What kind of performance are you getting under Vista?

[MindBlank]

I was wondering how other people might be faring under Vista. I'm doing fairly poorly but i'm still hoping.

Configuration in sig, except CPU @ stock.

Vista
3DM05 ~ 6200 3DMarks

XP SP2

3DM05 ~ 7700 3DMarks

I've only tested one game - NWN2 and i get horrible perfomance at the same settings compared to XP (1280x1024 max except shadows which are low)


How are you doing? :clever:

[Dragunov]

Vista:

3DM05: 12704 3DMarks

[MindBlank]

And is that good or is it bad? :D

[chiklit]

I don't have my XP scores anymore since I don't have XP installed. But with 3dmark06 my unoverclocked XP scores were around 8600, my unoverclocked scores with Vista were around 9100. Though I've gotten it up to 10900 overclocked in XP.

I haven't tried any real games yet. Though with SecondLife I get about a 20fps increase in Vista. And performance with Project64 is the same as in XP.

EDIT: With 3DMark05 I get 13859 in Vista. Never tried it in XP though.

[garikfox]

5.1 Rating. x64 Vista

5.9 Graphics Score ! :D :cool: ;)

[Shocky]

3DMark06 is fine, but allot of games seem to have vsync stuck on even though its off ingame and the drivers and I can't overclock so its pretty crap compared to XP in games right now.

[jcrox]

with everything at stock speeds:

3DMark05 XP - 11,999 <---- that really annoyed me, I bumped it up to 201mhz just so I could get over 12,000 lol

3DMark05 Vista - 11,480

I have not noticed any difference in game play from one to the other either.

F.E.A.R. - runs smooth as a baby's rear end @ 1600 x 1200 4xAA 16xAF
Far Cry, HL2, CS:S, Oblivion, Quake 4 and Doom 3 also ZERO problems :dance:

[Princess_Frosty]

with everything at stock speeds:

3DMark05 XP - 11,999 <---- that really annoyed me, I bumped it up to 201mhz just so I could get over 12,000 lol

3DMark05 Vista - 11,480

I have not noticed any difference in game play from one to the other either.

F.E.A.R. - runs smooth as a baby's rear end @ 1600 x 1200 4xAA 16xAF
Far Cry, HL2, CS:S, Oblivion, Quake 4 and Doom 3 also ZERO problems :dance:

I'm convinced the speed of the lower end AMD's X2 range is a massive performance hit in Vista despite being better performers overall (across both cores)

If the game is using a single core only (and 99.99% of games do) you'd need a X2 4800 to get the equivelent speed in games as an 64 4000+ (this was my old CPU)

The fact that you have a reasonably fast single core CPU and little difference between your 3DMark scores isn't a supprise to me.

The people that seem to have the biggest frame rate hits in Vista are those who have CPU limited systems, Vista uses more CPU/RAM when gaming, but is actually MORE efficient for rendering.

I didn't realise quite how CPU limited even my overclocked 64 4000+ was until I got my new E6600 and clocked it to 3.0Ghz

[MindBlank]

From what i see here, i get that there's something wrong with either my graphics card drivers or the PCI-E drivers that were up last week on Windows update, which i installed.

I seem to be getting waaay lower performance on Vista than everyone here.

Can someone that doesn't own a monster 8800GTS/GTX post some XP and Vista scores?

BTW, guys those sure get some impressive scores! :thumbsup:

[jcrox]

I just sold my 2- 7800GT's, I installed each one individually and ran 3Dmark05 for the guy so he could see that they were indeed in fine working condition.

The EVGA with 445/1070 factory OC scored:

Vista: 7080

and oddly enough....if you can believe it

XP: 7045

How weird is that??

[Bokishi]

So are 8800s getting better performance while 7800s get worser performance?

[grey_1]

I just sold my 2- 7800GT's, I installed each one individually and ran 3Dmark05 for the guy so he could see that they were indeed in fine working condition.

The EVGA with 445/1070 factory OC scored:

Vista: 7080

and oddly enough....if you can believe it

XP: 7045

How weird is that??
I've tried every driver so far and can't come close to that.

[PSYCHODAD]

I'm getting around 9500 in 3DMK06 with Vista. With XP I got around 9750, all at stock speeds. Not alot of difference and Vista seems much smoother to me(could be the 4gb of ram with Vista).:D

[MindBlank]

I've tried every driver so far and can't come close to that.


And what are you getting grey_1?

Seems that 8800 owners, despite nV's craptastic drivers as of late should be happy with performance under Vista. Now if only games would run...

I can't generalize anything about the 7x00 cards until i get a few more scores. So far mine is the worse of the lot. Great... Maybe i'll look into what might be causing such a performance loss for me. (i have a hunch the PCI-E driver that i pulled of Windows Update has something to do with this...)

Anyway, what are you 6-series owners scoring in 05/06 under Vista?

[kurt454]

I have not been benchmarking, but most DirectX games seems to be playing fine, but OpenGL games are struggling. Doom3, Quake 4, and Prey have to be turned down to low settings to get acceptable framerates. This is with 100.64 drivers on a 7800GT in Vista.

[Absolution]

bad enough that I have to lower from 4xAA & 8xAF to 2xAA and 4xAF

source runs abuot 50% slower

[tomb18]

Ok, I'm using the 64 bit version with RC2 (vista release is in the mail)

3Dmark06 = 9450 (9800 in XP64)

Here are some fraps ratings. Oblivion is quite surprising. It performs better on Vista than with the 97.92 XP64 drivers (although my 7950GX2 was much better)

All of these were done with the default applications. No tweaks.

2007-02-14 11:52:45 - R6Vegas_Game 1600x1200 all max
Frames: 2332 - Time: 62044ms - Avg: 37.586 - Min: 24 - Max: 68

2007-02-17 13:46:49 - Oblivion 1920x1200 all max HDR
Frames: 1704 - Time: 25774ms - Avg: 66.113 - Min: 57 - Max: 77

2007-02-17 13:52:31 - Oblivion 1920x1200 8xaa no hdr
Frames: 2205 - Time: 33389ms - Avg: 66.039 - Min: 45 - Max: 82

2007-02-19 21:38:49 - Oblivion 1920x1200 16xaa no hdr
Frames: 5320 - Time: 114274ms - Avg: 46.554 - Min: 22 - Max: 75

2007-02-20 21:32:41 - FEAR 1600x1200 everything max
Frames: 3674 - Time: 48044ms - Avg: 76.471 - Min: 40 - Max: 171

2007-02-20 21:38:05 - Quake4 1900x1200 8xaa 16as
Frames: 1293 - Time: 28796ms - Avg: 44.902 - Min: 15 - Max: 62

Quake is the worse!

[therapture]

5.1 Rating. x64 Vista

5.9 Graphics Score ! :D :cool: ;)


Means jack**** actually....REAL games are what you need to test.

[MindBlank]

Awaiting more 6 and 7 series results!

[Dragunov]

Did new run:

with new 100.65 driver:

3D Mark 05: 13016

3D Mark 06: 7934

[WeReWoLf]

3dMark06 Stock score of 9942

I'm afraid to overclock at the moment. Damn aussie summer...

CPU: 48°c
MB: 61°c
GPU: 77°c

[JaxMacFL]

I got 10066 here with 32-bit Vista Business.

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=1286875

[seppuka]

No use here, 7950GX2 is pretty useless without SLI driver support when it comes to getting decent scores

[Demon_82]

10.114 3Dmarks in 3Dmark06 under Win Vista Ultimate 32bits with 100.65 drivers, E6600 @ 3'40 and 8800GTS 320MB @ 634/1894, so I think performance isn't that bad.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1321844

[JaxMacFL]

Got my $10.00 64-bit vista business dvd yesterday in the mail and installed it. Actually got a whole 3 points more with it, lol.

10069

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=1352503