Help me decide whether to move to Vista

[J-Man]

This is a dumb question. If you're not with Vista 64 bit already, there's something wrong with you.

 

[EiSFX]

and probaly like what i do with XP i will disable most likely 3/4 of the processes in vista that should help anything i have actully tried vista 64bit once before. Before SP1 came and stuff it was ok games and stuff actully ran at about the same speed just usaully everything took a little longer to load up but i have heard with SP1 things speed up a little so i think i'm going to give it a go

 

[qubit]

Hello all i have a copy of Windows Vista ultimate 64bit and i'm still debating on weather i should move to it or just keep my XP pro 64bit running i have heard the bad and the good from friends no i wants to hear it from other PC enthuiest's and see you all have to say

and also since i got my new video card HD 3870 i'm wanting to try some games in DX 10

I tried a couple of quick benchmarks between XP32, Vista32 & Vista64, all fully patched. Note that XP was my old battered copy that has had all the crap under the sun thrown at it with lots of background processes running, while Vista was a brand new, clean installation

These are the results I got:

Half-Life 2 (DX9) average frame rate

XP: 100
Vista: 94

Unreal Tournament 2003 (DX8) average frame rate

XP: 323 flyby, 107 botmatch
Vista: 264 flyby, 90 botmatch

The results hardly changed between 640x480 & 1280x960 & AA turned on or off, so the CPU was the bottleneck here.

Got the same crap results with Vista64. A clean XP would obviously run even faster.

Now do you want to move to Vista?


Relevant system specs:

AMD Athlon X2 3800 + overclocked to 2.6GHz
Abit AN8 Ultra motherboard
2GB DDR400 RAM
ATI 2900XT 1GB & 4870 512MB cards (both gave the same results, near enough)
Creative X-Fi sound card

 

[Darknova]

I tried a couple of quick benchmarks between XP32, Vista32 & Vista64, all fully patched. Note that XP was my old battered copy that has had all the crap under the sun thrown at it with lots of background processes running, while Vista was a brand new, clean installation

These are the results I got:

Half-Life 2 (DX9) average frame rate

XP: 100
Vista: 94

Unreal Tournament 2003 (DX8) average frame rate

XP: 323 flyby, 107 botmatch
Vista: 264 flyby, 90 botmatch

The results hardly changed between 640x480 & 1280x960 & AA turned on or off, so the CPU was the bottleneck here.

Got the same crap results with Vista64. A clean XP would obviously run even faster.

Now do you want to move to Vista?


Relevant system specs:

AMD Athlon X2 3800 + overclocked to 2.6GHz
Abit AN8 Ultra motherboard
2GB DDR400 RAM
ATI 2900XT 1GB & 4870 512MB cards (both gave the same results, near enough)
Creative X-Fi sound card

You have some skewed view if you call those crap results. You're running a game that is running WAY beyond the threshold for smooth gameplay. You've lost 6 (within margin of error IMO) and 17fps.

Would I move to Vista based on those results? Absolutely. Keeping up with the latest stuff but losing a few % in FPS terms, pfft. It's nothing but an excuse to stay away from "what's new".

 

[qubit]

It *does* matter

You have some skewed view if you call those crap results. You're running a game that is running WAY beyond the threshold for smooth gameplay. You've lost 6 (within margin of error IMO) and 17fps.

Would I move to Vista based on those results? Absolutely. Keeping up with the latest stuff but losing a few % in FPS terms, pfft. It's nothing but an excuse to stay away from "what's new".

Oh yeah, I forgot to say, that in UT the drop represents about 20% and in HL2 6%.

I was really hoping that the 3D performance problems had been ironed out by now. The ExtremeTech article on this said it had been sorted - obviously not. Did Microsoft have a little word with them? Glad I checked it out myself first.

You might go on about the overall FPS being high, but you are missing the point here. The FPS in modern games is much lower, so losing 5-20% performance can really ruin the experience. Remember, anything less than a solid 60fps will look jerky. Expensive hardware is just that, specifically to remove this problem.

I'd say Vista is now fine if you're not a gamer. I am, so it's a deal breaker. After all, why spend so much money on improving frame rate with expensive hardware, just to have it robbed by the operating system?

Apart from this problem, I actually quite like Vista, the Aero interface and the various new and expanded features. It's a real shame they couldn't fix this problem.

EDIT: That ExtremeTech article: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302495,00.asp

 

[Darknova]

Oh yeah, I forgot to say, that in UT the drop represents about 20% and in HL2 6%.

I was really hoping that the 3D performance problems had been ironed out by now. The ExtremeTech article on this said it had been sorted - obviously not. Did Microsoft have a little word with them? Glad I checked it out myself first.

You might go on about the overall FPS being high, but you are missing the point here. The FPS in modern games is much lower, so losing 5-20% performance can really ruin the experience. Remember, anything less than a solid 60fps will look jerky. Expensive hardware is just that, specifically to remove this problem.

I'd say Vista is now fine if you're not a gamer. I am, so it's a deal breaker. After all, why spend so much money on improving frame rate with expensive hardware, just to have it robbed by the operating system?

Apart from this problem, I actually quite like Vista, the Aero interface and the various new and expanded features. It's a real shame they couldn't fix this problem.

EDIT: That ExtremeTech article: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302495,00.asp

I don't mean to be rude but I'm a gamer. A big one. That is the main purpose of my rig. That is why I've spent so much f***ing money getting it right. Vista completed it. I'm now finally happy with my rig, happier than I was before, and I can play games with DX10 features tagged on, may not be much but EVERYTHING plays smoothly, and looks better than it did in XP.

Not only that, but the only game I've seen a drop in FPS (but still smooth) is Crysis. The rest are the same (within margin of error) or better.

I think possibly you need to tweak Vista. It does need it, but that comes with being a gamer, wanting the most out of your OS regardless of what it is.

 

[Wile E]

quibit, you are completely missing the point. Did you have to lower graphical detail in any of your games to achieve a playable framerate? No, you didn't. All of your games remain just as playable in both XP and Vista. Once yu get over a certain threshold, it doesn't matter how many fps you are getting. Both of your examples are well beyond that threshold, thus the gaming experience will be absolutely identical on both OSes.

I game at 1920x1200 with a single 8800GT. At this resolution with this card (even overclocked), some games walk the borderline of playability. Even in those extreme cases, I still haven't had lower graphical detail to retain playability in Vista on ANY game.

 

[johnnyfiive]

Vista 64 shits on XP 64. Use it, and you will understand. It's a better OS all around, not just in gaming. Vista is a good solid OS. Those that hate on it have never given it a chance.

 

[qubit]

Not only that, but the only game I've seen a drop in FPS (but still smooth) is Crysis. The rest are the same (within margin of error) or better.

Have you done proper comparative benchmarks then? Did XP & Vista actually score the same? If so, I'd sure like to know which games and what settings you used & I'll try them out myself.

If by tweaking, you mean shutting off services and such, then you may be right up to a point. But that huge DX8 drop won't get taken out by a little tweaking.

I've only run two tests, admittedly, but I suspect that other DX9 games might take a big hit too like that DX8 one and tweaking won't take that out - I'll have to do a little more benching to say for sure. I guess one can always run a dual boot machine, but that's of course, somewhat inconvenient.

Unfortunately, XP remains the better gaming platform until DX10 matures.

 

[qubit]

I think you missed my point

quibit, you are completely missing the point. Did you have to lower graphical detail in any of your games to achieve a playable framerate? No, you didn't. All of your games remain just as playable in both XP and Vista. Once yu get over a certain threshold, it doesn't matter how many fps you are getting. Both of your examples are well beyond that threshold, thus the gaming experience will be absolutely identical on both OSes.

I game at 1920x1200 with a single 8800GT. At this resolution with this card (even overclocked), some games walk the borderline of playability. Even in those extreme cases, I still haven't had lower graphical detail to retain playability in Vista on ANY game.

I'm not missing the point. I explained that modern games will bench lower than the two I used. Please read my post again and you will see what I said about borderline cases. As you know, for gaming, one cannot have too much power, so to see your OS squandering it is quite galling, really.

I have a Mitsubishi 19" CRT monitor specifically because I game. I can set my current system to 2048x1536 AA & AF turned up and get fabulous judder-free 60fps vsync-locked animation and visuals from my current system in several games; currently playing Trackmania United. I'd hate to see the judders come back because of Vista.

In the end, you can never have too much headroom, in order to keep those minimums higher than your refresh rate (ie judder free) and to ensure longevity of your system.

For the record, I actually have Vista Ultimate and would love to use it as my main OS, but this issue is a deal breaker for me.

I suspect that the performance problem may stem from either/or the graphics drivers now working in user mode / the Protected Media Patch DRM crap getting in the way. I'd really like to know.

 

[Wile E]

I'm not missing the point. I explained that modern games will bench lower than the two I used. Please read my post again and you will see what I said about borderline cases. As you know, for gaming, one cannot have too much power, so to see your OS squandering it is quite galling, really.

I have a Mitsubishi 19" CRT monitor specifically because I game. I can set my current system to 2048x1536 AA & AF turned up and get fabulous judder-free 60fps vsync-locked animation and visuals from my current system in several games; currently playing Trackmania United. I'd hate to see the judders come back because of Vista.

In the end, you can never have too much headroom, in order to keep those minimums higher than your refresh rate (ie judder free) and to ensure longevity of your system.

For the record, I actually have Vista Ultimate and would love to use it as my main OS, but this issue is a deal breaker for me.

I suspect that the performance problem may stem from either/or the graphics drivers now working in user mode / the Protected Media Patch DRM crap getting in the way. I'd really like to know.

But your gaming experience hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is your benchmarks of the games. If you wouldn't have benchmarked them, you would have never noticed the difference. That's all that matters when gaming, not the exact number of fps you are getting.

 

[qubit]

But your gaming experience hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is your benchmarks of the games. If you wouldn't have benchmarked them, you would have never noticed the difference. That's all that matters when gaming, not the exact number of fps you are getting.

No that's not right - if the benchmarks meant nothing, then I wouldn't have an issue with this. In the end, it does visibly affect performance, even if not always. Now, I think about it, I did notice a bit of a drop in UT2003, as I did notice dropped frames there. Previously, I could set the screen refresh to 85Hz (1600x1200) and experience fabulous liquid-smooth animation 99% of the time. It went down somewhat with Vista - and this is on an old game that's less demanding, don't forget.

Look, this isn't rocket science and I can't explain myself any more clearly than I have, so I don't see what's so hard to understand. I've never seen any gamer not be concerned about reduced performance before, whether or not a particular benchmark is above a certain threshold.

Perhaps we'll just leave it there then.

 

[Wile E]

No that's not right - if the benchmarks meant nothing, then I wouldn't have an issue with this. In the end, it does visibly affect performance, even if not always. Now, I think about it, I did notice a bit of a drop in UT2003, as I did notice dropped frames there. Previously, I could set the screen refresh to 85Hz (1600x1200) and experience fabulous liquid-smooth animation 99% of the time. It went down somewhat with Vista - and this is on an old game that's less demanding, don't forget.

Look, this isn't rocket science and I can't explain myself any more clearly than I have, so I don't see what's so hard to understand. I've never seen any gamer not be concerned about reduced performance before, whether or not a particular benchmark is above a certain threshold.

Perhaps we'll just leave it there then.

So, you are telling me you saw a difference between 323 and 164 fps in UT03?

I'm sorry, I'm calling BS on this one.

 

[Darknova]

No that's not right - if the benchmarks meant nothing, then I wouldn't have an issue with this. In the end, it does visibly affect performance, even if not always. Now, I think about it, I did notice a bit of a drop in UT2003, as I did notice dropped frames there. Previously, I could set the screen refresh to 85Hz (1600x1200) and experience fabulous liquid-smooth animation 99% of the time. It went down somewhat with Vista - and this is on an old game that's less demanding, don't forget.

Look, this isn't rocket science and I can't explain myself any more clearly than I have, so I don't see what's so hard to understand. I've never seen any gamer not be concerned about reduced performance before, whether or not a particular benchmark is above a certain threshold.

Perhaps we'll just leave it there then.

You do know that professional gamers actually restrict their maximum FPS right? In CSS most pro gamers restrict their fps to 100, too much FPS can actually be a bad thing in CSS. Don't ask me why, I forget, but CSS has the dodgiest netcode I've ever known. Google it, you'll find the reason.

I think what you fail to understand is that you don't need 200+ FPS, you don't even need more than 60hz unless you are on a CRT. I get the feeling you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and pulling BS out of your ass just to throw at us and see how we respond.

 

[rflair]

You have some skewed view if you call those crap results. You're running a game that is running WAY beyond the threshold for smooth gameplay. You've lost 6 (within margin of error IMO) and 17fps.

Would I move to Vista based on those results? Absolutely. Keeping up with the latest stuff but losing a few % in FPS terms, pfft. It's nothing but an excuse to stay away from "what's new".

What were the minimum FPS in your benchmarks? I remember seeing benchmarks where the only thing boosting FPS in XP (for the most part) was peak FPS.

I use Vista x64, have since it was released, love it. Have XP on my other box, still a great OS but Vista makes it feel antiquated, I also have Win2K on my old laptop, should be in a museum .

Just saying the hardware of the times has its proper OS.

Move on to Vista and make it Vista x64 at that.

Opps quoted wrong thread.

 

[EiSFX]

If i remember right its something anything faster then 60 FPS or higher is unnoticeable by the human eye what i mean is if it running 70 FPS or 100 FPS or 200 FPS your eye won't be able to tell its actully running faster or not

 

[Mussels]

Ahh this old argument. we had a thread on this a long time ago.

Summary: some people can see over 200FPS, the military did testing on air force pilots. I personally can see around 120FPS at best (i had a screen that did 150Hz, but could barely see a difference from 100 and up)

MINIMUM FPS is the most important - only when it dips below your threshold (24FPS to 30FPS for most people, 50 for me) is when the games feel 'laggy'

Because eyesight differs between people its just not going to be something we can state as a fact for everyone - but arguments saying we can only see xxFPS are complete crap.


edit: the human EYE can see 200FPS+ (not full tested) however the human BRAIN (which varies between people) varies in processing speed. Get an FPS noob compared to a pro gamer, and the pro will see and react to things before the noob even realise they're on screen - its a good example of how 'training' can teach you to see and respond to faster images/higher FPS images.

 

[Wile E]

Ahh this old argument. we had a thread on this a long time ago.

Summary: some people can see over 200FPS, the military did testing on air force pilots. I personally can see around 120FPS at best (i had a screen that did 150Hz, but could barely see a difference from 100 and up)

MINIMUM FPS is the most important - only when it dips below your threshold (24FPS to 30FPS for most people, 50 for me) is when the games feel 'laggy'

Because eyesight differs between people its just not going to be something we can state as a fact for everyone - but arguments saying we can only see xxFPS are complete crap.


edit: the human EYE can see 200FPS+ (not full tested) however the human BRAIN (which varies between people) varies in processing speed. Get an FPS noob compared to a pro gamer, and the pro will see and react to things before the noob even realise they're on screen - its a good example of how 'training' can teach you to see and respond to faster images/higher FPS images.

No, the military tested by flashing a single image once for a very short period of time, and recorded whether or not the pilots could identify it. That is entirely different to seeing 200 changing images in a second.

The average person can see in between 60-80fps. Sure, some people can see the differences higher, but nobody in their right mind can tell me they can see the difference between 323 and 164fps. Especially considering his monitor doesn't even refresh that fast.

And I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that even those sensitive people can't discern a 6fps difference when talking about the difference between 100fps and 94fps. The change just isn't drastic enough.

And reacting to, and visually seeing a change on the screen has to do with reflexes, not your mind's ability to identify the change.

 

[Mussels]

wile E: your interpretation of what i said is a little off. My point matches yours: the human EYE can see at 200FPS (that one frame in 200 with an image) however the brain cant process that many images. Thats where i said that everyone differs in how much they see, and 'training' (aka gaming alot) can teach you to see more.

 

[DonInKansas]

I tried a couple of quick benchmarks between XP32, Vista32 & Vista64, all fully patched. Note that XP was my old battered copy that has had all the crap under the sun thrown at it with lots of background processes running, while Vista was a brand new, clean installation

Was Vista 64 fully updated with SP1 installed? That makes a huge difference.

 

[PuMA]

1 day I decided to give VISTA a go. was an XP fan, but once installed i have never went to XP again. Gaming is fine for me in vista. I might have seen some difference with old GFX but with GTX260 the games dont have any significant FPS loss.

 

[Darknova]

What were the minimum FPS in your benchmarks? I remember seeing benchmarks where the only thing boosting FPS in XP (for the most part) was peak FPS.

My gaming experience is always smooth, that's all I need to know. Never stutters or judders, even in Crysis. As for my actual FPS, couldn't give a crap, it's smooth and perfectly playable, and I can still play CSS at mid/high level (poorly lol) so nothing's changed. I do not see the point in having 200 excess FPS, whether it's on Vista or on XP. Don't get me wrong, I do quite enjoy benching, but when it comes to gaming it needs to look good, have no tearing and be smooth. As long as I can identify a target at distance I honestly don't need any more than that

 

[FAUCE]

50 50. i got vista x32 pre-installed brand new. it is way better than xp BUT!! i tryied to play a game on it yestorday (TF2) and it stoped at the loading screen. vista is the BEST software out there yet but from the gaming side, its 50 50. up to you.

 

[Mussels]

50 50. i got vista x32 pre-installed brand new. it is way better than xp BUT!! i tryied to play a game on it yestorday (TF2) and it stoped at the loading screen. vista is the BEST software out there yet but from the gaming side, its 50 50. up to you.

well i'm pretty sure if TF2 didnt work under vista, there'd be a massive uproar. Odds are that was a problem unique to your PC.

 

[kyle2020]

put it this way - install it, try it - if you dont like it you can always go back to xp

I went from xp media center to vista 32 bit (on 64 bit now) and i will personally never use anything lower than vista again. Other than ubuntu just for giggles