bit-tech.net

Windows Vista SP1 Gaming Performance

Comments 1 to 25 of 33

Reply
Kierax 25th March 2008, 15:22 Quote
Interesting, I have just gone to 64bit SP1 Ultimate myself, and it seems amazing in Windows yet to load into Crysis and COD4.
Andune 25th March 2008, 15:51 Quote
Nice article, i was waiting for someone to test the gaming performance of SP1, was hoping for a bigger performance gain though.
Are there any difference between 32 and 64bit?
TreeDude 25th March 2008, 15:53 Quote
The biggest thing I noticed was file copying. My boot up and shutdown did decrease a bit too though. I still have a few minor issues in Vista though. Namely my official monitor drivers refuse to install and the security center tells me AVG is off when I boot up even though it is on when the message appears. It goes away within a few seconds though and then the security center sees it correctly. I also can't run the 64bit version of UT2k4. It crashes when I change to a higher resolution. And the built in DVD decoder will not play DVDs because it says a piece of my hardware is not compliant. It has to be the actual DVD drive because my monitor and video card support HTCP. I am using VLC for now. I tried a codec pack with a DVD decoder but it came up all garbled and now Vista thinks there is no DVD decoder there anymore.

Everything is pretty minor though. All in all I really like Vista. I just wish it had more to offer. Honestly all the useful features in Vista could have been added into XP. I just wish they hadn't scrapped the new file system, that would have made it worth it.
vaderag 25th March 2008, 15:55 Quote
I'd love to actually get SP1 installed to see what the difference is for me, except every time i try i get error 80073712...
Seems a million other people are also getting this, except the trouble is, none of the solutions seem to work for me (or alot of other people for that matter) :(

Anyone know a way to fix this WITHOUT having to do a full re-install?!
Kurayamino 25th March 2008, 16:00 Quote
SP1 Doesn't actually show in my windows update and I checked to see if it had been installed automatically yet it hasn't weird stuff!
plagio 25th March 2008, 16:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurayamino
SP1 Doesn't actually show in my windows update and I checked to see if it had been installed automatically yet it hasn't weird stuff!

It doesn't show on mine either, but my vista is in Italian so I have to wait another month for the Italian SP localization to be complete.
Kierax 25th March 2008, 16:55 Quote
I've found with Sp1 it's best to get the standalone and do a full reinstall. Just easier.
boe_d 25th March 2008, 16:56 Quote
If articles like this want to be informative and helpful to the readers, they should include XP performance as well so readers know not to get Vista.
badders 25th March 2008, 17:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boe_d
If articles like this want to be informative and helpful to the readers, they should include XP performance as well so readers know not to get Vista.


Because that comment in itself was helpful and informative?
LeMaltor 25th March 2008, 17:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by badders
Quote:
Originally Posted by boe_d
If articles like this want to be informative and helpful to the readers, they should include XP performance as well so readers know not to get Vista.


Because that comment in itself was helpful and informative?

I'm still finding XP performance is better than Vista.
Burnin' 25th March 2008, 17:11 Quote
Hopefully they fixed the annoying Nvlddmkm error related to Nvida cards and the sound issues related to X-Fi cards

I would be nice to see a review based on a budget system (say 8800 GTS, Dual core 2Duo, 2gigs and Vista home Premium 32 bits) like the one I have.
Jonagon 25th March 2008, 17:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by plagio
It doesn't show on mine either, but my vista is in Italian so I have to wait another month for the Italian SP localization to be complete.

It didn't show in mine either. But I think MS said that it wouldn't show up in some peoples windows update, so just download it seperatly.
wuyanxu 25th March 2008, 17:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnin'
Hopefully they fixed the annoying Nvlddmkm error related to Nvida cards and the sound issues related to X-Fi cards

I would be nice to see a review based on a budget system (say 8800 GTS, Dual core 2Duo, 2gigs and Vista home Premium 32 bits) like the one I have.
nope! i still had quite a few of those nvlddmkm.sys errors with 174.xx drivers on my 8800GTX........ it's nVidia who needs fixing. (well, i wasn't exactly using the right driver for the right card)

8800GTS is not budget, lol.
i'd say it's nice to see some top end performance figures for SP1, all those other are benchmarked using some crappy PentiumD or a laptop.
phuzz 25th March 2008, 17:53 Quote
Move from my old machine running XP a few weeks ago to a brand new box with all new kit and Vista x64. Didn't notice much difference in performance between XP and Vista (but then I did upgrade the hardware - a lot), and I've not noticed any differences from installing SP1 last week either.

I was impressed that I could copy settings and applications over mearly by copying them from my old XP program files directory straight into vista with no problems. In fact, apart from the fact I can't get it to Sleep properly, I've had no problems with Vista yet, what y'all moaning about? ;)

(frantically touches all wood within range)
neonplanet40 25th March 2008, 18:02 Quote
So basically xp is still the gamers choice hense why all my machines are running it. Cant wait for service pack 3 tbh for xp :D
Tim S 25th March 2008, 18:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boe_d
If articles like this want to be informative and helpful to the readers, they should include XP performance as well so readers know not to get Vista.

Hello and welcome to the forums - thanks for signing up to comment on this article. We appreciate all feedback--both good and bad. :)

However, the problem with your statement is that, based on my own personal experiences, the only viable way to run an x86-64 operating system is Windows Vista. Having used XP-x64 myself for a long period of time on my home machine, the move to Vista 64 was a massive step forwards for compatibility and driver support. Of course, Vista 64 driver support is by no means perfect, but it is a damn sight better than XP-x64 ever was/ever will be.

Tim
TreeDude 25th March 2008, 18:24 Quote
I tried XP-x64 a while back. I was still in collage at the time and had a Lexmark printer. I used it a lot so I could not go with out it. Needless to say no x64 drivers and I could not get any generic drivers to work properly. Nor did I have the cash for a new one. So I went back to x86. That was over 2 years ago though.
Bindibadgi 25th March 2008, 18:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMaltor
I'm still finding XP performance is better than Vista.

It is and it's been well documented as easily twice as fast :)

If you already know Vista is slower then you can easily extrapolate how much faster/slower SP1 is.
MrMonroe 25th March 2008, 18:53 Quote
Always I am confused as to how reviewers sometimes get such disparate results from my experience. The test setup you guys used has 2gigs more ram, the same CPU but 600mhz faster than mine runs, a better mobo and a 9800GX2 instead of my 8800GT, and I get framerates in CoD4 that are only a tiny bit worse than what you get here. (I play at 1920x1200 with AA and AF maxed) I usually see 60FPS on most servers, sometimes as high as 85-90 and sometimes as low as 50-55. Was this just done testing SP possibly?
fargo 25th March 2008, 19:53 Quote
from what I've read ms has shut down update downloads of vista sp1 because to many
people were having trouble installing it and many that did install were having pc problems. also the university of Pensilvania did a study of sp1 and gave it a thumbs
down. this doesn't surprise me it took 5yrs to develope vista and couldn't put a good
product on the market so why would anyone think sp1 would be any better.myself I'm
sticking to what works the best for gaming xp pro. why go to all the problems of vista
when the next os will be out in 2010. what ms should have done is come out with xp
second edition.
BurningFeetMan 25th March 2008, 22:12 Quote
[QUOTE=LeMaltor]
Quote:
Originally Posted by badders
I'm still finding XP performance is better than Vista.

You'll notice a performance boost to Windows XP with SP3 installed. It's still currently in beta stages at the moment, but release dates are set for late April 2008.
boe_d 26th March 2008, 01:55 Quote
[QUOTE=Tim S]
Quote:
Originally Posted by boe_d
Hello and welcome to the forums - thanks for signing up to comment on this article. We appreciate all feedback--both good and bad. :)
Tim

My pleasure. I'm glad people are putting out benchmarks for people to see results. I just think even if you ran XP 32 without even a single SP - you'll find that it blows the doors off of Vista 64. I'm all for running things 64 bit - but if that means my system runs slower - what is the point? I think it would be interesting to see your results of these same tests run with the same computer but with a fresh install of XP for comparison.

I upgrade a lot of my clients who run Vista to XP and I can't tell you how happy they are with their new computers running so fast without annoying popups questioning their every action like they were idiots but they are even more upset that MS foisted Vista on them.
Cheap Mod Wannabe 26th March 2008, 04:22 Quote
"[if] my system runs slower - what is the point?"

Well you know that if you ran DOS on your current PC is would blow your f****** mind how fast it was. I'm not trying to be a dic* just trying to make a point. It's about the features, interface and your workflow. For me Vista makes sense. It's slower in certain points and definitely has it's negatives. But at the same time I love a lot of things about it. So it depends on what your priorities are.
Tim S 26th March 2008, 06:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMonroe
Always I am confused as to how reviewers sometimes get such disparate results from my experience. The test setup you guys used has 2gigs more ram, the same CPU but 600mhz faster than mine runs, a better mobo and a 9800GX2 instead of my 8800GT, and I get framerates in CoD4 that are only a tiny bit worse than what you get here. (I play at 1920x1200 with AA and AF maxed) I usually see 60FPS on most servers, sometimes as high as 85-90 and sometimes as low as 50-55. Was this just done testing SP possibly?

We use a "worst case scenario" for just about all of our tests and we use a singleplayer mission, as stated in the game setup page.
boe_d 26th March 2008, 14:50 Quote
[QUOTE=Cheap Mod Wannabe]"
Well you know that if you ran DOS on your current PC is would blow your f****** mind how fast it was.QUOTE]

Oh sure - but the thing is I can't think of any software I can't run on XP that I need Vista for - even their best attempt at getting people to buy Vista was DX10 for gamers - sadly som 19 year old figured a way around that. I've already played Halo2 on my XP PC - not a single issue.
Mind you - if you couldn't run most games or office apps etc - then I could certainly see moving to Vista - but vista is just a slow OS with a prettier interface - oh wait - there is a mod to make XP look just like vista but without the performance hit.... hmmm hard to justify the extra hardware requirements and the money for an os that doesn't really do anything for me - OH yes - I remember now - it treats me like an idiot and asks me - "are you sure you wanted to do that?" every time I open an app, document, letter adjust my seat height - that would be enjoyable. - just exagerating of course but UAC has to be one of the most annoying things next to clippy MS has ever released.

I'm not trying to be a weanie either - I just think that Vista offers no benefit to anyone who has use a PC in the last 20 years.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums