Vista vs WinXP for gaming

Puteq

Looking for peoples opinions on this question - i have a friend who really knows his stuff when it comes to PC games and he says Vista is still not a good gaming PC platform compared to WinXP. I know Vista has DX10 but he still insists that until more games take advantage of DX10, games currently run slower on Vista than XP so you're better off sticking with XP.

I have been using Vista in work almost since launch date, and it sure was a disaster when it was first released, however it is now settled down and i am happy with it, i am thinking of installing Vista Ultimate on my home PC (i.e. my gaming rig). i already have a copy of it i got when i attended a MS expo in Dublin so its a free copy of Vista Ultimate basically. I didnt move on it till now cos i didnt trust Vista but with SP1 out and things seem OK with it now i think it is time to go with it. However with XP SP3 coming along and it supposedly makes XP 10% faster i am wondering is it better to stay with XP or go with Vista?

PS: i know you need a hefty spec to run Vista, i have an 8800 graphics card and a decent processor, RAM etc so i think i am OK there

AlmightyCushion

I doubt service pack 3 makes xp 10% faster. Where did you hear that?

Sherifu

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I doubt service pack 3 makes xp 10% faster. Where did you hear that?

Apparently it's true. It's been on a lot of sites. e.g.

In answer to the OP as you said yourself DX10, most of the new games will require it.

Stephen

I've been running Vista 64 bit for over a year now and I don't find it any slower for games than XP was on the same hardware. I do have lots of RAM though

Ross_Mahon

Sherifu wrote: »

Apparently it's true. It's been on a lot of sites. e.g.

In answer to the OP as you said yourself DX10, most of the new games will require it.

I have heard of this too...

AlmightyCushion

Sherifu wrote: »

Apparently it's true. It's been on a lot of sites. e.g.

Cheers. Didn't know that.

Puteq

Stephen wrote: »

I've been running Vista 64 bit for over a year now and I don't find it any slower for games than XP was on the same hardware. I do have lots of RAM though

How do you define lots? I would consider 2GB to be the starting point with Vista, but i would reckon 4GB should be OK, what do you think?

AntiVirus

Sherifu wrote: »

Apparently it's true. It's been on a lot of sites. e.g.

In answer to the OP as you said yourself DX10, most of the new games will require it.

I'd not read to much into that link. Vista SP1 was still in development and not released till 5 months later than that. Anyway I don't think the op is interested in MS office.

Stephen

Puteq wrote: »

How do you define lots? I would consider 2GB to be the starting point with Vista, but i would reckon 4GB should be OK, what do you think?

I've got 4GB. Hard to resist when RAM is as dirt cheap as it is now.

Dcully

Im running Vista 32 ultimate and ive no issues whatsoever with it.
Ive got 4gig of ram with 3.8 gig showing up under 32 bit.

A few friends say they have issues with vista 64 however.

magick

im not a fan of vista myself , even with sp1 out it still needs improvements. Ballmer even said it was "rushed". Besides that custompc (custompc.co.uk) about 2 to 3 months back said every game with the exception of Stalker ran faster on xp then vista.

Now im not sure about the newest titles but at the time it was pretty disappionting , a new OS should be better then the old OS in every way,but thats not simply the case here.

Cuddlesworth

I run Vista 64bit, 3ghz E6600 and 4 gigs of ram. Never had a problem although its a little slower then xp sp2(which I also have). But its only 2-4 fps for most games which is something I really don't care about. I like dx10 in LOTRO and COH.

My flatmate who runs it with a nvidia card has been having a host of problems, with the exact same specs bar the card.

Sherifu

AntiVirus wrote: »

I'd not read to much into that link. Vista SP1 was still in development and not released till 5 months later than that. Anyway I don't think the op is interested in MS office.

That was just the first hit on google, i've seen the 10% claim on a lot more sites than that. In any case it's up to everyone to make up their own minds.

FYI the 10% is xp sp3 vs. sp2. I'm not saying anything about Vista SP1.

AntiVirus

Sherifu wrote: »

That was just the first hit on google

That seems to be the only benchmark done.

MooseJam

vistas got a bad rep that isn't deserved, from personal experience it's fine

JavaBear

2 gigs of ram with vista business. exact same as 2 gigs of ram with xp

humanji

I run Vista Ultimate with SP1 and it runs grand. I've yet to have a problem with it. The only thing is that the next OS is planned for 2 years time, so if you haven't upgraded to Vista, I really don't see the point. You may miss out on a couple of exclusive games, but you'll be able to play them when the new OS comes about, and so won't have too long to wait.

As for DX10, there's not enough games that use it to warrant getting Vista, although they look great when you do have it.

the_syco

As 512MB is the minimum to run Vista, and 64MB is the minimum to run XP, I'd say XP is better. Put 1GB in XP, and it runs nicely, and would be akin to putting at least 3GB's into Vista.

For the above, I'm talking about Vista Home.

=-=

I'd agree that the service pack only boosts performance by getting Windows to use the Dual/Quad core technology better.

Puteq

Stephen wrote: »

I've been running Vista 64 bit for over a year now and I don't find it any slower for games than XP was on the same hardware. I do have lots of RAM though

Hmmm, been doing a bit more looking into this, having decided on Vista, my next question is which would be better to go for, 32 bit or 64 bit? The Vista disks i have come with both so i have the choice at no extra cost, and the processor i have is an 'AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual core 5000+' so 64 bit Vista is an option (presuming that that processor is 64 bit, i am assuming it is cos it says 64 in the name!!!). Has anyone had any problems with Vista 64 for a games machine?

from reading up on it, there are tons of sites that debate this question and eventually conclude that 64 is better for 'scientific apps' and stuff like that but none that really deal with games. I came across an article on gamespot but it talks about RAM limitations of 32 Vista which i know for a fact have been rendered moot by SP1 which expands the RAM capabilities of 32 Vista. Plenty of talk about problems with drivers that work on 64 platform which kind of puts me off it...

What have been the experiences of others who have tried 64 Vista on a games rig?

AlmightyCushion

That processor is 64 bit. Vista 32 bit still can't use more than 3.25GBs ram, it's just sp1 will report the amount of ram installed not the amount of ram it can use. If you have 4GBs it'll say you have 4GBs but it can only use about 3.25GBs.

the_syco

Puteq wrote: »

The Vista disks i have come with both so i have the choice at no extra cost

Did you get this disc with an OEM disk, from the likes of Dell, Acer, etc? If so, please be aware that the Vista Upgrade Disc allows you to run the "upgrade" for 30 days, before asking you to pay up, or not being able to use Windows

Puteq

the_syco wrote: »

Did you get this disc with an OEM disk, from the likes of Dell, Acer, etc? If so, please be aware that the Vista Upgrade Disc allows you to run the "upgrade" for 30 days, before asking you to pay up, or not being able to use Windows

LOL no this is a legit version of windows, i was at a Microsoft expo last year and they gave everyone who was there Vista, at the time it was too new for me to go near but now i think its time to move. It is the full version, and not OEM

Conor108

Well I'm running SP3 now and its definetely not 10% faster. Faster but not THAT much

kaimera

Steam games run grand on Vistax64, all I need really.

Havent gotten around to installing cod4 again.

astrofool

Vista SP1 made no changes to the code that utilises dual/quad core cpu's.

All Windows OS's are slower than their predecessor, 98 was faster than 2k, which was faster than XP. However, development on old OS's basically stops, so driver improvements only get seen on the new OS.

Vista is a lot closer to XP perf wise, then XP was to 98.

You need RAM to use Vista, 2GB is about right, not worth the change if you have less and are doing anything more than internet browsing (luckily RAM is cheap).

On the other hand, 4GB is loads of RAM, and more than will be needed for years, I have 8GB, and there's no difference in day to day usage in Vista (only differences seen in heavyweight database apps, but this is the same for every OS, inc. Linux).

The changeover to Vista is inevitable, so might as well get in early, people with short memories forget this also happened with XP.

The next Windows won't be released till late 2010 at the earliest.

Cunny-Funt

Wait, SP1 is out? :eek:

Elem

Vista only has a bad rep because everyone has XP... Simple, it's all most as stupid as xbox and playstation. I have vista for the past 4 months, and have had no problems at all.. but i do have 4 gig's of ram.

Elem

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

That processor is 64 bit. Vista 32 bit still can't use more than 3.25GBs ram, it's just sp1 will report the amount of ram installed not the amount of ram it can use. If you have 4GBs it'll say you have 4GBs but it can only use about 3.25GBs.

That's very interesting, didnt know that. I have 4 gig's of ram but only display's at 3.2 i think.

MooseJam

whats this about sp1 increasing the amount of ram vista can use

L31mr0d

just use vista.

I mean hardware is dirt cheap atm. You could build a machine capable of playing Assassins Creed at 1080p with all the extra bells and whistles that where disabled on the console version enabled for around the price of a 40GB PS3.

I bought 4GB's of high speed ram (i.e. PC2-8000) off memoryc.ie a couple of weeks ago for €70. I'm sure you could find it even cheaper now.

I'd only make the move to Vista if you are moving to Vista 64bit. I've been using it for about a year without issue. It also has much better legacy 32bit support than XP 64 meaning you can still run programs in 32bit mode if needed.

I would not even consider going near XP at this stage. Its an old OS. People trying to keep XP alive are people with machines nearly as old as XP itself. Sure Vista requires more resources, but then whats the point of an OS if its not going to make use of the resources in your machine. If you are still sitting on PC with a 7 series nvidia card and a P4 then yes, stick with XP, but if you have €400 to spare, build a pc with a C2D/Q, a DX10 card and 4GB's of RAM and get Vista 64.

kaimera

MooseJam wrote: »

whats this about sp1 increasing the amount of ram vista can use

You didnt read it properly.

It just allows Vista to display the full 4gigs of ram. A 32bit os cant address over 3.25gigs.

runswithascript

If you're playing games that aren't on the bleeding edge like Counter Strike or World Of Warcraft Ubuntu 8.04 really does run them better and even COD4 runs under wine these days. Just something to consider if you haven't got an uber PC.

IrishMike

LA3G wrote: »

If you're playing games that aren't on the bleeding edge like Counter Strike or World Of Warcraft Ubuntu 8.04 really does run them better and even COD4 runs under wine these days. Just something to consider if you haven't got an uber PC.

Are u talking about emulation LA3G?

runswithascript

For all intents and purposes yes, though the program I use for it is called WINE (Wine Is Not an Emulator). It gives you a choice of Windows OS modes in which to run the game but I'm not exactly sure why technically it's not called an emulator. I have an NVIDIA GeForce 7300 LE, Core 2 Duo 4200 @ 1.80Ghz and 1 GB or ram and I get a major performance boost playing games like this. Guides and the list of the 27,000 games that are confirmed to work is here.

Tea drinker

kaimera wrote: »

You didnt read it properly.

It just allows Vista to display the full 4gigs of ram. A 32bit os cant address over 3.25gigs.

I heard on de innernet that you need to subtract from that your GFX card memory (double for crossfire etc) and swop file size too.... but dunno for sure.

MooseJam

kaimera wrote: »

You didnt read it properly.

It just allows Vista to display the full 4gigs of ram. A 32bit os cant address over 3.25gigs.

how pointless is that

Cuddlesworth

Tea drinker wrote: »

I heard on de innernet that you need to subtract from that your GFX card memory (double for crossfire etc) and swop file size too.... but dunno for sure.

Xp/Vista can use exactly 3.2 gigs of memory in total. Use, not see. That includes memory on Gfx cards. So if you have a 1gig card, then the 32bit OS can effectively only use 2.2 gigs.

No single application running on a 32bit OS can use more then 2 gigs of system memory.

Swap file does not register as memory address allocations.

kaimera

MooseJam wrote: »

how pointless is that

lose/lose for MS and it aint even their fault.

Dont display the full amount and people bitch about where their RAM is gone.

Display it and people think they can use all 4gigs.

Cuddlesworth

MooseJam wrote: »

how pointless is that

It was quite a good idea, since 4+gigs of ram has become common the amount of people bitching on the internet that Windows only sees 3.2gigs is amazing. The amount of phone calls Microsoft and relevant hard-ware support lines have been getting must have been so bad that they actually bothered doing it.

Now it sees the ram(motherboard dependant) so they won't ring/complain any more.

MooseJam

I've got 8800gt sli and 2 gigs ram, I'm guessing it would be totally pointless buying more so, is it possible to upgrade from vista to vista 64 ?

Sephiroth_dude

Im going building a new rig soon,would ye recommend I use vista 64?

Cuddlesworth

MooseJam wrote: »

I've got 8800gt sli and 2 gigs ram, I'm guessing it would be totally pointless buying more so, is it possible to upgrade from vista to vista 64 ?

Its not pointless buying more, you will end up using most of it. Just not that last fifth. If you have a proper copy of Vista then you have the option at install to install a 64bit or 32bit client. But OEM licenses only come in 32bit flavour. I think its so OEM's can market the 64bit as more expensive,

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

Im going building a new rig soon,would ye recommend I use vista 64?

Yes, I use it myself and have seen no ill effects for 5 months. Its handy for the extra ram(due to caching) and games will start using 64bit extensions soon as they are hitting the limits of what a 32bit OS can handle. Age of Conan is a good example.

Sephiroth_dude

age of conan needs 4gbs of ram :-o?

MooseJam

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Its not pointless buying more, you will end up using most of it. Just not that last fifth. If you have a proper copy of Vista then you have the option at install to install a 64bit or 32bit client. But OEM licenses only come in 32bit flavour. I think its so OEM's can market the 64bit as more expensive,

yes but I've got 2 gigs already and 1 gig video memory so if I went out and bought another 2 gigs I could only use 250 megs ? am I right in thinking that, someone said 3.25 is the max a 32 bit os could address

Cuddlesworth

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

age of conan needs 4gbs of ram :-o?

From what I have read AOC uses 64bit memory allocations in a 32bit app. Which is really odd but seems to work.

MooseJam wrote: »

yes but I've got 2 gigs already and 1 gig video memory so if I went out and bought another 2 gigs I could only use 250 megs ? am I right in thinking that, someone said 3.25 is the max a 32 bit os could address

Sorry most people don't have 1 gig memory cards. But the game would need to use 1 gig of textures in order for that to happen and from my understanding most don't. In your case though I would say get 64bit.

uberpixie

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If you have a proper copy of Vista then you have the option at install to install a 64bit or 32bit client. But OEM licenses only come in 32bit flavour. I think its so OEM's can market the 64bit as more expensive,

OEM comes in either 32bit only or 64bit only versions. both are priced the same more or less.

Home premium 32bit @€;92.50
http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.aspx?sku=350140

Home premium 64bit @€;93
http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.aspx?sku=350141

Cuddlesworth

uberpixie wrote: »

OEM comes in either 32bit only or 64bit only versions. both are priced the same more or less.

Home premium 32bit @€;92.50
http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.aspx?sku=350140

Home premium 64bit @€;93
http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.aspx?sku=350141

Both are priced the same on Komplett, spec up a pc in Dell and tell me how much it costs to go to 64bit.

0ubliette

Ive been using Vista64 bit for about 2 months and its been fine for gaming.
The onyl problem i have is that occasionally ill get a blue screen of death but its quite rare.
Playing STALKER, ET:QW, Crysis, Gears of war, HL ep 2 & TF2, and not had any problems or hitches.

pwd

vista has a lot of unnecessary services running by default.
You can speed it up very noticeably by turning these off.
I was a little overzealous when I did it on my old laptop (though I noticed a BIG difference): I found myself having to go through the disabled services to do things like network it with another computer.
So it's a better idea to make two bat files to turn services off and on for when you are playing a game or some other intensive task. Also this way you can turn off stuff like virus protection that you don't want to stop permanently but might like to disable for your gaming session
( Make sure you know what each service does before you turn it off of course. You can google to find out usually )

here's a howto that probably works:

http://forums.ebuyer.com/showthread.php?p=256306