View Single Post
Old 10-28-07, 06:33 PM   #55
Legend
*BANNED*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 287
Default Re: EA and Crytek should be sued for

Quote:
Originally Posted by six_storm
Guess I could say the first line right back at you. You can't argue against benchmarks I'm afraid. In the case of Crysis (so far) and a non-monsterous rig, XP performance is noticeably better than Vista. But it's hard to just "take someone's word for it". I mean, you aren't anywhere near my location for me to show you first hand so . . .

Vista is holding it's own right now with just basic operations and apps, but when it comes to Crysis, XP performance has always been better in every beta release. There's an article over at [H] that compares about 6-8 games between the two OSs. Even though XP came out on top, it was anywhere from a 5 to 36 FPS difference, average around 10-15 FPS. Why would you NOT want that extra 10-15 FPS?

All I'm saying is that unless you have a real nice rig, mainly a really nice GPU, you should stick with XP just to squeeze all you can out of your rig for Crysis. The difference between 15FPS and 40FPS is quite noticeable, at least for me.

Complete and utter bullsh1t


I dual boot between XP 32bit and Vista 64bit and I have played Crysis in both XP, Vista DX9 and DX10.

The difference in the frame rate from XP to Vista DX9 is no more than 5fps at the exact same settings using the SP demo.


Also I have a ton of other games and here is how they stack up for me.

Oblivion-runs ever so slightly better under Vista 64. 1-2fps faster.
BF2 and 2142- are both faster under Vista 64.
FEAR- Same speed in both.
DIRT- Faster in Vista 64 by a couple of fps.
Jericho-Same speed in both.
Half Life series is faster in Vista 64.
Lost Planet is faster in Vista 64.
Flight Sime X faster in Vista 64.


I suggest you take a look at firingsquads recent article comparing vista to xp. The difference is 1-2 fps in either direction.
Legend is offline   Reply With Quote