Vista or XP for gaming now

j0j081

Banned
Aug 26, 2007
1,090
0
0
For those of you with fairly powerful systems is Vista up to par with XP for gaming purposes yet? I know last summer a lot of people were still dual booting with XP for gaming but I'm wondering if that has changed now. 3DMark06 scores have been pretty much even since Vista was released but that doesn't necessarily mean real world performance is.
 

EvilComputer92

Golden Member
Aug 25, 2004
1,316
0
0
Almost every game I can think of still runs worse in Vista. Not much worse, but it's still not as good as XP.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
Almost every game I can think of still runs worse in Vista. Not much worse, but it's still not as good as XP.

nonsense ... Vista performance has been equal to XPs for over 6 months

i'd pick Vista 32 over Vista 64 unless you have brand-new HW and SW
- it appears to make no difference in a 4GB RAM rig for gaming [yet]
 

tranceport

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
4,168
1
81
www.thesystemsengineer.com
Currently running vista 64.. I'd say gaming wise it's around the same as xp 64.

vista itself is a little more painful that xp.

Since vista is the "future" you might as well use it now and get used to the interface and the OS in general.
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Everybody has their preference,I'm using Vista x64 and find it fine for gaming,the 4GB plus will be handy for the future not to meantion DX will also be getting updated to DX10.1/DX11 etc down the road.

So basically its between Vista x68 and Vista x64 IMHO.

 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
2
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
Almost every game I can think of still runs worse in Vista. Not much worse, but it's still not as good as XP.

nonsense ... Vista performance has been equal to XPs for over 6 months

i'd pick Vista 32 over Vista 64 unless you have brand-new HW and SW
- it appears to make no difference in a 4GB RAM rig for gaming [yet]



This man wins. They're pretty much the same gaming wise.

That said - DX10 doesn't do a damn thing currently, so that's no reason to switch.

Also, considering Vista's draconian DRM and User Accounts implementations, I would say usability suffered some on the new OS.

Driver support isn't as well rounded as XP yet.


There's no real reason not to go to Vista right now, but there's no real reason to do so either, if you're already established on something else.

I'm happy with my XP x32 config right now - I've got it tweaked out and configured the way I like, it's nice n' snappy and it doesn't give me any trouble. I'll probably make the jump to Vista in a year or 18 months or so when I do a new rig build, but until then I see no reason to, especially with XP SP3 on the way.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Comparison reviews between Vista and XP stopped around July showing very little difference in performance, @1-3%. Performance in most games with DX10 on current hardware does take a massive hit so at this point I'd say DX10 alone isn't a reason to upgrade.

However, current games can and will use up to 3GB memory, so if you were to upgrade to a new OS and your rig has more than 2GB RAM it makes no sense to go with XP 32 or Vista 32. Nice thing though about retail versions of Vista (upgrade and full retail) is that the CD keys are valid for both 32 and 64-bit. For non-Ultimate versions you'll need to request the 64-bit DVD from MS ($9 shipping) or borrow a 64-bit DVD.
 

MarcVenice

Moderator Emeritus <br>
Apr 2, 2007
5,664
0
0
You can adress 3gb of memory as well in a 32bit OS, so if games use 3gb max, then you can still run a 32bit os if you had one, and your rig has 4gb of ram. I run vista 64x too btw, and review quite a lot of games, none have given me trouble so far, so if you're about to buy a new OS, I'd go for Vista 64x. All other things have been said allready.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
You can adress 3gb of memory as well in a 32bit OS, so if games use 3gb max, then you can still run a 32bit os if you had one, and your rig has 4gb of ram. I run vista 64x too btw, and review quite a lot of games, none have given me trouble so far, so if you're about to buy a new OS, I'd go for Vista 64x. All other things have been said allready.

Yep, but most of that addressable space above 2GB is already in use or reserved for OS/kernel/drivers so the actual benefit is very little. You'll see some gain from more RAM as some virtual memory goes to physical in that 2GB user-space but above that its a crapshoot in a 32-bit OS.
 

Azeroth101

Member
Dec 30, 2007
171
0
71
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
Almost every game I can think of still runs worse in Vista. Not much worse, but it's still not as good as XP.

nonsense ... Vista performance has been equal to XPs for over 6 months

i'd pick Vista 32 over Vista 64 unless you have brand-new HW and SW
- it appears to make no difference in a 4GB RAM rig for gaming [yet]

Yeah but some games go all screwy in vista, they didnt put as much time into vista as they did you xp...

 

Cutthroat

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2002
1,104
0
0
Originally posted by: Azeroth101
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
Almost every game I can think of still runs worse in Vista. Not much worse, but it's still not as good as XP.

nonsense ... Vista performance has been equal to XPs for over 6 months

i'd pick Vista 32 over Vista 64 unless you have brand-new HW and SW
- it appears to make no difference in a 4GB RAM rig for gaming [yet]

Yeah but some games go all screwy in vista, they didnt put as much time into vista as they did you xp...

What games would those be? Every game I've ever tried has worked fine.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
You can adress 3gb of memory as well in a 32bit OS, so if games use 3gb max, then you can still run a 32bit os if you had one, and your rig has 4gb of ram. I run vista 64x too btw, and review quite a lot of games, none have given me trouble so far, so if you're about to buy a new OS, I'd go for Vista 64x. All other things have been said allready.

Yep, but most of that addressable space above 2GB is already in use or reserved for OS/kernel/drivers so the actual benefit is very little. You'll see some gain from more RAM as some virtual memory goes to physical in that 2GB user-space but above that its a crapshoot in a 32-bit OS.

unproven for 32-bit games :p

fortunately for truth's sake, a couple of us are going to actually *test* the difference - if any - in Video Forum to see if 64-bit has any practical advantage over 32-bit in a couple of 4GB gaming system rigs. Expect results in a couple of weeks and then everyone will know for sure.

i doubt it since game devs write with the 2GB "barrier" well in mind. There are only a handful of games actually ported to 64-bit so you have to use the 64-bit "wrapper" for 99.999999999999999% of today's games


Yeah but some games go all screwy in vista, they didnt put as much time into vista as they did you xp...
not modern games :p

Vista is up-to-date and prime time for gaming ... and it's your only choice if you want DX10. Hg:L runs well in DX10 on my rig [the only DX10 game, so far at maxed-out 16x10]
 

Marty502

Senior member
Aug 25, 2007
497
0
0
I'm on Vista Home Premium x64.

And it's fantastic. Load times are much shorter on Vista. But I do have sound issues with certain games on it, like Bioshock and Deus Ex. Constant cracks and skips. It happened on my older Vista 32-bit install too, so it's not a matter of 64-bit drivers.

So if you happen to have a Realtek integrated sound card... go with XP. At least for now. You'll be on the safe side.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: apoppin

unproven for 32-bit games :p

fortunately for truth's sake, a couple of us are going to actually *test* the difference - if any - in Video Forum to see if 64-bit has any practical advantage over 32-bit in a couple of 4GB gaming system rigs. Expect results in a couple of weeks and then everyone will know for sure.

i doubt it since game devs write with the 2GB "barrier" well in mind. There are only a handful of games actually ported to 64-bit so you have to use the 64-bit "wrapper" for 99.999999999999999% of today's games
Like I said, proof is in the pudding. Show me one game in a 32-bit OS that comes close to 3GB for the game only. I've posted mine, where's yours?

 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
I'd say come back in 3-4 years from now when the next version of Windows comes out and VISTA is on it's 3rd or 4th service pack.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: apoppin

unproven for 32-bit games :p

fortunately for truth's sake, a couple of us are going to actually *test* the difference - if any - in Video Forum to see if 64-bit has any practical advantage over 32-bit in a couple of 4GB gaming system rigs. Expect results in a couple of weeks and then everyone will know for sure.

i doubt it since game devs write with the 2GB "barrier" well in mind. There are only a handful of games actually ported to 64-bit so you have to use the 64-bit "wrapper" for 99.999999999999999% of today's games
Like I said, proof is in the pudding. Show me one game in a 32-bit OS that comes close to 3GB for the game only. I've posted mine, where's yours?

Nothing you posted comes close to "proof" :p

But don't worry, nullpointerus and i are installing Vista64 this weekend [or early next week] and also doing a clean install of Vista32 and will do a real comparison between the OSes for the Video forum for 4GB gaming rigs.

We'll see.

Look for a new thread this Saturday. Your comments are appreciated.


:Q

not really
:D
 

j0j081

Banned
Aug 26, 2007
1,090
0
0
I will prob just go soley with Vista then once I finish upgrading my system. Still need an 8800! I've owned both OSs for a while but back on my old single core AMD Vista sucked for gaming. With this setup it seems much better already and I don't even have a good video card yet.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,202
216
106
I've tried Vista 32-Bit two times and I still prefer XP so far, not to mention that I'm still using a CRT, and Vista has a huge bug concerning CRT's and refresh rate (it locks at 60hz in 3D applications and cannot be changed). So as long as I won't have an LCD I'll stay with XP. I might consider Vista for later, much later.
 

Crizza

Senior member
Nov 11, 1999
654
0
0
Originally posted by: Marty502
I'm on Vista Home Premium x64.

And it's fantastic. Load times are much shorter on Vista. But I do have sound issues with certain games on it, like Bioshock and Deus Ex. Constant cracks and skips. It happened on my older Vista 32-bit install too, so it's not a matter of 64-bit drivers.

So if you happen to have a Realtek integrated sound card... go with XP. At least for now. You'll be on the safe side.

Same crap happens to me with my Audigy 2 ZS. Crysis had its sound drop completely and performance took a dump. I have an Athlon x2 4400, Asus A8N SLI, 2GB RAM and new 8800GT - so far I've had much better luck with XP than in Vista.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
DX10 was suppose to be more efficient and run games better. I have yet to see it. XP is still better for gaming.

XP beat Vista
XP beats Vista again
XP slaughters Vista
XP trounces Vista again
Even Linux is kicking Vista's butt

of course a bottom-feeder card can't run DX10 - you need at least a $180 HD3850 ... and try ANY DX10 game in XP :p
:roll:

and for better graphics and better performance in DX10 than DX9 with a decent rig - try Hellgate: London ;)

XP is old news