Gamespot's Windows Vista Benchmarks

[facedownwh]

Hey, check this article out: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6164940/index.html

It looks like at least some of the Nvidia driver issues with Vista have been resolved. Some of the performance on Vista is even better than XP, if even by just a few FPS.

 

[tool_462]

Glad to see it is being worked on already. Still probably going to wait till SP1 or whatever they choose to call it comes out.

 

[Blacken]

I agree with that. Looks like Vista will turn out well. A lot of people have reported it being very stable. 2GBs seems to be an optimum requirement.

 

[lewbaseball07]

ive had vista for like..since the rtm download came out

still running strong after 30 days!

 

[bydesign]

They need to add Vista 64 to the mix. I've just installed the official 100.54 for vista 64 and haven't tested it. The leaked 100.54 drivers were not what I would call stable in all games with the 8800. In some games I had no issues other frequently crashed.

In 3dmax 64 the driver issues make the program more or less unusable. So I would say they have lots of work to do still.

I would also like to see these result confirmed elsewhere as Gamespot has been known skew result from companies they receive money or perks from.

 

[mpjesse]

I agree with that. Looks like Vista will turn out well. A lot of people have reported it being very stable. 2GBs seems to be an optimum requirement.

i upgraded my laptop today. so far it's just as stable as XP. i'm running on 2GB of RAM, so i don't know how it does w/ 1GB or 512MB.

 

[mpjesse]

Strange... the disparity in benchmarks between GameSpot and THG is rather large.

It seems pretty clear to me that the issues of poor performance is tied to the games and drivers; not necessarily Vista itself. Completely understandable.

 

[tekzor]

1gb looks to be the sweet spot.
Next gen OS optimal memory : 1GB

I'd say thats pretty good for a next gen OS. Most prebuilt comps are shipping with 1GB memory requirement for vista premium and above which makes sence. Obviously 512MB wont cut it anymore( not like it should anyway ).

 

[Valtiel]

Well this is a breath of fresh air. I hope it really does run better or on par for vista because despite what THG benches say. Just today I was bashing Vista for having bad gaming performance but I would like to be wrong. Maybe now all I'll be able to bash vista with is high prices . Oh yeah and those other issues.

Right now I have a love-hate relationship with vista. On one hand, new OS, new look and new tech. On the other hand $200 (?) isn't exactly burning a hole in my pocket and I heard of a lot of problems so far. I think I'll just play it safe with Tool and grab it when it hits SP1

 

[yipsl]

Strange... the disparity in benchmarks between GameSpot and THG is rather large.

It seems pretty clear to me that the issues of poor performance is tied to the games and drivers; not necessarily Vista itself. Completely understandable.

THG was using an ATI X1900XT, I believe. ATI might not have their Vista drivers optimized yet, while Nvidia needs to get their drivers in order, as benchmarks are already being done on a DX10 part.

I plan on a dual boot, because the OEM Windows Media Edition 2005 has an upgrade coupon for Vista Home Premium. The new PC's arriving in bits and pieces from Newegg over the next few days. I don't think I'll see any real benefit until I can replace the 7600GS with an 8600GS in a few months.

As far as benchmarks go, I think they'll vary wildly until DX10 games arrive, or current titles are patched for Vista.

 

[pauldh]

THG was using an ATI X1900XT, I believe. ATI might not have their Vista drivers optimized yet, while Nvidia needs to get their drivers in order, as benchmarks are already being done on a DX10 part.

If anything, I'd say that worrying about DX10 has NV behind ATI in Vista support.

FS has a couple articles comparing XP to Vista performance on ATI Cat 7.1 and also Aeroglass performance hit. ATI seems like they are doing just fine with their current cards in Vista, we shall see how well their DX10 cards do.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_performance_amd_catalyst_7.1/

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/

NV on the other hand... http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37314

 

[facedownwh]

Wasn't the main issue with THG's benchmarks that it was RTM drivers still? Both Nvidia and AMD/ATI have been able to fine tune their software since that time. Maybe they have significantly by this point.

 

[Chef_Boyardee]

isn't gamespot owned by microsoft?

nevermind, it's cnet.

 

[AlaskaFox]

I noticed they also used ATI's beta drivers. the official drivers were released the same day as the review (Catalyst 7.1), and seem to be a VAST improvement over the beta. I loaded up FEAR and PREY (OpenGL)with no issues at all, didnt check the FPS though but I am sure it was a VAST improvement.

 

[nibenentt]

SOme games though have gone from frame rates of over 100 to unplayable when attacking i.e. command and conquer generals age of empires 2 (on an 8800GTS)

 

[AlaskaFox]

will load up generals and FRAPS tonight and see how it does then.

 

[nibenentt]

Using Fraps it get 31/32 most of the time but in battles gets under 5 fps when there are a large number of the green lines that the patriot missles and lasers give out. or when there is a large number of rockets flying about

 

[mpjesse]

THG was using an ATI X1900XT, I believe. ATI might not have their Vista drivers optimized yet, while Nvidia needs to get their drivers in order, as benchmarks are already being done on a DX10 part.

If anything, I'd say that worrying about DX10 has NV behind ATI in Vista support.

FS has a couple articles comparing XP to Vista performance on ATI Cat 7.1 and also Aeroglass performance hit. ATI seems like they are doing just fine with their current cards in Vista, we shall see how well their DX10 cards do.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_performance_amd_catalyst_7.1/

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/

NV on the other hand... http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37314

The Inq makes me sick. They claim to be journalists?

NVIDIA, a fabless chip firm, has finally released an "official" driver for Vista 32 and 64 bit. Unfortunately it is a beta driver but better than nothing.

This driver has OpenGL support for Geforce 6, 7 and 8 series and has DirectX 10 support for Geforce 8800 GPUs. It also has support for DirectX 9 with Geforce 6, 7 and 8 series of cards.

DirectX 9 and OpenGL drivers for SLI and the family stone will be available tomorrow. A DirectX 10 driver supporting Geforce 8800 cards and DirectX 10 in SLI mode will be available sometime in "the future".

Nvidia points out there's a heap of unfinished things in this driver, so you'd better stay tuned for new releases as this one looks too patched for our taste. Obviously Microsoft has ensured this "launch" is very well coordinated with the hardware and fabless chip folk.

You can read all about it here and this is the place where you can download the 32 bit version. If you dare. µ

It's quite obvious the author has an extreme dislike of nVidia. That kinda crap is fine for a blog, but not a news story.

 

[maina231]

dudes anyone have got VISTA and tested it. I'm thinking of getting that MAC OS X 10 for INTEL 8O 8O 8O 8O

 

[nibenentt]

I've got it and am dual booting it with XP. Some games have horrible frame rates in vista as i have said above

 

[maina231]

so vista is crap hell i won't be able to game HALO 2 when it comes out

 

[nibenentt]

I said some games. not all are as some benchmarks show (these are mostly the newer games that are performing fine some are in fact infront of xp in terms of frame rate.) Newer drivers for the 8 series should fix this though as a friend running vista with a 7600GT is currently getting better frame rates than me in the older games ( age of empires 2, command and conquer generals.)

 

[yipsl]

If anything, I'd say that worrying about DX10 has NV behind ATI in Vista support.

FS has a couple articles comparing XP to Vista performance on ATI Cat 7.1 and also Aeroglass performance hit. ATI seems like they are doing just fine with their current cards in Vista, we shall see how well their DX10 cards do.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_performance_amd_catalyst_7.1/

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/

NV on the other hand... http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37314

I'll check those articles out. I actually bought the X2 3800+ processor at Fry's bundled with the exact same MSI board that's in the barebones from Newegg. So, in a couple of months, I'll get another 2 gigs of Corsair XMS, another X2 3800+ and replace the Northwood below.

The only thing different, between the two X2 3800+ systems, besides hard drives and power supplies will be that I'll put a midrange ATI R610 card in one and an 8600 Ultra in the other. That way, I can do my own benchmarks in games that I play often, like Oblivion, HOMM 5 etc.

Everything's arrived but the 7600GS, it should be together within a week (between work and an anime convention this weekend).

It won't beat a C2D, but it's a nice upgrade for me:

Athlon X2 3800+ 65watt
MSI MBOX K9N6SGM-V
2 gigs Corsair XMS
400 gig Seagate SATA II
200 gig Maxtor SATA
MSI 7600GS (to be replaced by an 8600 in April)

 

[deadlysushi]

so vista is crap hell i won't be able to game HALO 2 when it comes out

Thanks to DRM among other things like iffy FPS on certain games, A Vista upgrade sounds like a downgrade. Also, SuperFetch and ReadyBoost seem like a big joke.
SO far the best thing about Vista are the wallpapers.

 

[maina231]

yes dude 8O 8O 8O wallpapers r cool. I think i will try that Mac for Intel stuff. Looks cool for me. what do you think