Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown

Rastalovich

New member
Normally, I`d post this sorta thing and just leave u guyz with the link and discuss/debate as u will. I don`t think it`s news-worthy or anything.

But I felt the need to post a few pre-qualifiers b4 u go reading the 11 pages.

(of course this is imo, so on that basis u can take or leave the qualifiers)

  • It`s TomsHardware..
  • The visual of the very small %ages either way on the comparisons are meaningless. U can get some of these changes just by running an app again.
  • I`m not convinced about whether the benches were run like 10 times and an average taken, or similar. The previous point would be more negated by doing this. (questioning the conditions I guess)
  • I`m not convinced by the choice of benchmarkers either. On the basis of versions and so forth.

What I`m basically saying, it`s an interesting quick read, but don`t stake ur life on the results.

Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown
 
If all of that article was fair, when why the hell is everyone on here "upgrading" to Vista?

Don't we all look for the best performance?
 
Interesting article, altho aren't all of the games tested pretty old ? :(

Massive difference on the UT2004 test :)

chart4.gif
 
How the hell do those games qualify for XP vs Vista? They don't have dx10 in them they are so old!?

I haven't read the article and can't at work but I'll edit this accordingly later.
 
name='Mr. Smith' said:
How the hell do those games qualify for XP vs Vista? They don't have dx10 in them they are so old!?

I haven't read the article and can't at work but I'll edit this accordingly later.

You cannot do a XP VS Vista test with DX10.. ;)
 
name='Toxcity' said:
You cannot do a XP VS Vista test with DX10.. ;)

Sigh. I mean the major benefit of Vista is dx10, so you need to test games with dx10 profiles. Who cares how dx9 runs in Vista? If you have Vista you are going to use dx10 otherwise you would have stayed with XP!
 
name='Mr. Smith' said:
Sigh. I mean the major benefit of Vista is dx10, so you need to test games with dx10 profiles. Who cares how dx9 runs in Vista? If you have Vista you are going to use dx10 otherwise you would have stayed with XP!

Then it isn't a comparison.

The fact is that DX9(more widly used at the moment) runs best on XP.

And so far DX10 shows very little quality improvements.. especially considering the performance hit.
 
You could always do a "Vista vs XP with Alky Project DX10 hacked in" comparison :p

But I didn't say that ;)
 
tox some dx10 stuff is quite good.. World in conflict ( i know i just posted this elsewhere) has some nice additions with dx10, volumetric shadows, and cloud cast shadows and stuff. very nice :)

haven't read the article, just saying its young, there are some nice looking games, you just need the hardware to run it, as with all new things i guess :S
 
hmmm interesting.... only reason I picked vista is for some dx10 goodness...

Tox, you are like the anti-vista person haha
 
name='Brooksie' said:
hmmm interesting.... only reason I picked vista is for some dx10 goodness...

Tox, you are like the anti-vista person haha

You say that as if theres only one of them? :p
 
name='Jim' said:
You could always do a "Vista vs XP with Alky Project DX10 hacked in" comparison :p

But I didn't say that ;)

Is that the thing you didn't point me too and i didn't download and install?

We will all move to vista eventually. unless some massive, radical new OS appears either form MS or form another developer that can run windows based apps (Google OS? although ive been saying that for at least a year and a 1/2...).

Im not a fan of vista, but i hated XP over 98 when it came out too. Hardware will catch up, and people will rue the next instalment over vista.

cl_brokenrecordmode 0
 
name='Ham' said:
Is that the thing you didn't point me too and i didn't download and install?

We will all move to vista eventually. unless some massive, radical new OS appears either form MS or form another developer that can run windows based apps (Google OS? although ive been saying that for at least a year and a 1/2...).

Im not a fan of vista, but i hated XP over 98 when it came out too. Hardware will catch up, and people will rue the next instalment over vista.

cl_brokenrecordmode 0

exactly, some points many people miss. Makes you laugh when people say "i'm never gonna install it" yet we all know they will have to at some point.
 
I felt since I had been using the free trial of XP 64 for so long (thanks Mr Gates) that I was obligated to actually purchase Windows. I picked up a copy of Vista Home Prem. and have tried it several times on several comps.

I REALLY enjoy the ease and speed of installing it (especially installing Raid0) And while using it there are a few annoying things but it did work well.

When I had a chance to check my 3DMark06 scores I noticed the Vista was 2K less than my comp on XP Pro.

My FPS were quite a bit lower on CSS as well.

I remember when I was using Win98 and XP came out, a lot of people were saying how terrible XP was and it was a memory hog.

Im sure in a while the bugs will get worked out of Vista, and when that time comes I will have to dig through the closet and give it a try again.
 
^ Exactly

Once it is deemed good enough for games and stuff i will probably switch to it

It does make a lot of things easier and nicer to work with

But its performance is poo esp the crashes
 
only thing i have against it re performance is file copies. Gaming i dont notice the difference and as for normal desktop use, its quick as i can go.

mrapoc. mines seems pretty stable, infact i'd go as far to say it's not crashed for around months. Then again i know i have it set up right with stable drivers. Does mean i cant use the lastest and greatest hardware though.
 
I`ve had so many little issues with the explorer, that I installed the newer DirectoryOpus. All my woes in that department are gone. I`ve got an up-a-level-arrow back too :)

I`ve also managed to achieve 23mbs now :)

Biggest issue I have now are 3rd party firewall/virus/security suites. Settled on Outpost atm, down to having to restart every 2 days or so cos of it stalling. (screws folding up too)

Tox definately isn`t the only person who doesn`t like it. I don`t personally see it as a proper release. By the time the majority get used to it`s quirks, the rumored Q2 2009 OS will be out, or atleast beta`d. To me this quickness in pursuing a newer OS confirms this one as being a stop-gap. An ME if u will.

But, XP will be shunned soon enough. Dx10 will not be released for it, cos it`d be foolish financially to do so, and the newer and newer games will graduate from full Dx9 (partial Dx10) to full Dx10 (no Dx9) - which gives u no choice.

What I took from tomshardware`s results, even with the biggest pinch of salt, is that in all honesty, with things taken into account, there isn`t that much performance difference. Atleast not enough to wave a stick at. OpenGL apps - well, what can u do.

The biggest disgrace for me is that this isn`t good enough. A newer OS should be a better performer, not keeping pace with the old one.

Release Dx10 for XP at ur peril tbh.
 
Agree with Rast here.

Plus I do not see the point in Vista at the moment.. as rast said rumours of Windows 7 in Q2 2009.. which suggests to me that Vista will be the one to be ruled out first not XP.

We will see of course.. But I see Vista as a failed OS.. just like ME.

XP when it came out.. I remember it, I was impressed from the start, not much difference memory hogging wise from 2000 but it somehow was able to do some clever things.

When I first saw it I was amazed by its ability to bring an app out of "not respondingness" and back to life without crashing the PC.

XP was a god send.. there was no doubt.

Vista on the other hand.. it was sloppy. A little push for the extra cash.

Well thats my POV.. ;)

Love you all! :D
 
Back
Top