I just finished trying them out, and I'm pretty disappointed with the results. Oblivion seemed to run on average around 10 FPS slower on Vista than on XP (medium settings on both), and the video stress test on CS:S gave me 94 FPS on XP and 64 FPS on Vista (high settings on both). Turning off the Aero theme didn't help it any.
| |
I expected as much. For many reasons, but most of all, Microsoft wants DX9 to look bad. I wouldn't put it past them to cripple DX9 just to make DX10 look better. From what I understand, they did it to OpenGL support(Talk about a monopoly using their power to hurt competition).
At the same time, if you don't have the latest drivers from whoever, than it could just be a "lack of support" issue. | |
AFAIK OpenGL works fine, provided you have graphics card drivers. Which is pretty much the same situation as XP, except that Vista's driver support is still a bit lacking.
| |
Danial.Beta wrote:
At the same time, if you don't have the latest drivers from whoever, than it could just be a "lack of support" issue. To be honest I'd probably put it down to lack of driver support/optimisation for Vista. Graphics card manufacturers will probably put out some new drivers in a few weeks for Vista anyway. I doubt MS would cripple old games on purpose just to make increase demand for DX10- there aren't any DX10 games even out right now, and whilst MS is power-hungry, it's not suicidal. | |
Cinnom wrote:
I just finished trying them out, and I'm pretty disappointed with the results. Oblivion seemed to run on average around 10 FPS slower on Vista than on XP (medium settings on both), and the video stress test on CS:S gave me 94 FPS on XP and 64 FPS on Vista (high settings on both). Turning off the Aero theme didn't help it any. You know whats odd, that’s contradicting what many respectable reviews are saying. As well as the common norm on most message boards. Anyway take anandtech for example, They tested oblivion and concluded that it is .6% faster. http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=18 Your review seems more in line with the RC preview review http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2850&p=3. (older drivers?) Update your drivers and retest. I would like to see a 3d mark as well on both setups. | |
Looking at the first article, I don't see where you're getting the .6% faster from - it seems to be all over the place depending on the various graphics cards used. The x800 isn't on there, but it's entirely possible that it's one of the ones that runs slower. I'd also like to point out that they're probably using an all around high-end machine with PCI-e cards, which puts it in an entirely different ballpark from my tests. Their machine can probably handle Vista's extra overhead a lot better than mine can.
I'll admit that my Oblivion test could be off a bit; I simply played through most of the intro while eyeing the FPS. I will stand by that it ran slower, though. And there's no questioning the CS:S test, since that's the number that the stress test spat out. I ran the Vista RTM with the latest updates (at the time), and I used the latest drivers from http://ati.amd.com/support/driver.html . I uninstalled Vista since I just had a 250 GB die on me and I needed the space, but since you asked so nicely I'll gladly give it another shot (along with 3D Mark) next week when I get my replacement hard drive in. | |
Cinnom wrote:
Looking at the first article, I don't see where you're getting the .6% faster from - it seems to be all over the place depending on the various graphics cards used. Your right, it was not right for me to say a value without knowing what card you had. I would have been much better quoting this: "For CPU bound tests, almost every card performs better under Windows Vista than under Windows XP; the lone exception is the X1900 XT 256MB. This indicates that Vista is better able to provide system resources to DirectX games, which is actually quite surprising considering the overhead that Vista adds to the system." Note that OpenGL support is poor because ATI and Nvidia now have to make the drivers for it, or something along that line. The x800 isn't on there, but it's entirely possible that it's one of the ones that runs slower. I'd also like to point out that they're probably using an all around high-end machine with PCI-e cards, which puts it in an entirely different ballpark from my tests. Their machine can probably handle Vista's extra overhead a lot better than mine can. This may very well be why your results are lower, I'll see if I can find it again but I remember reading that the new I/O was made for PCI-E and Serial ATA, So it's not as efficient on older hardware. I'll admit that my Oblivion test could be off a bit; I simply played through most of the intro while eyeing the FPS. I will stand by that it ran slower, though. And there's no questioning the CS:S test, since that's the number that the stress test spat out. Sounds good, It will be interesting to see if new drivers make a difference or not. Try the beta drivers too if any are available. | |
You're into corpses too? Dude, email me- I could hook you up with some interesting links.