What is Digg?197 Comments
- JustAn0th3rFace, on 10/12/2007, -11/+112Very interesting article. I am not completely surprised by the results.
Next year i would love to see the same article done with games released 9-12 months from now
I wont be getting Vista for another two years minimum when i plan on buying a new laptop.. this article just reinforces my decision to wait - shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -11/+57"If they are using manufacturer drivers then of course vista is going to be at a huge disadvantage"
wait..... what?
vista has been made available for ATI and nvidia to make drivers for for a very long time... a lot of people are putting too much blame on the drivers at this stage.... secondly... tweaked drivers often make sacrifices (in say image quality or effects for a couple of examples) to achieve those higher frame rates, so you can't really compare... - retral, on 10/12/2007, -19/+53I thought this was common knowledge to everyone tech oriented, Vista fanboys who argue nonsense being the only exception..
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34tinfoil hat or not, he's right.
People will be forced to buy vista if they want to play games which are directx10 only
That is, unless microsoft make a U-turn on their policy of refusing to backport it - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35Not Vista's fault? What are you talking about? The point is that gaming is slower at the moment. Period.
- brianary, on 10/12/2007, -22/+44"It was the same thing with XP when it first came out."
Nope. XP doesn't check to see if you are a criminal 30 times per second. - Guard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23I'm not surprised at all, considering they used two nvidia cards to rule out "graphics drivers" issues, although nvidia has gotten plenty of flak about their crappy drivers for Vista.
With an ATI X1900, I usually got the same or very slightly better framerates in Vista (x64 RC2) over XP (with about a 300pt increase in my 3DMark06 score). With the exception that I got random crashing in C&C3 using Vista (x64 RC2) - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"vista has been made available for ATI and nvidia to make drivers for for a very long time... a lot of people are putting too much blame on the drivers at this stage...."
Half of my hardware still didn't have XP drivers at this stage after its release... - BostonLow, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Windows XP outperformed Windows 98 and Windows ME in gaming performance since day one. I was sort of wishing for the same miracle. This benchmark is disappointing to say the least.
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19both of those govern how fast a program loads, not the framerate it achieves when it is loaded and fully in memory.
- CaptMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19No, I think he just means under Vista period. When I run Vista, I get lots of sound errors (cracks, pops, etc) and poor-quality sound in general. When I switch over to XP (I'm dual-booting Vista/XP) I get no such problems, with the exact same hardware. I blame the Creative drivers, but regardless of what's at fault, it's very disappointing that I have to sacrifice decent sound when I use Vista. I actually like Vista as an operating system, but I hate the lack of driver support that it's getting. Until I can run everything as smooth in Vista as XP, I see no reason to switch for good, and I don't see any reason to reccomend someone else buying it if they haven't yet.
As a note, I'm talking about the 64-bit version of Vista, I can't claim to know anything about the 32-bit version since I haven't used it. - 35263526, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Linux has driver support 2/3s of the time, and OS X has perfectly good drivers. Both operating systems have relatively new and good games fully working on them.
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17It should be noted that this article is using outdated drivers.
The latest batch by nVidia give a bit more performance - Still not up to the level of XP of course, but it's getting there. As far as I see it, this is down to drivers, and the drivers are getting better as time goes on. In any case, if you really, really want every last frame, Vista isn't for you.
Looking at the numbers, there's nothing that's cast in to unplayable by any means, and I doubt performance is going to get any worse as nVidia are releasing drivers.
Not a huge deal for me. I'm still going to be putting Vista on my new system when it arrives. - kn0w1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18I think part of the performance hit is the new way they're doing audio.
My audio is always crackling and stuttering; especially if there's a LOT of stuff going on. (And of course there is no such problem under XP.)
I'm running a Dell Inspiron 9400, 2.16GHz Core Duo, 2GB, 256MB GeForce Go 7900GS. - DarknessGP, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24shrewduser, it is somewhat bad/early drivers. Nvidia is always slow on releasing drivers, and so far have only had 4 driver releases for Vista. The last 2 drivers have made a substantial difference in my frame rate in games system wide. The drivers are just now getting to were they should be performing like the XP drivers do in some video cards.
Also the fact of the matter is that every game they tested on both XP and Vista neither had frame rates that would be considered unplayable, yea it might not have those extra few numbers when showing the frame rate, but it's not going to effect game play. The thing with a lot of gamers is to get the most performance even if what they already have is good enough. It's like choosing between a regular car and a supercharged one when you only need to go a few miles on a low speed limit city street. - walkingdogs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15It was the same thing with XP when it first came out. Now we weren't so frame per second snobby in 2001 when xp released but i remember pulling my hair out trying to get many games to even run on xp that had been designed for 98 or me. I think we are much farther along in the game at this point and all will be forgotten once we are all playing crysis, UT III, Assassins creed, BioShock and Spore later this year on our DX10 hardware with a few generations of drivers out. Be Patient.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19"""But it's not because of *VISTA*, it's because of third party drivers. "Vista" performance will increase over time, as the drivers are refined."""
Jesus, a wealth of information has been provided about this online, whether your favourite source be Microsoft, ATI or Peter Gutmann. The vast majority of the problems with graphics and sound drivers are to do with Microsoft's unnecessarily convoluted and functionality-hostile driver and platform spec - especially those parts that don't relate to providing the functionality of the hardware to the user and apps.
Without all that stuff, and with the existing drivers in hand, most of these drivers could have been turned out inside a month with all features intact.
Stop blaming driver writers, it's complete bollocks. - Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16dont feed the troll
- walkingdogs, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19OMG Microsoft is forcing me to buy a Xbox 360 to play halo 3, OMG sony is making me buy a PS3 to play MGS4, OMG I need a Wii to play super mario galaxy. How is this any different. If you can't afford it then you don't get to play. Stop crying. Technology advances and times change and its not going to stop with vista and DX10.
- petedee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11totally true, my bad :(
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Wow, I didn't think I'd be able to read a more ridiculous post than diar's but spyrochaete has proved me wrong.
> The next version of DirectX 9 (9.0n I think?) will let you play DirectX 10 games on Windows XP but only with DX9 effects. Chances are only Microsoft is dumb enough to release Vista-only games (as if Halo 2 for Xbox is too sophisticated to run on Windows XP)
Okay, do you have a link, at all ? I mean, even a rumour on some random blog which we've never heard of before ?
The only way you'll be able to play DX10 games on XP (DX9) is if they release a DX9 version (Such as Crysis, Age of Conan, CoH, etc), there will be no DX9 version to play DX10 cards and 'only people on Digg are dumb enough to believe that.'
Halo2 depends upon Live which is Vista only. - MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"People will be forced to buy vista if they want to play games which are directx10 only"
The question is, when will games studios start publishing games that are DX10 only? Other than MS's own studios, of course, which will probably start doing so ASAP. - RoboDonut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I think you're mistaken. I can play Half Life 2 (WINE), Half Life 2 Deathmatch (WINE), Counter Strike: Source (WINE), Day of Defeat: Source (WINE), Garry's Mod (WINE), Dystopia (WINE), Sourceforts (WINE), Call of Duty (WINE), Quake 3 (native), Quake 4 (native), Unreal Tournament 2003 (native), Unreal Tournament 2004 (native), The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (WINE), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (WINE), Uplink (native), Darwinia (native), Defcon (native), and numerous other games in Linux.
That's more than enough games for me. - clydej, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Just curious, but do you have a source for XP outperforming 98 from Day one? I seem to recall the situation was exactly the same as it is now. XP was considered too bloated and the drivers took a long time to mature. Most serious gamers stayed on 98 for a long, long time after XP came out.
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18"i remember pulling my hair out trying to get many games to even run on xp"
Anyone who says they didn't dual boot XP with 98 at release wasn't a gamer. - steviebaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I have a high end PC (Dell XPS710H2C) and Dell are waiting to upgrade me to Vista until nvidia sorts out its drivers. I'm staggered by the results because we're led to believe that Vista is superior performer to XP. As I want my PC to play games mainly and I want optimal performance, why would I want to "upgrade" to Vista at this point? The question is, if better drivers come out, will these same games then run better on Vista than XP?
- schoate09, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14*insert sticking to Xp comment here
*insert switching to Ubuntu comment here
*insert switching to Mac comment here. - frgmstr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I think we will surely be doing a follow up in the future!
I am with you though. I am going to wait for a while. Maybe true/native DX10 games will bring us some of the promised benefits and make Vista worth the leap. That is what I am hoping for at the least as I have yet to find a reason to make it my primary desktop OS as of yet. - sid0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Umm.. no. SF/RB have nothing to do with framerates.
- dfeifer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Actually, ATI's catalyst drivers have had openGL support since ver. 7.1
Catalyst™ 7.1 introduces native support for OpenGL, delivering a number of OpenGL application performance gains over the previously released AMD Vista RTM driver (8.31.100.3.2.1). Future Catalyst™ releases will include further OpenGL optimizations to further enhance performance of Vista OpenGL applications
Currently they are up to Catalyst ver. 7.4 - Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Summary : For both systems - games on XP outperformed those same games on vista with identical settings, the only exception being WoW which was marginally faster on vista for one of the machines, but slower on the other
Graphs at http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTE3ODAxMDUyMnpRY0pEeTlDZXpfNl8yX2wuZ2lm for one machine, and http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTE3ODAxMDUyMnpRY0pEeTlDZXpfNl8xX2wuZ2lm for the other - sid0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Exactly. Despite the "Vista = XP + skin" FUD, the whole driver model was thrown out and a new one written.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_Model
What is even less well known is that, to retain compatibility, the old XP-or-below drivers still work in Vista. I'd like to see a test done with the old ones instead. - sv650touring, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11well, not EXACTLY the same.
- Firehunter, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17Please replace your tinfoil hat on your head.
- calebb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Also remember that the drivers used were: (From Jason Wall on the hardforum.com thread on this article)
"For the 7600GT on XP, it was the 93.71's. For the 8800 GTS on XP, it was the 97.92's. For the both cards in Vista, we used the 100.65's."
The recently released 158.xx drivers show significant improvements over previous releases. - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12There are other issues with Vista gaming which might not raise their heads in a test setup.
Most importantly, Vista is not very polite about its background behavior while you are gaming - I had to stop playing BF2142 on it because Vista would regularly thrash the disk while I was playing - search indexing?, windows defender? I have no idea, but it made the game unplayable.
Also, I have found BF2142 to be horribly unstable under Vista - crashing to the desktop and zero tolerance for ALT-TAB. Seemed to have gotten worse with the latest patches. - Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Actually, Vista uses multicore and RAM far far better than XP.
- AirRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Compare a game running at 30FPS to a game running at 60FPS.
You'll notice the difference- trust me. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14"YES ITS A CONSPIRACY AN ITS WRONG!"
You got that right. The next version of DirectX 9 (9.0n I think?) will let you play DirectX 10 games on Windows XP but only with DX9 effects. Chances are only Microsoft is dumb enough to release Vista-only games (as if Halo 2 for Xbox is too sophisticated to run on Windows XP) - jiganto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I've had vista business for several months now, I got it off of a friend who got 2 free license from his ece department at my uni.
I run it on my midrange "gaming" rig which is:
Core 2 Duo 1.86ghz
3gb of DDR2
GeForce 7900GS 256mb (will replace with a midrange DX10 card sometime)
Running at 1400x900 resolution
The computer boots well under a minute, prolly closer to 30 seconds. I love ready-boost, it's was great with 1gb of ram and it's great with 3gb. There were serious issues with the nvidia drivers when I first got Vista, so much so that I pretty much couldn't play anything. However with the latest nvidia beta drivers have pretty much fixed these issues. The only other issue I've encountered with running older games, and in every single case the issue was fixed by running the game in compatability mode or with administrative rights.
I've ran Supreme Commander which ran alright, I haven't tried it yet with more ram now, but it would get a bit slowdown when I had a lot of units on the screen zoomed in. C&C3 runs like a charm, completely maxed out, absolutely no slowdown. STALKER is poorly made, so had to be turned down a little to be playable. BF2142 runs same as it did with XP. Toca runs great too.
I'm perfectly satisfied with vista right now, I liked the new features it adds and I don't have any issues with performance.
Though if I had to pay the full price for it, I'm sure my opinion would be different. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9...and frankly if you want an OS for "everything except games" with XP installed too, you could run other OSes with more features and nicer UIs that aren't the world's number one security target.
- sid0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Sorry, Vista swarm - there I go evilly spreading objective facts about Vista driver development again."
Your facts are indeed objective, but your reasons are not. Hardware acceleration means kernel mode drivers, which means a far greater chance of it crashing due to bad drivers. Sound drivers won't take down the entire computer now. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Has anyone here actually tested Vista for more then a few minutes at Best Buy?
My machine boots up in 30-40 seconds, with me being able to open up FireFox, then go to Digg within 45-50 seconds of pushing the "on button".
Some older games run bad (if they weren't even made for XP) but other then that I can play Command and Conquer 3 just fine, along with Counterstrike 1.6 (games made a long time apart).
My computer:
Core2Duo 2.4ghz
1GB Ram
nVidia 7600gt
1600x1080 resolution (and I still have no lag)
Asus P5B Motherboard.
I have had 0 problems in the months I have been using Vista. A few freezes here and there but nothing you don't get with XP. - pathy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I've not got Vista yet, but there are a few things I'm looking forward to about it. (I'm building a new machine soon, the parts are on their way to me but because of where I live they take a ***** age to arrive.)
Firstly, the Game Explorer. This isn't a huge thing, I admit, but I play a LOT of games on PC, and it's going to be so very nice to have a place to keep them all neat and tidy, rather than having to keep up with shortcuts and such in the start menu. I'll also have pretty pictures for the games so they'll be easier to spot, not a huge deal, but yeah.
Having games launchable from the Media Centre will also be a very nice addition, if I've got my PC hooked up to a TV and I fancy some gaming. (The system is going to be a sort of HTPC / Gaming PC, it's SFF so easily moveable.) Having Live will also be a nice feature, giving a couple of benefits along the way...
So yeah. It's getting some growing pains, and it could be argued that there shouldn't be any, and that's fair to say. But there's no reason not to notice the potential that Vista has when it comes to gaming, and I can't wait for it to mature. It's useable right now, I know several people that game and use it as their primary OS, and it'll only get better with time. - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8At least you got yours to play, every time I tried it just crashed WMP. I use Winamp and VLC media player.
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Windows XP outperformed Windows 98 and Windows ME in gaming performance since day one."
I had to dual boot for a while to play a lot of my games because they wouldn't even run on XP at release. - cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Googled and Wikipedia'd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#DirectX_10_and_9.0L
DX9.0L is the version of DX9 that ships with Vista, which is compatible with the new WDDM, and is used both for rendering of Aero effects, and support of DX9 and earlier games on the platform.
It does not support DX10 function calls, and there is no indication that it will be backported to XP.
- heavyness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6people said the same thing about XP when it came out. ANY new OS will run applications slower then the previous version until both microsoft and the software/hardware companies get drives squared off and running at full speed.
every pc game out right now was made for XP, so don't be surprised when it doesn't run as smooth on a new OS.
another hint; no one is forcing you to upgrade. - Wartz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6diiiiinnnng!! we have a winner!
Eriker is 100% correct. The more ram being used in a quality way, the better. After Vista has been "trained" a bit, (learned what apps you use often) there is no OS in my experience that launches them faster. - giid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Going from 98 to 2k or XP is totally different scenario. While I'm unsure of the performance, 2k and XP had full memory protection and 98 didn't. I could stand to lose a few frames a second by switching to 2k if it meant my system didn't crash every other day. Vista offers no such bonus.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is