Q: I just saw this article over at HardOCP:
XP vs. Vista – A Tale of Framerates
http: / / enthusiast.hardocp.com / article.html? Art = MTMzNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA ==
All I can say is that I know I will play in XP for some time to come . 
ALOHA
Quit Smoking, Smoking
Re:I pull much better frame rates on some of those games than OCP quoted.
I personally have not experienced any significant rendering problems or crashes in any game except for Vista 64 Ult. poker (flashing text… which is now fixed).
I think it is possible that chipsets/MB's have been a very big, but silent, player in the Vista graphics woes.
MY rig:
Intel E4300 OC'ed
Asus P5B deluxe flashed bios when I put the rig together in Feb 07… haven't done squat since
2GB guy.
8800 GTS 640MB mem using the WHQL 158 drivers
A few other people I know who are running intel 965 chipsets also have had no real problems with their 8800's since early Feb.
Best of Time Management
Re:Originally posted by: guy
For the most part, I am happy with my Vista performance. However, I do not like the openGL performance one bit. With the system in sig, Doom 3 and Quake 4 run like glass with not the slightest studder in XP. In Vista, both of those games perform maybe half as good as they should. I don't play those games anymore, but the performance from running opengl games is appalling.
my OpenGL game FPS didn't change. I still get the same FPS in Doom3 and Quake4 that I did on XP Pro. My Direct3D performance went down ever so slightly though.
How To Quit Smoking Today
Re:Originally posted by: guy
Originally posted by: guy
For the most part, I am happy with my Vista performance. However, I do not like the openGL performance one bit. With the system in sig, Doom 3 and Quake 4 run like glass with not the slightest studder in XP. In Vista, both of those games perform maybe half as good as they should. I don't play those games anymore, but the performance from running opengl games is appalling.
I can't really tell how those perform in Vista. I'm running Quake 4 at 16×12 with all goodies on and my framerate stays pegged at the 60fps limiter. It might choke in Vista at say 65 when it does 85 in XP but once it gets past 60 the limiter in Quake 4 kicks in and my monitor is only at 60hz (might be 85 can't remember).
My rig is in the sig. Note that I'm running with SLI off so I can drive my 2nd monitor.
The problem for my card is that in XP, it was on the very edge of glassy smooth performance. My card does not have the breathing room yours has to lose performance and still be perfectly smooth. If you lose 20% performance here and there, your card is still fast as heck. For me, if the same thing occurs, games(especially newer ones) reach low level performance.
The Quit Smoking Book
Re:Originally posted by: guy
For the most part, I am happy with my Vista performance. However, I do not like the openGL performance one bit. With the system in sig, Doom 3 and Quake 4 run like glass with not the slightest studder in XP. In Vista, both of those games perform maybe half as good as they should. I don't play those games anymore, but the performance from running opengl games is appalling.
I can't really tell how those perform in Vista. I'm running Quake 4 at 16×12 with all goodies on and my framerate stays pegged at the 60fps limiter. It might choke in Vista at say 65 when it does 85 in XP but once it gets past 60 the limiter in Quake 4 kicks in and my monitor is only at 60hz (might be 85 can't remember).
My rig is in the sig. Note that I'm running with SLI off so I can drive my 2nd monitor.
Quit Smoking the Easiest Way eBook
Re:Drivers used apparently were 93.71 for the 7600, and 97.92 for the 8800 in XP.
In Vista both cards used the 100.65 drivers as the article was finished just before the 158's came out.
Apparently there will be a follow up at some point including ATI cards, which are reported to work much better under Vista than Nvidia's.
Anyway, all the article really proved was that Nvidia have sh1tty drivers for Vista. :disgust:
Quit Smoking Today
Re:For the most part, I am happy with my Vista performance. However, I do not like the openGL performance one bit. With the system in sig, Doom 3 and Quake 4 run like glass with not the slightest studder in XP. In Vista, both of those games perform maybe half as good as they should. I don't play those games anymore, but the performance from running opengl games is appalling.
Realms Of Joy – Time Of Light.
Re:WOLF WOLF WOLF!!!
Vista x64 here and frame rates are wonderful, aside from the nvidia driver crashing occasionally.
Quit Smoking 4 Dummies
Re:Originally posted by: guy
it isnt Vista, it is the state of the video drivers. They are working on stability then tweaking performance down the road. That being said, I havent had a major problem gaming on Vista Business. In fact, FlightsimX is much better performing on Vista than XP.
I remember reading about Nvidia saying that drivers are being done for stability rather then performance at the moment, be interesting to see what happens when we do get performance drivers from Nvidia.
I wonder what sort of performance XP would of had with 4 month old XP (pre SP1) and drivers.
Quit Smoking (Yesterday
Re:Originally posted by: guy
Here's my take on Vista Vs. Xp for games. I don't measure FPS when I play a game…I am not going to check every second if I lose 2fps somewhere. I and many people like me (majority) will never notice the gameplay differences. If you benchmark only sure you can see the numbers. That being said, actual gameplay is as smooth as it ever was for me in XP. I do notice benchmarks not to be as fast, but the game still plays as it did before when I'm actually playing.
I use Vista x64 BTW
This is key. A lot of people who really wouldn't notice any difference are likely to be misled by this shoddy article, unfortunatley.
Quit Smoking Forever Formula Videos
Re:Here's my take on Vista Vs. Xp for games. I don't measure FPS when I play a game…I am not going to check every second if I lose 2fps somewhere. I and many people like me (majority) will never notice the gameplay differences. If you benchmark only sure you can see the numbers. That being said, actual gameplay is as smooth as it ever was for me in XP. I do notice benchmarks not to be as fast, but the game still plays as it did before when I'm actually playing.
I use Vista x64 BTW
Re:Originally posted by: guy
I'm not really getting the point of the screenshots either. They are taken at different places, at different times with different gamma settings.
Also (to bash Vista a bit here *gasp*) there is currently a known framerate issue with Vista and nVidia drivers for the 6 series in World of Warcraft. Somehow they didn't spot this.
And who gives a crap what your framerate is in the Sims?? As long as it isn't a slide show who cares?
Oh nos! My framerate is only 5fps above my monitors refresh rate where I can't possibly see a difference anyway.
Awful article.
Hard OCP was always the bottom of the pile (incompetent), Toms hardware brought up the middle (competent but opinionated), and Anandtech the top (competent, objective, and with depth). Bummer AT does so few articles but I'll take the quality any day.
Great points!
I'm far from a Vista fan, but that article was awful and misleading. Your summaries of Toms and AT are pretty accurate as well, but do/did you ever check Firingsquad? I don't like how muddled the site has become, but they've had some great articles over the years in terms of gaming/overclocking/etc.
Re:I'm not really getting the point of the screenshots either. They are taken at different places, at different times with different gamma settings.
Also (to bash Vista a bit here *gasp*) there is currently a known framerate issue with Vista and nVidia drivers for the 6 series in World of Warcraft. Somehow they didn't spot this.
And who gives a crap what your framerate is in the Sims?? As long as it isn't a slide show who cares?
Oh nos! My framerate is only 5fps above my monitors refresh rate where I can't possibly see a difference anyway.
Awful article.
Hard OCP was always the bottom of the pile (incompetent), Toms hardware brought up the middle (competent but opinionated), and Anandtech the top (competent, objective, and with depth). Bummer AT does so few articles but I'll take the quality any day.
Re:Wow, that article is bad. They didn't even specify which NVIDIA drivers they used, and they didn't test ATI at all? WTF?
They've really gone downhill over there if this is the best they can do. They used to do pretty good graphics card reviews (even if not everyone agreed with their methodology at all times.)
Re:Hardocp FTL! Maybe they should go back to reviewing mouse pads and neon case lights and stop trying to be a site with original articles, since they suck at it.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
I running with vista 64 home premium and dont have any of the problems they mentioned. Carbon runs beautifully for me as does Prey
The reviewer had some strange issues with those two games…quite possibly because he had no idea what he was doing.
I've had both those games running on my rigs with Vista Ultimate with none of the issues that he came up with.
Re:I running with vista 64 home premium and dont have any of the problems they mentioned. Carbon runs beautifully for me as does Prey
Re:it isnt Vista, it is the state of the video drivers. They are working on stability then tweaking performance down the road. That being said, I havent had a major problem gaming on Vista Business. In fact, FlightsimX is much better performing on Vista than XP.
Re:Terrible review,I have seen other reviews where Vista does actually beat XP in some games,however putting that aside, when you consider how long XP has had with mature drivers and ALL those games were designed for XP ,then look at Vista with its inmature age and drivers are we surprised.
When we see games designed for Vista ,well a whole new ball game,personally I get good FPS in games with my Vista,do you notice 5FPS at 80+FPS?…… hell no.
No ATI cards used ,only a few games tested, not to meantion resolutions too.
My 2 year old cat could of done a better review .
Right I'm off to play Stalker on my Vista x64 now and also enjoy its superior memory handling and security it has over XP.
Re:Hmm I never realized that Hardocp did a piss poor review. I'm the kind of guy that doesn't really read reviews, I just jump to the "Conclusion" section is all, LOL.
To many reviews out there, and so little time.
Oh btw, Kyle Bennett is a complete ass too… 
ALOHA
Re:Sh!t review…they never tested any ATI cards, which perform in vista within 5% of of an Identical XP rig.
Very poor effort in deed…but then again that's Hardocp for you.
Re:Should have thrown Windows 2K in there just for the hell of it (or does the latest Direct X 9 release work with it?)
Re:Pretty shoddy review if you ask me.
Re:They only used nVidia cards and I believe ATI's vista drivers are significatly better. Also their conclusion is interesting.
First they say
This article is not to slam Vista and label it as a poor gaming operating system.
But the next paragraph they label Vista
the new, bulky, poorly supported operating system
Re:I dunno. I find Hardocp to be a bit amateurish in their reviewing and suffer from copy/paste enthusiast website syndrome — "here is a picture of me getting the box from the fedex guy…NEXT PAGE….here are photos of the box. Looks nice. Exterior packaging 10/10"
They didn't try ATI drivers. They didn't try various hardware combinations. They failed to test some major game engines.
I recall the Hardocp news copy/paste crew having to post some corrections after getting called out by a few hardware companies for just posting incorrect information without actually doing what a real journalist is supposed to do, like make phone calls and source everything before going to print.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Hardocp always seems a bit amateurish to me and i take everything they say with a grain of salt.
I'm gaming my socks off on Vista. Vista performs better for me in general than XP did, thanks to a variety of key improvements I won't rehash in this thread. If i lose 5 fps in CS:S, DOD:S, I'm not noticing it.
0 Comments.