Tech site concludes Vista is better for gaming.

[nerp]

Read it and weep.

http://www.tech-hounds.com/art...27/ArticlesPage11.html

Obviously, there are flaws with this review. The point is there are flaws with EVERY review. AND, the number of people posting anti-vista crap with some lame link to someone's weak analysis is high these days. This is my attempt to counter that with a little of the same medicine.

Now honestly, the results above doesn't tell the whole story. There is a definite improvement with Vista compared to XP. Though the results don't show it, frame rates are generally much smoother in Vista than it is in XP. Smooth frame rates equals less stutters which is always good. You'll notice that minimum frame rates at 1024 x 768, without and with AA and AF are higher in Vista than XP with the Radeon X1950 Pro. The GeForce 8600GTS minimum frame rates do get lower without AA and AF, but average frame rates saw an increase of about 2 fps. Granted, that's not much and still within normal variations between runs, but the smooth frame rates makes it a clincher for us.

 

[Canterwood]

All it really says to me is that Nvidia still have sh1tty Vista drivers.
But we all knew that anyway.

ATI have really got their act together, and seem reletively on a par between XP and Vista.
Some improvement needed, but still leaves Nvidia in the dust.

As for 'smoother frame rates', well that sounds like a load of BS to me tbh, and its not something I've ever noticed in my limited Vista use.

For me though, its still going to take a service pack and some actual DX10 games before I let Vista anywhere near my gaming rig.

 

[Nothinman]

As for 'smoother frame rates', well that sounds like a load of BS to me tbh, and its not something I've ever noticed in my limited Vista use.

It's definitely possible if they changed the process scheduler in Vista. People noticed the same thing when Linux changed from it's O(1) scheduler to the completely fair one just merged.

 

[Canterwood]

Possibly, but I've not come across anyone else saying it.

In fact its been the opposite from folks I've spoken to that Vista gaming has been worse for them and far more stuttery than XP.

In my limited testing on my evaluation rig with an X2 3800+ and ATI X800, dual booting XP Pro and Vista Ultimate, I've not been able to say that the frame rates were smoother in Vista at all.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Now honestly, the results above doesn't tell the whole story. There is a definite improvement with Vista compared to XP. Though the results don't show it, frame rates are generally much smoother in Vista than it is in XP. Smooth frame rates equals less stutters which is always good. You'll notice that minimum frame rates at 1024 x 768, without and with AA and AF are higher in Vista than XP with the Radeon X1950 Pro. The GeForce 8600GTS minimum frame rates do get lower without AA and AF, but average frame rates saw an increase of about 2 fps. Granted, that's not much and still within normal variations between runs, but the smooth frame rates makes it a clincher for us.

So their data shows variances within the margin of error, and is thus inconclusive, and they use that data to make a conclusion anyways.

I concur with some of the others, I've read quite a few complaints about audio stuttering under Vista that doesn't occur under XP, enough that I think it's not quite an isolated incident, although it could still be immature drivers.