Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gamespot's Windows Vista Benchmarks

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 30, 2007 9:36:11 PM

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. :D 
January 30, 2007 9:42:24 PM

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.
January 30, 2007 10:20:04 PM

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.
Related resources
January 31, 2007 2:43:04 AM

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

still running strong after 30 days!
January 31, 2007 3:50:35 AM

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.
January 31, 2007 3:55:21 AM

Quote:
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.
January 31, 2007 4:00:41 AM

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.
January 31, 2007 4:42:50 AM

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 ).
January 31, 2007 5:33:48 AM

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 :) 
January 31, 2007 5:35:24 AM

Quote:
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.
a b U Graphics card
January 31, 2007 12:35:51 PM

Quote:
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_perfo...

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

NV on the other hand... http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37314
January 31, 2007 2:27:07 PM

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.
January 31, 2007 8:04:09 PM

isn't gamespot owned by microsoft?

nevermind, it's cnet.
January 31, 2007 9:00:32 PM

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.
January 31, 2007 9:08:18 PM

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)
January 31, 2007 9:20:34 PM

will load up generals and FRAPS tonight and see how it does then. :wink:
January 31, 2007 9:27:14 PM

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
February 1, 2007 2:54:53 AM

Quote:
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_perfo...

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

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

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

Quote:
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.
February 1, 2007 3:49:32 AM

dudes anyone have got VISTA and tested it. I'm thinking of getting that MAC OS X 10 for INTEL 8O 8O 8O 8O
February 1, 2007 4:21:09 AM

I've got it and am dual booting it with XP. Some games have horrible frame rates in vista as i have said above
February 1, 2007 4:24:01 AM

so vista is crap hell i won't be able to game HALO 2 when it comes out :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:  :evil: 
February 1, 2007 4:30:17 AM

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.)
February 1, 2007 5:39:38 AM

Quote:

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_perfo...

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

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)
February 1, 2007 7:30:45 AM

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


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.
February 1, 2007 7:33:56 AM

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
February 1, 2007 8:54:05 AM

Quote:
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.


Um, not a single benchmark there showed anything close to a significant performance hit with 1Gb.

Despite the ravings of many, 1Gb, even with Vista, remains very adeqaute for 90% of current games. I expect this to soon change however.
a b U Graphics card
February 1, 2007 11:07:19 AM

Yeah, they form their own negative opinion based on the release notes, which always have some degree of current issues. I see both points, But NV is always releasing betas, so this is really nothing new apart from it being for Vista. On the other hand, it Would've bee nice to have an official driver come Vista launch, especially considering all those like you who have jumped on $600 DX10 cards.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 1, 2007 3:27:57 PM

Well it's somewhat typical to have betas from nV only rarely do they host beta drivers that are non-WHQL, but considering who's really upgrading anyways (bleeding edge) the impact is minimal. But it is par for the course, and the thing IMO is either you were pi$$ed off at the practice before Vista came out or you weren't.

I doubt anyone has changed their opinion about nV or ATi drivers from this launch, pretty much more of the same. Both accomplish the task, just differently.

I still think the rate of updates is an issue, but then again I always did see that as a concern / potential concern.

I understand what the writer is trying to do, like a protest article (similar to THGs' a while back on the rush to review a card with only a day or two) but it seems like this InQ writer doesn't have the skillz to do a great job of it.
a b U Graphics card
February 2, 2007 11:01:49 AM

It's the lack of WHQL drivers and the lack of SLI support that Kyle writes about in the link below. I haven't been to the [H] forums in a few weeks, but believe him that they have loads of G80 owners in their forums who are ticked about the driver support they are getting.

Link: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI3NCwx...

Quote - "Talking to NVIDIA about this today, they explain they are very well aware that the enthusiast community is not happy with the state of the Vista drivers and they told HardOCP that they are working hard to fix the issues"
February 2, 2007 11:36:21 AM

It seems vista is lagging behind XP in more than one benchmark.
February 2, 2007 12:21:53 PM

news flash the same thing happened with XP vs 98



just saying, give it till like march or so when all the drivers are out and patches for vista

*at least thats what im doing
February 2, 2007 1:01:31 PM

You mean Old news flash, I'm typeing about vista and xp. I'm sure the drivers will fix it, but as for today, right now, this very sec. Vista is behind xp.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 2, 2007 3:58:16 PM

Quote:
You mean Old news flash, I'm typeing about vista and xp. I'm sure the drivers will fix it, but as for today, right now, this very sec. Vista is behind xp.


Understand sarcasm first, then maybe you'll get FF's post. :roll:

Same thing happened before where performance was sub par at first (heck even 95 to 98, hence SE for memory issues). Most people even mention W98SE -> XP because the only time in history performance in apps and games went up was between WinME and XP because M$ so $crewed the pooch so badly with ME that the only way to go was up.

Considering the +/- of current early performance, and the fact that there is no previous model to build off of (unlike XP and W2K/NT) this is about par for the course or better.

So really like FatFunkey says nothing new, and no surpise, just like your statement Vista is behind XP, which is a 'well duh!' type of statement in an of itself.

Sarcasm, don't get much of that around these parts. :roll:
February 2, 2007 4:14:47 PM

Quote:
You mean Old news flash, I'm typeing about vista and xp. I'm sure the drivers will fix it, but as for today, right now, this very sec. Vista is behind xp.


Understand sarcasm first, then maybe you'll get FF's post. :roll:

If you understood sarcasm, then maybe you would have gotten my post. :p 
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 2, 2007 4:17:59 PM

Seems like nV has started their work on it with another beta driver 100.59;

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37408

Looks like VIA/S3 also released their drivers (and they're certified), looks like they were dated the 26th;

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37402

http://www.s3graphics.com/en/resources/drivers/chrome_P...

And then there's Matrox........, hey, somenice DX8 drivers for the non-Aero version of Vista :oops:  ;
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/corpo/support/drivers...
February 3, 2007 4:22:22 AM

Quote:
You mean Old news flash, I'm typeing about vista and xp. I'm sure the drivers will fix it, but as for today, right now, this very sec. Vista is behind xp.


Understand sarcasm first, then maybe you'll get FF's post. :roll:

Same thing happened before where performance was sub par at first (heck even 95 to 98, hence SE for memory issues). Most people even mention W98SE -> XP because the only time in history performance in apps and games went up was between WinME and XP because M$ so $crewed the pooch so badly with ME that the only way to go was up.

Considering the +/- of current early performance, and the fact that there is no previous model to build off of (unlike XP and W2K/NT) this is about par for the course or better.

So really like FatFunkey says nothing new, and no surpise, just like your statement Vista is behind XP, which is a 'well duh!' type of statement in an of itself.

Sarcasm, don't get much of that around these parts. :roll:

whew at least some people are from the 95 98 age...so many new computer gamers calling themselves geeks cuz they built there rig, its not just the rig its the ability to know he hardware and software you put on too :D 

but yea seriously you guys act as if your surprised, we knew drivers would be sub-par im guessing by march Nvida and ATI will finally have stable Vista Drivers (that actually have performance equal or close to XP) Not to mention Soundcards printers ect. yet even knowing this 1/2 of you bought it and are now complaining because of the fact what you knew..is true.....so while this may sound harsh you kinda did it to yourselves, if its so bad reinstall XP and wait a month or 2 for drivers, or dual boot (which some have done)

Vista will surpass XP, but its going to take some time to get the bugs and drivers to work. Just like 98SE vs XP......ME dosnt count because it was a POS....god i feel sorry for people running that :\.
February 3, 2007 4:35:39 PM

Yeah FF, I'm with ya there man. I just posted the Gamespot stuff cause it looked like things were already brightening up a little. On another, yet similar note, have you guys heard about the lawsuit that might get filed and all that? Seems kinda over the top to me... I have an 8800, but then again, I don't have Vista yet... :roll:
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 4, 2007 6:54:55 AM

The thing is I have a feeling the printers won't get driver updates other than "genric HP" or "generic Lexmark" drivers. I still have an old Canon that doesn't have XP compatible drivers, but I've come to expect it.

I tell you though I'm not going to bother with Vista until much later, right now there's nothing I need from it that I can't do with XP, and still most of the tools I use work better (or only) in XP. For me the M$ upgrade was Office not Vista, and I like the new office, Vista can wait, hopefully until most of the DRM crap is hacked out completely. I have a copy from work sitting unused because I have no interest for now on my home computer. I deal with it at work, which is good enough for me for now.
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2007 10:32:17 AM

Firingsquad now got around to testing NV cards in Vista, and the performance hit was way more than with ATI. HL2 and BF2142 there was a huge drop. NV still has some work to do on their vista drivers.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_nvidi...

Interesting the Inq points out that Dell 710's, which are the only ones you can get a GF8800 in, don't offer Vista while all other models are running Vista. Bad sign.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37476
February 8, 2007 11:18:10 AM

Quote:
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.
F.E.A.R. is Direct X9 based, but good to hear that Prey worked fine as it is OpenGL.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
February 8, 2007 2:35:48 PM

Yeah I noticed both of those, even commented on the FS one yesterday.

I found it interesting that Brandon got feedback from nV on the second test but didn't from AMD on the first one.

Also why are the bars not coluored the same as the first review, makes the differences far less dramatic, and I wonder if that's the point?

Also would love to see the impact on PureVideo and AVIVO whenever AMD/nV get around to getting those to work. I would hope that CPU useage would go down, but I wonder about the overhead of all the DRM crap. To me that's the most important issue for whether I want Vista anywhere neart my upcoming laptop.

Also makes me laugh that everyone says WHQL is nothing and nV doesn't care, yet in their press release they specifically mention WHQL, as well as having 4 generations of Vista Certified VPUs. However if it's WHQL certification then nV only has 3 generations, just like AMD.
!