BIOSHOCK DEMO
 
Test System :
 
Core2Duo E6600 @ STOCK
OCZ 4x1GB REAPER DDR2 800  
ASUS P5K-E
OCZ 8800GTX  
OS : VISTA 32 , XP64
Driver version : 163.44
 
First lets go to VISTA 32:  
 
First of all my card is @ stock in VISTA (576/900), i didnt OC my card in VISTA because i dont use vista alot  
 
Everything was maxed out except 2 first options :Window mode and Vertical sync , resolution was 1280x1024
 
Overall gaming was very awesome , i never had any glitchs or lags even in an intensive situation which is nearly in the end of the Demo (You will run to a door and it become closed and a turret fires FIRE toward u and then there are many guys u have to kill )
 
The first scene which u are in water , i got 62
 
Max FPS was 200 (it was when i was standing near a wall and i was looking @ it)
 
Min FPS was 26 and that was in the situation i explained above , the turret was behind me and some guys were shooting @ me and one of the was using meelee attack on me  
 
XP 64:
 
I OCed my card in XP 64 , 630/950
 
I had some problem launching the game , i downloaded the last DX9 software and i launched it  
 
Again everything was maxed out excpet vertical sync , window mode and of course DX10 feature ,  
 
The first scene that u r in water i got 72
 
Max FPS was 235
 
Min FPS was surprisingly 41  
 
also in XP 64 , the loading loaded faster than VISTA 32
 
DX9 vs DX10:
I didnt see any noticeable differences between DX10 and DX9 , i had very smooth gaming in both windows but overall as i said xp64 loaded faster  
 
 
 

Interesting . . .Yet another benchmark proving vista is more resource hungry
 
What program did you use to measure your FPS?

 
 
I think you're concluding too much.  There are variables over and above which OS he is using.
 
-overclocking the GPU on xp
-32bit vs. 64 bit (usually a non factor except the OP's 4 gig of memory can be used)
-dx10/dx9
 
It is well documented that Vista can negatively impact gaming but a lot of improvements have been made.  You can no longer assume that performance will suffer because of Vista.  

But the biggest question, outside of framerate, is "is there anything in the Vista playback that makes it worthy of my money?"   IOW, is there anything DX10 actually added to the play?  Even if only more eye-candy?  

Surely it depends on the resolution you game at. (Sorry I couldn't resist )

 
You are right.  I didn't see the OC in XP.  I only read that the card was stock in vista

Soft Particles I believe is the most noticeable DX10 thing on Bioshock.

Assuming that vista slows games compared to XP is naive.
Here are my thoughts:
Vista is more resource hungry because it is still a baby OS (no SP1 yet!), also, if you goto the system properties and set everything to run 'for best performance' and turn off all visual crap you will get better FPS, again we also need to look at the fact that software (including DX10) have not had enough time to be written for VISTA AS WELL as they are for XP (What do you expect?).
 
I am no MS fanboy, but I am sure many compared Win98 to the newest XP (previous to SP1) and had similar results.
 
The OP is right to benchmark, but we are jumping to conclusions about VIsta's bad points.

Here is maybe a more realistic comparison of xp dx9 and vista dx10 from http://www.gamespot.com/features/6177688/p-6.html.
 
With the same card as the OP they go from 65 fps to 60 fps and 68 to 43 on the AMD part.  With the bigger difference I would conclude that Nvidia's and ATI's Vista drivers have a bigger impact than Vista itself.
 
The Nvidia card only gave up less than 8% and that includes whatever extra overhead dx10 added.  
 
I hope I'm not sounding like a Vista fanboy but just looking at my own benchmarking and experiences I don't see Vista killing my gaming performance.  I could list problems I do have with Vista but performance has not really been one.

i used FRAPS for benchmark ,  guys if u need any pics or other things about the benckmark pzl tell me i will do if i can

I was acutally about to ask what prog you use for benchmarking.....cool, because I got Bioshock installed finally on the weekend (no internet so used my mates) and I ran the graphics at 1680 x 1050 and at medium first....then noticed it was pretty laggy, so now running at low res with AI chars on med. Even at med the scenery was awesome, low it was ok, but it was more to play the game than look at fancy things.
To buy a new vid card or not to buy?

If it's to replace the one in your sig, then yes.  

 
Yeah, that X2 6000 deserves a much nicer GPU. If you're thinking of a 8800 GTX you must make sure your PSU and case can handle it. What kind are they?
 

 
 
:-) Yep, it is......Having my own house doesn't help with the whole cost thing

Meh, houses are overrated dude   , but as the 7600 is just a placeholder, it is just a placeholder right?, a nice 8800GTS/GTX would be a decent Xmas pressie  or better yet one of the new Nvidia thingies that you have been promising to treat your baby to.