heavy use of the CPU, with few system calls, and the performance is slower, cause they keep the CPU busy all the time.

The rest of software that uses tons of calls to the system, will have a little impact on the performance.

Perhaps i should code 32bit & 64bit versions of a sample program that makes a heavy use of the CPU. If i'm right, the 64bit version should perform at full speed.

Phyxion
06-15-08, 09:58 AM
I said that a 32bit program that makes a heavy use of the cpu, with few system calls, will perform slower on Vista x64, due to the wow64 translation.
That's not true some perform better.

Medion
06-15-08, 11:41 AM
I appreciate the information Walterman, and I'm sorry that some people are jumping on you for it.

Guys, some of you are missing a key point. He's talking about XP32 vs. Vista64. There's a 32-bit translation layer in 64 that slows down 32bit apps. For those of you who feel Vista is faster, you might be thinking XP32 vs. Vista32. Walterman didn't compare these two OSes.

walterman
06-15-08, 11:57 AM
I appreciate the information Walterman, and I'm sorry that some people are jumping on you for it.

Guys, some of you are missing a key point. He's talking about XP32 vs. Vista64. There's a 32-bit translation layer in 64 that slows down 32bit apps. For those of you who feel Vista is faster, you might be thinking XP32 vs. Vista32. Walterman didn't compare these two OSes.

Exactly, on XP32 vs Vista32, you do not need wow64 to run the 32bit apps, and there won't be any performance hit from the point of view of the CPU.

mailman2
06-15-08, 02:31 PM
That's not true some perform better.

If its not a 64bit native application then its using WOW and thus the performance hit. I doubt you would find any native 32bit apps that run better in Vista 64 because of WOW. Now a program that has a native 64bit exe thats a different story and I think that is what you are talking about.

DeusGear
06-15-08, 02:37 PM
I'm having 0 problems with performance with vista 64. Heck it feels faster then windows xp ever did.

Phyxion
06-15-08, 02:59 PM
If its not a 64bit native application then its using WOW and thus the performance hit. I doubt you would find any native 32bit apps that run better in Vista 64 because of WOW. Now a program that has a native 64bit exe thats a different story and I think that is what you are talking about.
No, some apps are faster under WOW. You can find some reviews of this on the internet ;)