PCFormat Forum Archive

Found the below tests. Seems like its now safe to run Vista.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2 ... 830,00.asp

Your comments .

Vista FTW

Hman wrote:Vista FTW

I second that.

Vista was bound to eventually close the gap in gaming performance against it's older sibling. No doubt over the next few months it will improve even more as gfx, sound etc. drivers get even more Vista friendly.

Home users can mostly use Vista with a smile now, although for business, the jury is definitely still out.

Screeper wrote:Vista was bound to eventually close the gap in gaming performance against it's older sibling. No doubt over the next few months it will improve even more as gfx, sound etc. drivers get even more Vista friendly.

Home users can mostly use Vista with a smile now, although for business, the jury is definitely still out.

Well thats if developers start using dx10 correctly. Coding for better performance , not pretty gfx.

agreed. i rolled my eyes at the people who said vista was a crash and burn, cause just look now, its always bound to get improved as XP was

Crysis high detail and low detail shows the same numbers accross the board. I didnt read it was with DX10 features enabled so all it says now is "If you want to run the next generation system like the old generation it is finally on par/better. But dont try the new features your looking for..." Sadly that doesnt work for me.

I want to see both DX9 and DX10 statistics when you compare the 2. I know you cant compare apples with oranges but if you change then atleast show what your getting yourself into.

RuadRauFlessa
O/T but nice post count 7777

Firestrm wrote:RuadRauFlessa
O/T but nice post count 7777

ty.

I've been running Vista Ultimate 64bit for over a month now and I really enjoy it. I play a lot of COD4 on mostly max at 1680x1050 and have noticed no difference between using XP and Vista irt gaming.

Screeper wrote:Vista was bound to eventually close the gap in gaming performance against it's older sibling. No doubt over the next few months it will improve even more as gfx, sound etc. drivers get even more Vista friendly.

Home users can mostly use Vista with a smile now, although for business,
the jury is definitely still out.

That's totallt right. Vista is atill on its infancy and will mature sooner than one year, i think.

Ever since I started using Vista I loved it!
It had some super annoying bugs at first...but they were fixed through windows updates

Iv always rolled my eyes at people who said XP was still better than Vista and it will always be.etc .etc .etc bla bla bla.

Now when people tell me Vista is **** I just ignore them/agree with them...
They are the ones suffering in the end...not me!

Um, XP will no longer be for sale from suppliers as of Jan 2009. I have been informed of this while pricing a new PC. So yes, we'll all be forced to move to it. I'm reserving judgement until i get my copy of ultimate 64

I was on Vista SP1 about 2 weeks ago.

I had to format after I accidentally messed something up badly (my fault, not Vista's).
I went back to XP, because despite not having DX10:

Crysis on Vista DX9 vs XP DX9 there was about a 10 FPS improvement in XP.
Assassin's Creed in Vista DX9 and XP DX9 was also faster by about 10 FPS.

I'm not saying that it'll be the same for everyone's PC, but XP's game performance is still better at the moment... until DX10 starts getting used properly.

My rig:

8800GTS 640MB
E6600
2GB DDR2 RAM
the rest doesn't really matter all too much.

Crysis on 64bit vista is definetly faster than Crysis on XP.

We have just about the same rig M1ke (replace the GTS with a GTX and then it's the same) and I tested Crysis on a Fresh vista 64 install, then restarted and dual booted into my fresh XP install. Vista was a bit (like 5FPS) better. Vista DX10, XP 'DX10' hack.

DarkRanger wrote:Crysis on 64bit vista is definetly faster than Crysis on XP.

We have just about the same rig M1ke (replace the GTS with a GTX and then it's the same) and I tested Crysis on a Fresh vista 64 install, then restarted and dual booted into my fresh XP install. Vista was a bit (like 5FPS) better. Vista DX10, XP 'DX10' hack.

Yeah, apparently Vista 64-bit or even Windows XP 64-bit are about 10-15% faster minimum for Crysis.

I was comparing 32-bit, but you're right when you step into the 64-bit zone... Vista will blow 32-bit XP away!
It's just a bummer that you need to have Ultimate to get 64-bit

oh, i didn't know that. BTW: The XP was 32bit... Because XP 64bit sux

DarkRanger wrote:Vista DX10, XP 'DX10' hack.

:sigh: again???...

how many times does it need to be clarified... there is no such thing as DX10 for XP... at all. there will never be an XP version because it's HAL interface is completely foreign to the XP kernel.

repeat after me: i will stop believing in faeries, honest lawyers and DX10 on XP machines...

vista still sux. it will be at least 2 SPs in before it becomes moderately usable for anything other than gaming... at which point the next botched version of windows will be in circulation with its own little cabal of zombies hugging themselves at night for being such good brand-victims...

"Windows 7: Because we can't believe you suckers fell for the same thing seven times in a row... "

Spoiler (show)

naarf!this doesn't have quite the same effect - size tags fail at sizing

OMFW rusty. I said 'DX10' in inverted commas. It's that bloody thing that a lot of people claim makes Crysis LOOK like the DX10 version. I KNOW DX10 wil never be for XP. I downloaded that pack that claimed to make DX10 work on XP, but all it did was screw up my XP install.

If you read my posts, you will see that somewhere I also told someone that DX10 will never happen in XP.

Comeon man.

Rusty, I believe DarkRanger was referring to the modification of Crysis' cvar files to enable some of Crysis' "DX10 only" effects. God Rays etc. that still run on DX9 shaders, but that are not available in DX9 mode.

DarkRanger wrote:I said 'DX10' in inverted commas.

yesssss... and then you drew an immediate performance comparison between the 2 systems - a comparison predicated on the 2 systems enjoying equal benefit from an equatable HAL interface and rendering system... which is clearly pants....

so, while you pay lip-service to the fact that DX10 on XP is a myth, you're still playing at being a victim of the myth

or did i completely miss the point?

Yes. You are missing the point.

What I was trying to say that if I were to compare the two OS's, 64bit Vista with DX10 and 32bit XP with the cvar hack that makes it look like DX10 Crysis (maybe my wording was just wrong) then I get better performance in Vista, even though I'm running DX9 in XP.

And no, I haven't fallen victim of the DX10 on XP myth. Because since the start of DX10, I knew that it won't be possible for XP to run DX10.

So maybe my post text just wasn't structured properly, or you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

aah... gotcha apple-o-gees for the misunderstanding...

still not the best comparison to make; given that the 'hack' degrades performance and a 64bit OS+app enjoys massive advantage over a 32bit install...

True.