Benchmark Results: Sleeping Dogs
We only have benchmark results for Sleeping Dogs under Windows 7. Our testing employs the High detail preset. But when we applied this to our Windows 8-based configuration, much of the in-game art simply disappeared, rendering the title unplayable.
Sleeping Dogs can be played under Windows 8 if you're willing to drop to the Medium detail level, though. Here's how the same scene looks with the quality preset one notch down. The artwork is suddenly visible.
Because our target settings wouldn't work in Windows 8, we don't have a comparison between the two operating systems. But we are able to see that AMD's Radeon HD 7850 1 GB and Nvdia's GeForce GTX 660 perform fairly similarly under Windows 7.
197
Comments
Related Stories :
- Windows 8 Versus Windows 7: Game Performance, Benchmarked
- Windows 8: Double-Checking Performance On Core i7-3770K
- Razer Blade Gaming Laptop Now Ships with Windows 8
- MSI Updates Gaming Laptop Arsenal with Windows 8
- Microsoft Partners with Agawi For Cloud Gaming on Windows 8
- 40 Titles Revealed in First Wave of Xbox Games for Windows 8
- Microsoft Responds to Windows 8 Hate From Game Devs
- Acer's 8-inch Windows 8 Tablet Shows Its Face Again
- 8" Surface May Arrive in June; Windows 8.1 in October
- New Windows Phone Update Doesn't Sound Like WP 8.1
Sponsored
All about Software
Only the fast boot time is noticeable in win 8. But still win7 is great and i love it as its 1years+ old running in my system, no crash, still fast.
Another reason NOT to buy Windows 8...I mean Windows Vista 2.
It's good to see that there aren't any major performance deficits when moving to Windows 8, like some past Microsoft OS's. For the most part everything looks to be within the margin of error.
I still plan on sticking with Windows 7 for a few more years...
Another reason NOT to buy Windows 8...I mean Windows Vista 2.
And what reason is that? It seems pretty positive from a performance standpoint, which was the purpose of this article.
Hmmm...wasn't expecting anything else.
No compelling reason to upgrade for me yet.
Windows NT 7 is where it's at. B-)
EDIT: I KNOW Vista, 7 & 8 are NT 6.
My current win7 installation is more than 2 years old. I never used windows installations that are older than 4-5 months. Yes, win7 ages too but it's too slow and well managed compared to old windows OS.
And yes win8 has better RAM and processor management as touted, but then you lose more time navigating through blocky interface. You complete your work a 3 seconds more with win8 but you had taken 5 more seconds to start that program from blocky interface.
My current win7 installation is more than 2 years old. I never used windows installations that are older than 4-5 months. Yes, win7 ages too but it's too slow and well managed compared to old windows OS.And yes win8 has better RAM and processor management as touted, but then you lose more time navigating through blocky interface. You complete your work a 3 seconds more with win8 but you had taken 5 more seconds to start that program from blocky interface.
You do know that you can use a program called Star8 by StarDock to get your desktop and toolbar back...it works quite well, no problems over here.
You do know that you can use a program called Star8 by StarDock to get your desktop and toolbar back...it works quite well, no problems over here.
The problem is that Star8 and other 3rd-party tools haven't been able to fully replicate Win7's Start function.
looks like M$ is going the route of Apple and making a idiot proof OS, which is, well, good for IDIOTS
anyone who actually wants to more than check email and play a game needs to stick to windows 7
Seems like DirectX 11 only testing. What about DirectX 9?
Another myth busted. Even the faster boot times are about making tradeoffs.
Hmmm...wasn't expecting anything else.No compelling reason to upgrade for me yet.Windows NT 7 is where it's at. B-)
Well, Windows 7 is actually NT 6.1, while Windows 8 is NT 6.2...
laugh, windows 8 works fine and i love it on my 50" bigscreen. enjoy your small Start menu.
what i really don't like on windows 8 is just the start menu. i hope they'll introduce an option if you want to have the metro style or the windows 7 style.
The main concern over Win8 is the question that is still unresolved...what is MS's approach to their Windows Store going to be. If they intend to try to close off outside development, well, it will kill Windows. What they need to do is come out and answer the question one way or another or else Win8 may very flop to begin with.
I'm still confused about the interface and UI. Some articles say MS is trying to make it hard to have a classic desktop yet I've seen articles with screenshots showing a very Windows 7 like desktop.
lol I am pretty sure I get more performance upgrading RAM than paying upgrade cost to upgrade from win7.
Well, Windows 7 is actually NT 6.1, while Windows 8 is NT 6.2...
I meant Win NT 7 when it releases.
The main concern over Win8 is the question that is still unresolved...what is MS's approach to their Windows Store going to be. If they intend to try to close off outside development, well, it will kill Windows. What they need to do is come out and answer the question one way or another or else Win8 may very flop to begin with.I'm still confused about the interface and UI. Some articles say MS is trying to make it hard to have a classic desktop yet I've seen articles with screenshots showing a very Windows 7 like desktop.
Win 8 is pretty much identical to Win 7, Start menu has just been replaced with Start screen. Win RT does not allow applications to be installed to desktop ( people would just get confused why their x86 applications don't work on ARM ). Every store that currently works on Win 7, will work on Win 8.