Is there a FPS comparison between xp - vista?

[chewbacco]

Coming from xp 32 Sp2, to vista ultimate 64, it seems my games run slower, for a questionable graphic improvement
Is there an fps (frames per second) chart or comparison somewhere? Same hardware just OS change (same settings, only dx10 renderer different.)
between XP 32, XP 64, Vista 32, and Vista 64?
I have a Chimei 22 inch WS LCD and games look horrible in anything except 1680 x 1050. (otherwise i would just turn my resolution down)
Running 10-20 FPS faster in dx9 would be preferable to slower but prettier in dx10 In my opinion.

 

[antas]

Yes, there's a performance 'tax' in Vista compare to XP.

read: Gamespot: Crysis Review. See some others HW review on them, they had comparison on OS too.

Currenty I decided to stay with XP32, since I have not played any real DX10 games yet. I played NWN2, WC3, and NFS ProStreet. And I saw in my friends CPU (experimenting dual boot Vista32 & XP32, and hardly notice the difference on mentioned games). Guess I will only upgrade to Vista64 when I want to play a DX10 games. Perhaps STARCRAFT 2, hell yeah, couldn't wait

 

[chewbacco]

thanks antas, thats a start, but does it make a difference if you have more ram? since xp 32 only sees 4, (or 3.6 or whatever) is there a increase in vista 64 with 8? (same system setup other than that)
I looked to see if that was vista 64 SP1 but it did not specify, and going by the age of the article im guessing it was not. Supposedly vista 64 SP1 has a performance increase in gaming.

 

[antas]

I never tried it myself for Vista64, and since I'm using 2GB at the moment and content with it @XP32. I can play those games (NWN2, NFS Prostreet) at max settings so I don't bother to get bigger memory yet. Well, I'm using 19" with 1440x900 LCD only, so it doesn't really need high end systems, at least at the moment.

Actually we'd been discussing this mem issue (on some threads, just search for it), and I personally believe that with Vista64 there's a noticeable advantage for 8GB RAM over 4GB. However it will also depend on your other HW: VGA & processor?

 

[LoneEagle]

Your problems look could be your Graphic Card?
Which one is it?

For memory, 4GB is generally good. Having more could help a little bit Vista but it's would be more for application that need a lot of memory.

 

[chewbacco]

My system:
Antec 900
antec 850 PS
chimei 22' WS LCD
intel q6600 OC at 3000
zalman 9700 cooler
Asus maximus formula
4gb (4x1) kingston hyperx ddr2 1066 (8500)
evga 8800 gts 640 Superclocked
2 150 gig raptors

In xp 32 i ran all settings max in Company of heroes and had about 40-50 fps. Vista 64 i get about 25-30

 

[Groveling_Wyrm]

Vista 64 uses a shell to run 32-bit applications. Therefore, you will see a slight performance loss in direct comparison to xp 32.

However, word has that Vista SP1 may correct this problem, but the jury is still out on that. We should hear about it in the next few days.

 

[notherdude]

All the latest benchmarks still show XP with a slight edge. here are a couple of real studies:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1395&page=4

You will see there is still a gap but not much of one.

Vista actually seems to have jumped ahead on a number of games, at least on ATI, according to the second link.

 

[chewbacco]

thanks, i think thats enough evidence, going to roll back to xp (for now).
My x-fi drivers were not working properly in vista 64 anyhow.

on a side note....
the game that ran faster on vista was cod4....not a dx10 game, wonder if i switch the renderer to dx9 in COH would it run the same as xp?