Originally posted by: Zenoth
Originally posted by: Mem
Originally posted by: Zenoth
The principle here isn't to know what the human eyes can notice or not, it's that Vista is inherently slower than XP for gaming, it's very simple to understand, eagle eyes or not.
Not quite true,
link..
Game Results
It's clear that driver issues in Windows Vista have been largely ironed out, as the five to 10 percent performance drop compared to Windows XP is virtually gone. In fact, the only test out of these three in which Vista didn't match its predecessor was in the pre-SP1 World in Conflict result.
.
Ok, that one single system represents everyone's case and therefore I am included and I was wrong. There are cases where the performance difference is barely noticeable or just non-existent, yes, indeed, that's why I said "almost always". I based my conclusion not on a single review but on many threads I keep reading about in many discussion forums including here. In my case, although I'm using Vista for the sake of following today's technologies (I know I don't need to, I'm just choosing to) I did see quite noticeable performance drops even after stopping enough services to go as low as 26 processes after a start up, with SP1 and the Performance & Reliability updates.
In most games the difference is not noticeable, but it's technically there. The one game in which I noticed a definitive difference was in Team Fortress 2, where I lost at least up to 15FPS which in certain circumstances (24 or 32 players maps, filled up and lots of action) then that means that I go from my usual 40FPS or so in XP to a noticeably slower 25 to 30FPS. That is at 1280x1024, 16xAF and 4xMSAA with everything set to maximum settings. Those settings were set when I ran in XP and I was used to them, now that I am on Vista I have to decrease the resolution to 1280x960 and remove the AA entirely to come back to my 45+FPS.
That is not the case for all of my games I repeat, it's limited to TF2. But technically speaking there is not one single games in my installed ones right now in which the performance has been "the same" or better than with XP. So good for those around with the same or better performance, I do honestly mean it, good for them. But it isn't the case with me. The thing is I have 4GB of RAM, I paid for it and I want it to be used when it can in games and/or other programs I use like Photoshop for instance amongst others, for that I needed a 64-Bit OS, and I chose to go with Vista x64 instead of XP x64 simply because the support for Vista is certainly better.
All of this is meant to point at the certain possibility that the thread creator does absolutely nothing wrong with his system and that nothing is wrong about the updates and the drivers he installed, what he's experiencing is the same thing that I am, which is to play games on an operating system that despite its advanced technologies is simply not as good as the previous version for the sole purpose of gaming. There's absolutely nothing else to all of this and this simple principle. It doesn't apply to 100% of us, that's good, it helps sarcasm around for some people.
,personally I have not had to lower any of my 90+ games resolutions/details in Vista x64 compared to XP.
Facebook
Twitter