So, now that RC1 is out, do DX9 games run better on Vista or what?

[fivefeet8]

That isn't necessarily due to better multi-core support, but rather the way Vista handles video as opposed to XP. If you disactivate one of your cores, your video still won't flicker or jitter.


3D desktop engine FTW.

Ah. Cool. I recently watched 2 720p HD WMV movies. One in WMP11 and the other in WM Center and both ran smooth without any hitch. I then did that 3d window scrolling with both videos running and IE open. Sweet.

Then I hovered my mouse over the bottom tabs where the movies were playing and then I had 3 videos playing. 2 Large windows playing different movies and the small hover video on the bottom. Heh.

[Buio]

After installing Vista RC1 on a second HD (dual-booting via bios boot menu) I tested with the new Company of Heroes (installing it twice). Maxing all graphic options exept using no AA (dont do that much for RTS) I ran the built-in test. Vista also game me a bunch of huge pauses in the game but re-starting it went away.

With Vista I get 23/80 (min/max) and with Windows XP I get 34/120. Thats using latest NVidia official driver (beta for Vista).

Other than that Vista is a pain in the ass due to the new UAC. Otherwise I like it alot, its fast and looks very good. Utility seems better, alot of small things is changed.


Oh, and by the way, Company of Heroes rocks. Best RTS in long time. :)

[nekrosoft13]

first thing i did was to disable UAC.

i have vista running on a secondary pc with 6200 TC, so i really can't test games.

but is it true that current drivers don't allow to enable AA?

[fivefeet8]

first thing i did was to disable UAC.

i have vista running on a secondary pc with 6200 TC, so i really can't test games.

but is it true that current drivers don't allow to enable AA?

You can enable AA fine with the current beta vista Nvidia display drivers.

[Buio]

Here is some more exact comparing numbers for Company of Heroes built-in graphic test:

Windows XP (with 91.47, 3:rd test run)
Average: 43.6
Max: 131.0
Min: 23.0

Windows Vista (with 96.33, 3:rd test run)
Average: 34.2
Max: 82.8
Min: 19.9

Everything on max, no AA, single 7900GTX.

[Slammin]

You can enable AA fine with the current beta vista Nvidia display drivers.


LOL, yeah, you can enable it, but getting it to actually enable is another story!

[fivefeet8]

LOL, yeah, you can enable it, but getting it to actually enable is another story!

Heh. Yeah, but it did work fine with Quake3. Of course it seems AA doesn't work all the time with d3d. I did manage to get it to work if the game had options to enable AA.

[rewt]

Yup. You can only enable AA in D3D if the application has option for it. According to the release notes, the vista drivers only support forcing AA in OpenGL.

[garikfox]

Yes, Yes, YES YES !!!

GAMES ! Run ALOT better !

Jeesh some people will not try for themselves to see if its better, lol (nana2)

[rewt]

I smell bs.. (bs)


If they do run better it's probably because your XP was corrupted or loaded with spyware... Reinstall with proper drivers is in order..

[K007]

I smell bs.. (bs)


If they do run better it's probably because your XP was corrupted or loaded with spyware... Reinstall with proper drivers is in order..

Crysis did say that DX9 Hardware with Vista is > XP...so i dont think are gonna lie -.-

[Slammin]

I smell bs.. (bs)


If they do run better it's probably because your XP was corrupted or loaded with spyware... Reinstall with proper drivers is in order..


Yup, and also keep in mind that AA is probably not active in the games where folks are seeing better performance ;)

I do agree that games load MUCH faster under Vista though!

[Absolution]

at least now with vista ... when people leak drivers and 10 people jump on and say "zomg teh image quality and fps's are lik3 way up!!" we may actually believe them

[Buio]

Performance in games in Vista is often much lower than same games in Windows XP at the moment. When mature drivers appear it might change.

[walterman]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/vista-performance-preview_11.html

Windows Vista Beta 2 can’t be used for playing games because it is just incompatible with many titles and leads to a considerable performance hit in others.

Also, i doubt that an OS that sucks 1GB of ram for itself will let you run your games faster. You'll have more disk swapping for sure -> slideshow mode gameplay experience. :D

[nekrosoft13]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/vista-performance-preview_11.html



Also, i doubt that an OS that sucks 1GB of ram for itself will let you run your games faster. You'll have more disk swapping for sure -> slideshow mode gameplay experience. :D

that review is useless, it for beta 2

[nekrosoft13]

Crysis did say that DX9 Hardware with Vista is > XP...so i dont think are gonna lie -.-

its BS, first off all, drivers are not finished, second directx is not finished.

and finally, they got a tie with MS now, of course they will say its better.

[fivefeet8]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/vista-performance-preview_11.html



Also, i doubt that an OS that sucks 1GB of ram for itself will let you run your games faster. You'll have more disk swapping for sure -> slideshow mode gameplay experience. :D

Vista on my system takes about 450 megs for the OS itself with RC1. That's still quite a bit, but not 1 gig. Still, even though the OS takes a huge chunk of memory, it runs very smooth.

I've also been able to play Splinter CEll 3: CT on it with no issues now. Runs almost as fast as it does in XP.

[nekrosoft13]

beta2 used to take close to 800mb

[Absolution]

beta2 used to take close to 800mb
not for me... i was at 600 max during and inbetween builds from beta2 - rc1

[Buio]

that review is useless, it for beta 2

Performance for games in RC1 isn't much better though, so its still an indication. When drivers get better performance will go up of course.

[walterman]

My point is just about the memory usage.

Despite if Vista needs 400-800MB, the fact is that XP needs 100-200MB.

Without an upgrade in our machines (more RAM), we'll have more disk swapping, doing the same tasks.

More memory for the OS -> less memory for user software -> more disk swapping -> worse overall performance.

[Slammin]

You really need to install it and see for yourself. I think Vista does quite a bit more than XP within the same memory footprint, regardless of how much the OS uses after a fresh boot. I also understand that Vista unloads some system tasks when gaming, and that may explain why some games take a little longer to exit - but man, they sure start up a lot faster!

Really, why such negative speculation? I'm hoping Vista turns out a LOT better than XP and so far, I think it probably will be, and we won't have to even wait for two service packs either.

[fivefeet8]

My point is just about the memory usage.

Despite if Vista needs 400-800MB, the fact is that XP needs 100-200MB.

Without an upgrade in our machines (more RAM), we'll have more disk swapping, doing the same tasks.

More memory for the OS -> less memory for user software -> more disk swapping -> worse overall performance.

I haven't notice much if any disk swapping using Vista and I've only got 1 gig of ram. Even while running multiple applications at once.

[walterman]

It isn't negative speculation, it's basic computers architecture.

I downloaded & tried RC1 too. I did some gaming tests, & the most memory demanding game that i had (Battlefield 2), was causing a lot of disk swapping in my system. Basically, RC1 turned my actual system into my old AthlonXP + 1GB ram + 6800U.

I hope that this changes with final release of Vista, or i'll need 4GB to do the same.