Xp Vs. Vista

[Guest Reimar]

This is maybe interesting for Gamers: comparing the same games running on Xp vs. Vista.

The article includes hardware info and other details.

Read here:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...W50aGlzdWFzdA==

[cdnvic]

Definitely faster on XP, although it's XP being run on hardware made robust enough for Vista. What would the result be if you tried running Windows 2000 in the test?

[Crushdepth]

Interesting comparison, but in practical terms, once the FPS rises above beyond what the human eye can detect is more better?

I am unable to see any difference between XP and Vista on Battlefield 2142. But then I have a somewhat overpowered graphics card

[Simmo]

Was the same story when Win 2000 had just come out. Framerates in Win 98 were 10-20% faster on the same hardware.

New OS = New Features = New Bloat = Worse Performance.

[cdnvic]

That's like saying that a Corvette has worse performance than a Ferarri when in actuality, you can't use the top end power on either of them in anything but test conditions.

[Guest Reimar]

Comparing with an Nvidia 6600 GT 512 MB, the graphis running on FS-X are better but the framerate is the same. I'm not a gamer, just use FS-X or Condor but Condor runs on XP only, for Vista is not a Patch available yet.

After "fine tuning" of Vista, using V-Lite and Vista Manager, while deleting a lot un-necessary stuf, there is nearly not a difference in normal working.

But I'll give Server "Longhorn" a Test-Ride in the next week or so (need to have the time to do so!) because the OS runs faster than Vista at all!

[cali]

As a gamer, you want 40fps. But once you get that, you want to turn on all the eye candy the game can do and still keep the frame rate. After that you want as hi res as your hardware allows and keep the frame rate. Now if you can do all of that, only then is it optimal for game play. Below that may be playable, but not optimal. The game of 2007 is the highly anticipated release of a Direct X 10 game called Crysis. Right now 2 8800GTX's (768MB each) running SLI mode is not getting acceptable frame rates!!! It's like Doom 3; there wasn't a video card made that could handle it on its best settings at the time it was released. So even the best gaming hardware is still running out of headroom and can be suboptimal.

Everytime a new Windows comes out it seems they get ever slower. But the good thing is hardware keeps advancing too so you lose 20% upgrading to Vista, but can buy graphics hardware that gives you double the performance for a substantial net gain. But if you are on the threshold trying to squeeze out the max, best probably to stay with XP. Some speculate a Vista service pack may eventually appear with game tuning and have more mature and faster video drivers.

[cdnvic]

I now have Vista and XP running on the same machine, on separate partitions and I must say that Vista runs much quicker and smoother than XP. That's with an Athlon 4200x2 and 2gb of Ram. Both run identical antivirus and antispyware.

[Guest Reimar]

I now have Vista and XP running on the same machine, on separate partitions and I must say that Vista runs much quicker and smoother than XP. That's with an Athlon 4200x2 and 2gb of Ram. Both run identical antivirus and antispyware.

Vista has a much better Managment of the Dual CPU's! The difference you can see on "single" CPU's.

I testd the FS-X on both: one P4 3.2 GHz and one on AMD Dual X2 3800. On the P4 XP was running fasten but on the AMD Vista, both installed in dualboot XP and VISTA.

[cdnvic]

Yeah, I noticed that the second core wasn't being utilized much on XP but they both get used about the same on Vista. I also don't think XP manages large amounts of memory as efficiently.

[nikster]

Yeah, I noticed that the second core wasn't being utilized much on XP but they both get used about the same on Vista. I also don't think XP manages large amounts of memory as efficiently.

I was hoping for that effect when installing dual-boot Vista on my Core Duo 2GHz with 2GB RAM.

XP doesn't really use anything above 1.5GB other than for disk cache so you there's room for improvement.

However, I found Vista to be much slower than XP for most intents and purposes on my system. Vista seemed to want more than 2GB. I have the feeling it will be really happy only with 3 or 4GB.

My experience may have to do with hard disk performance - this is the bottleneck on my system (laptop - 5400 RPM 160GB drive). I actually just installed a new HD so I may try that again.

YMMV.

[cdnvic]

I have a 10,000 RPM Raptor disk on my wish list.