Vista gaming will be 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP

[dBTelos]

Very clever

 

[Boyo]

I won't even think of getting Vista until the drivers are set up right and they release a SP. You just know it's going to suck stright out of the box.

 

[Rubycon]

Slower in what?

Rendering rate? (FPS)

Game level load times?

I can see the latter being a possibility.

A lot of people with these 512MB "Vista Ready" stamped PC's are going to be disappointed if they upgrade. Kind of reminds me back in 1995 when Win95 came out and Microsoft said "Your 486 with 8MB will be fine". :laugh:

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: flyboy84

Originally posted by: AgentJean

Originally posted by: btcomm1
Wasn't Vista supposed to be able to take advantage of multiple cores and make games faster? Geez Why is it that when you "upgrade" it is really like downgrading.

Two words to answer that question.

Micro
Soft.


We are talking about a Windows product here.

That's what she said!

Muh muh muh :evil:

BUTT-SLAMMED!

/wacky sound effect

- M4H

 

[kuqdew]

thats bullcrap

 

[Madwand1]

Well, this is what AT's testing found so far:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2850&p=3

As far as gaming performance goes, the news is universally less pleasant, and sometimes even grim. 3DMark06 comes within 3% of its XP performance, but that's as close as anything gets, and since this is a synthetic benchmark that's about all that needs to be said on the subject. Half Life 2: Episode One shows the best performance out of the real games we tested, only dropping short of 10% of its performance moving to Vista without antialiasing, and even less with antialiasing enabled. Losing performance is never good, but here it doesn't impact playability at all.

Such is not the case for FEAR or Battlefield 2 however. Here the performance drops are all over 25%, the worst being FEAR with antialiasing at 40%. At this point these are large enough drops that they'll certainly impact playability, necessitating cranking down the resolution or settings in order to make up for the drop. As we've said in previous articles, hopefully performance will continue to improve, but the window between now and the launch is getting perilously small, so it seems increasingly likely that Vista gaming performance won't match (or even come close to) XP performance at launch time, at least with ATI's cards.

I'd chalk that up to tuning, but the Inq's article claims that this comes from MS (due to the GUI workload, but it's not clear who said this part).

MICROSOFT is telling its selected gaming industry chaps that gaming under Vista will be ten to fifteen per cent slower than XP. It is because you have to load the 3D desktop all the time.

 

[The J]

You can tell Vista to disable the compositing engine when you run certain programs. Just right-click on the program executable and go to the Compatibility tab (if I remember correctly). You should be able to find the option there. This might help performance a bit.

 

[StevenNevets]

So the only good reason to upgrade to vista for gamers is DX10, but then every other game will be slow...

So you spend tons of money... make certain new games playable, mess up any current/old game...



I think I'm going to get Nintendo
___
_____

Vista is 64-bit right?

How much faser would that make a X2 3800+ ?

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: btcomm1
Wasn't Vista supposed to be able to take advantage of multiple cores and make games faster? Geez Why is it that when you "upgrade" it is really like downgrading.

That's not MS's problem... talk to your game developers.

 

[dBTelos]

Vista is 64-bit right?

They will have a 64-bit and 32-bit version.

 

[StevenNevets]

Originally posted by: dBTelos

Vista is 64-bit right?

They will have a 64-bit and 32-bit version.

but isn't 64 bit -cpu and 64 bit -os supposed to have some type of advantage as opposed to a 64 bit -cpu and 32 bit-os ?

 

[dBTelos]

Yes, it isn't showing that however.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: Juno
so, games on win3.1 were faster?

I burst out laughing at this...

WinG kicked ass!

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: RedStar
people need to stop quoting the inquirer/register.

!!

No can do as Fuad may actually be right. Consider the listed sources. Also consider that some games are very poorly behaved on how they treat the video subsystem. There are some games that do not play well with GPU memory. They eat it all and any other app will not have it available. Vista virtualizes video memory. The Fear and BF2 are huge video memory hogs (BF2 performance improves with 512MB as a hint). Where they could lose performance could be in paging. Vista may give them all they demand, and then end up paging it across the bus to main memory. That would drop frame rates. If this were the case, it would be nice to have a compatibility mode to limit Video VM per app.

In Vista, it goes from video memory to main memory to disk as required for caching inactive pages of memory.

 

[HannibalX]

Why is this such a big deal?

Of course games will run slower; Vista will be a system hog (like every other MS OS) and it will force people to upgrade. In a few years everyone will have 2GB of ram standard and a dual-core (maybe quad-core) CPUs and everything will be fine.

We go through this at every major OS release.

Yeeshe.

 

[InlineFive]

Consider that the Beta is also a BETA, I've heard that Microsoft will only speed up graphics rendering with the RTM. And for what it's worth, I've played F.E.A.R. on RC1 and it's just as fast as Windows XP. Although I do have a system that is truely Vista ready, with a 3000+, 2GB and X800.