PDA

View Full Version : Windows XP vs. Windows Vista - FarCry 1.4 and Prey 1.3 Updated Performance Tests!


Pages : [1] 2

8800gtsfan
06-19-07, 11:41 AM
I had some time and wanted to run some tests using the HOC tools for running demos.

Here are some updated numbers using the latest drivers available on Nvidia's website. 158.24 Vista and 158.22 XP. Here is how things look currently...

BTW these results are 1280x1024 the max of my LCD, NEC 90GX2.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/6651/chart1nz6.jpg

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2949/chart2ug6.jpg


Calculated differences are between 4% and 10%, not bad considering. I may go back and add XP64 to the mix if I get more time to install it.

Thoughts?

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4338/diffeeq7.jpg

Eliminator
06-19-07, 01:17 PM
so vista still blows...

Tr1cK
06-19-07, 01:55 PM
This is no different than the Win98 to Win2k transition. The performance was still better in 98 in games, but it was a dated OS. People still switched over because the 5ish% gain wasn't worth keeping the crap OS. Your benches show over 90fps at a respectable resolution with AA and AF, that's still plenty of horsepower.

Slammin
06-19-07, 02:06 PM
That's exactly what I've been saying too. Sure, you take a performance hit with the new OS in some areas, but ideally, along with the new OS, you also got new hardware.

Now those running the new OS with dated hardware are not going to want to stomach the performance hit the new OS imposes. Can't say I blame them, but then again, it really should be expected.

8800gtsfan
06-19-07, 02:28 PM
Actually I was expecting more like 15 - 20%. Vista actually impressed me that it wasn't more of a gap.

skoprowski
06-19-07, 02:55 PM
Not really bad IMHO. I bet you really would not notice the difference when playing the actual games and not looking at the FPS counter.

You have to remember that the drivers in Vista are not part of the kernel and now have to compete for the same resources other programs use to run. I can completely understand why things are a bit slower in Vista.

4q2
06-19-07, 03:17 PM
Vista's Dx10 performance is much better! ;)

8800gtsfan
06-19-07, 03:47 PM
Vista's Dx10 performance is much better! ;)


Well since DX10 doesn't exist in XP, there isn't anything that would "perform better with DX10". :D ;)

Dragunov
06-19-07, 03:52 PM
Well, it seems Vista is getting better and better :)

Just an updated kernel with better performance, and better drivers :D

8800gtsfan
06-19-07, 04:01 PM
Well, it seems Vista is getting better and better :)

Just an updated kernel with better performance, and better drivers :D


I dunno about that. So I loaded Vista X86 last night... everything was fine. Powered up today and Vista BSODs straight away. Rebooted and tested for about 3 hours without a hitch.

Vista still sux imo, it's just too flakey still. I had to reinstall Far Cry 3 times before it would actually run. The first install failed due to installer errors. The next time it would pop up and say the application has performed an error would you like to connect and search for a solution. Removed, reinstalled third time was a charm. I'm still dual booting Vista, it's just not reliable enough for me. Patiently awaiting SP1 tho... ;)

Slammin
06-20-07, 11:34 AM
I dunno about that. So I loaded Vista X86 last night... everything was fine. Powered up today and Vista BSODs straight away. Rebooted and tested for about 3 hours without a hitch.

Vista still sux imo, it's just too flakey still. I had to reinstall Far Cry 3 times before it would actually run. The first install failed due to installer errors. The next time it would pop up and say the application has performed an error would you like to connect and search for a solution. Removed, reinstalled third time was a charm. I'm still dual booting Vista, it's just not reliable enough for me. Patiently awaiting SP1 tho... ;)


<cough> flaky overclock <cough>

Dragunov
06-20-07, 12:30 PM
Possible reason is overclocking indeed,

but they are still busy with fine-tuning the kernel and SP1 is gonna contain an updated version of it, so I hope it's gonna run more stable and updated drivers are a welcome thing aswell :)

8800gtsfan
06-20-07, 01:27 PM
<cough> flaky overclock <cough>

Yea, it's not the overclock. Trust me. ;) This chip does 3.4 @ stock volts 24 hours orthos, OCCT stable and the memory is memtest and orthos blend stable for 24 hours at the same speeds ;) When I overclock I'm 300% positive its a stable overclock. Not like some of these hacks here.

This chip is orthos stable over 3.7 Ghz, the memory is memtest and orthos blend stable. I have never had a single crash in XP with this rig...

stncttr908
06-20-07, 01:58 PM
I won't use Vista as my everyday OS until DX10 becomes necessary and I get a god damn version of nView for Vista. Come on, NVIDIA.

Oh yeah, and when I get decent software support for my Audigy 2 (like that will happen).

Vasot02
06-20-07, 02:18 PM
Until DX10 becomes a standard in games i do not see any reason to go for Vista

Long live Windows XP

noko
06-20-07, 09:33 PM
Just turn off Aero if you don't like it or get Vista Basic without Aero.

v3rninater
06-21-07, 03:32 AM
Windows Vista is retarded plain and simple. They didn't need another O/S....they needed to keep updating XP and make it much more of a refined O/S.

Course that's actually using my brain. Or ya know, they could actually listen to users and spend the time to make an O/S that doesn't bloat the **** out of your computer hardware. I think people appreciate more of the seamless-ness (if you will) of running a computer without all the crap taking up memory and possibly infecting your stuff.

I think every option towards running a computer o/s should be optional from the get go. Like piece together all the software you want for your O/S......Oops I did it again. Used my friggin wet noodle rollin around up in my black hole of a head.

zodden
06-21-07, 04:56 AM
Possible reason is overclocking indeed,

but they are still busy with fine-tuning the kernel and SP1 is gonna contain an updated version of it, so I hope it's gonna run more stable and updated drivers are a welcome thing aswell :)

I doubt that. I have found through many many hours of Orthos, Prime95, 3dmark loops, memtest, etc that my max stable OC is exactly the same under XP as it is under Vista. Not a few mhz, not a few bus speed notches one way or the other but exactly 100% the same.

Vista is no more or less OC friendly then XP is.

xbob
06-21-07, 06:14 AM
Windows Vista is retarded plain and simple. They didn't need another O/S....they needed to keep updating XP and make it much more of a refined O/S.

Course that's actually using my brain. Or ya know, they could actually listen to users and spend the time to make an O/S that doesn't bloat the **** out of your computer hardware. I think people appreciate more of the seamless-ness (if you will) of running a computer without all the crap taking up memory and possibly infecting your stuff.

I think every option towards running a computer o/s should be optional from the get go. Like piece together all the software you want for your O/S......Oops I did it again. Used my friggin wet noodle rollin around up in my black hole of a head.

Don't pat yourself on the back too much as your whole argument is flawed...

1. XPs code base is over 6 years old now and massively patched, this is not easy to maintain for a lot of reasons.

2. Most people don't want, or really know how to piece together all the software they want for an OS. I doubt you really know exactly what you are asking for when you post things like this.

3. Although it didn't work as planned, the whole idea of Vista was that seamless experience you mention. MS has an issue delivering software lately and it will take a massive shift in management attitude to fix it, but sticking with XP isn't a good solution for anyone long term (MS or users).

I'm not happy with Vista at the moment and probably won't jump until SP1, but I don't think anyone who understands software or systems architecture really thinks bolting more stuff on to XP is the answer. Perhaps some velcro so secure that over-active noodle of your might help :zombie3:

8800gtsfan
06-21-07, 08:39 AM
Don't pat yourself on the back too much as your whole argument is flawed...

1. XPs code base is over 6 years old now and massively patched, this is not easy to maintain for a lot of reasons.

2. Most people don't want, or really know how to piece together all the software they want for an OS. I doubt you really know exactly what you are asking for when you post things like this.

3. Although it didn't work as planned, the whole idea of Vista was that seamless experience you mention. MS has an issue delivering software lately and it will take a massive shift in management attitude to fix it, but sticking with XP isn't a good solution for anyone long term (MS or users).

I'm not happy with Vista at the moment and probably won't jump until SP1, but I don't think anyone who understands software or systems architecture really thinks bolting more stuff on to XP is the answer. Perhaps some velcro so secure that over-active noodle of your might help :zombie3:



Gotta love this, Microsoft wants to tell people the truth, that Vista is not a half baked OS and is 'gameday ready'... however they want partners to sign an NDA so that the real truth isn't leaked. Hiliarious...

http://apcmag.com/6458/dont_wait_for_vista_sp1_pleads_microsoft

I still don't understand how making a new OS from the ground up would be slower?? Isnt the point of re-writing the OS from the ground up to streamline and remove the redundant code - a job too difficult to do in the aging Windows XP. Yet, they re-write and re-bloated the code so quickly now gaming performance is 5-10% slower.

The fanboys can say what they want and make a million excuses why but deep down they know the truth - IT'S SLOWER THAN XP FOR GAMING AND ALWAYS WILL BE. :rolleyes:

Elvin Presler
06-21-07, 04:26 PM
http://apcmag.com/6458/dont_wait_for_vista_sp1_pleads_microsoft

Isnt the point of re-writing the OS from the ground up to streamline and remove the redundant code - a job too difficult to do in the aging Windows XP. Yet, they re-write and re-bloated the code so quickly now gaming performance is 5-10% slower.

Bingo. Since Vista's "code base is not over 6 years old now and massively patched" it should blow XP out of the water using even lower resources if it was half what it is marketed to be. Instead it uses about 4 times as much of everything and runs worse. I installed Vista Home Basic and it consumed like 12 gigs (12 gigs of nothing!) on my drive compared to XP using about 1.5.

Personally I found it to be insanely bloated, sluggish in every way (some simple things just take forever for no apparent reason, no hard drive activity or anything) and it trys to hide everything from me. You can't even navigate to your start menu folder to customize it. Networking to an XP machine is a serious pain. The new start menu is a seriously cluttered, obtrusive, pain in the ass, like everything else in Vista.

In short. It's bigger, slower, nothing works better, half my programs won't work at all, the drivers are bigger and less "feature rich". It's crap, and I don't like that M$ is trying to force it on us by holding DirectX 10 hostage and creating artificial requirements like Vista only, DirectX 9 games. It all just stinks worse than my moist, warm, crusty, crack.

NoWayDude
06-21-07, 04:34 PM
Try running the benchmark on FC using compatibility mode. You would be surprised how well it runs under Vista

8800gtsfan
06-21-07, 07:17 PM
Try running the benchmark on FC using compatibility mode. You would be surprised how well it runs under Vista


LOL why would you have to use XP compatibility (does it reduce the Vista bloat somehow hehe) mode on Vista? you'd think Vista's "mode" should be superior lol

Zapablast05
06-21-07, 07:38 PM
Until DX10 becomes a standard in games i do not see any reason to go for Vista

Long live Windows XP


Windows XP Vista (SP3 to some) is a retarded inbred version between XP and Vista. It still has DX10, Aero, Sidebar, crazy looking task bar, but it's all removeable. Thus the name XP Vista. Someone had the audacity to merge XP and Vista so you can have XP 'reliability' with Vista's 'performance.' Just turn off all the Vista **** and then you have XP with DX10 and you dont have 20GB of nothing being wasted.

8800gtsfan
06-23-07, 12:42 AM
Here we go folks... added Vista X64 results. To be honest this shocked me. XP-64's performance was always so much lower I was expecting the same here...


http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8797/resultswa5.jpg