PDA

View Full Version : Did some more benchmarks: XP = 184fps Vista = 120fps


Pages : [1] 2

3DBrad
08-28-07, 02:13 PM
Ok,

So I did some more benchmarks.

All settings were at 16QxAA supersampling AA, 16xAF, LOD Clamp on, no optimizations, etc.

Using the Source/HL2/CS:S video stress test, in Vista 64-bit I was getting 124 or so FPS with the 158.45 and 100fps with the 163.44 drivers (overclocked via Rivatuner).

Then in XP, I got 184fps with the same settings, without the card even being overclocked! This was with using the 162.18 WHQL drivers.

That's a rather bad drop there. :thumbdwn: Overclocking now with Rivatuner, will update the thread in a few minutes.

Edit:
Overclocked the card to 618/945 and got 195fps.

All of this was at 1680x1050.

Tygerwoody
08-28-07, 02:50 PM
meh, Thats interesting and all, but I have yet to run into one game that I slow down in with Vista. Maybe if I had a Geforce 7 series card I'd care more.

Logical
08-28-07, 03:04 PM
Hmm i wonder if vista 64 bit benchmarks less than vista 32 bit !

Anyone got any insight to this ?

3DBrad
08-28-07, 03:05 PM
I know HL2 reportedly did worse on XP 64-bit, so I'd assume Vista as well.

However, supposedly Crysis will run better on 64-bit systems, however I'm just curious if that's only if you're using 4gb of RAM?

[EOCF] Tim
08-28-07, 03:06 PM
Alot of games run faster in Vista nowadays, I really wouldn't bother with Source, it's nothing but CPU bottleneck anyway lol.

XDanger
08-28-07, 03:13 PM
HL2 64bit mode ,What does it do if anything? If it adds more stuff no wonder it performs worse on 64bit

3DBrad
08-28-07, 03:18 PM
I never saw any improvements.

Only improvements were on Far Cry with the 64-bit patch.

Logical
08-28-07, 03:23 PM
Ill be happy when 3dmark dx10 is released tbh...after all, Vista was designed with DX10 in mind.

DarkJedi664
08-28-07, 03:37 PM
Ugh, you're QQ'ing over 120fps? Give me a break. Anything over 60 is moot, and you're just being an fps *****.

JasonPC
08-28-07, 03:38 PM
That is strange. While I had a drop in framerate in CS:S, mine was nowhere near as severe. Like you, my average framerate in XP was around 180 fps. In Vista I was getting 155 fps. While it's a drop, it's still extremely high and with framerates up in that range such a huge drop is not necessarily indicating that the game is going to suffer exactly. Now the more revealing test I believe is the Lost Coast benchmark, which has HDR, more polygons and probably higher res textures. I actually got higher framerate in Vista by just a hair (like 5 fps).

stncttr908
08-28-07, 03:46 PM
Ugh, you're QQ'ing over 120fps? Give me a break. Anything over 60 is moot, and you're just being an fps *****.
That isn't the point. If this is a trend that continues in newer game engines, the difference could be 60fps versus 40fps. :rolleyes:

JasonPC
08-28-07, 03:52 PM
But it IS an older game so it's not exactly something one should go by. I mean have you ever tried running Half-Life 2 in directx 8, 7, or even 6 mode? I get less framerate in all of those compared to directx 9! I know that's an extreme case. But Half-Life 2 is aging. Going by Episode 1 or even Lost Coast would be more accurate due to optimizations in code and even in drivers.

DarkJedi664
08-28-07, 04:02 PM
That isn't the point. If this is a trend that continues in newer game engines, the difference could be 60fps versus 40fps. :rolleyes:
60 to 40 IS a valid arguement, but I will bet you $100 that you CANNOT see the difference between 184fps to 120fps.

3DBrad
08-28-07, 05:25 PM
You're completely missing the point.

I'm talking about the PERCENTAGE, and withs some drivers, there was 94fps difference in performance, that's like 30fps (Vista) vs 60fps (XP).

Simple logic.

DarkJedi664
08-28-07, 05:31 PM
No, you're QQ'ing about ONE game, that's what, 3 years old? And as I said, I bet you $100 that you CANNOT tell the difference between 184fps to 120fps. Now if you're saying that a BRAND NEW game is getting 30 frames on Vista but 60 on XP, then THAT is something to complain about.

3DBrad
08-28-07, 05:34 PM
I don't always get 180fps in every map. In HDR maps the difference between the two would be 80fps and 40fps, and yes, I can obviously tell the difference.

It's percentage, so stop being so illogical.

DarkJedi664
08-28-07, 06:27 PM
Do some more research, and test more than one game before coming to your conclusion. And post in the right forum as well...

JasonPC
08-28-07, 06:45 PM
Like I said, post your Lost Coast results.

3DBrad
08-28-07, 06:57 PM
That would involve me reinstalling Vista, but I'll run it in XP. :)

3DBrad
08-28-07, 07:04 PM
XP, 162.18 drivers, 16QAA (supersampled), 16xAF, etc. @ 1680x1050
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p234/Spoudazo/LstCst16xAAqss.jpg

conroejoe
08-28-07, 08:47 PM
Vista is slower still...

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

|MaguS|
08-28-07, 09:22 PM
Vista was consolized thats why its performance is so low. I also notices some low res textures in it.

JasonPC
08-28-07, 09:58 PM
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Bah!
08-28-07, 10:22 PM
I dunno about old games but everything i run in Vista runs faster than in XP. Games like LotRO, Bioshock, Stalker, a certain space MMO beta i'm in, ect.

I haven't had a single problem with losing frames in those games. I highly doubt that games in the future will act anything like HL2 is acting...it is a pretty old game afterall.

CDE_1246
08-28-07, 10:26 PM
Vista is the biggest memory ***** in the world. No matter what way you look at it, Vista lowers your performance.