SimHQ shootout between Vista and XP

[Skybird]

http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_110a.html

Vista’s performance results for this article show, for the most part, a fairly consistent pattern. For end users still typically gaming at 1024x768, Vista’s scores displayed a significant performance loss compared to XP. There were a few anomalies to this pattern, such as GRAW2, but considering the high-end components used in SimHQ’s test system, users with lower-end machines should take note of the performance variance between the two operating systems. Those primarily using 1280x1024 — and with the current market saturation of 19” LCDs, this is possibly the largest demographic among SimHQ’s readers — would fare slightly better, depending upon the application; though, in our testing the performance results for Vista were still consistently lagging behind XP’s by a statistically significant margin. Users with large displays, however, particularly widescreen LCDs such as 24” or 30” units, fall into a different category, with most games today being GPU-intensive and virtually 100% bound in performance by the GPU at resolutions like 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. In such usage, Vista’s performance deficits would be largely ameliorated as the performance onus of the application is placed almost entirely on the graphics hardware; internal testing conducted to satisfy the curiosity of this writer bears the above out, since any gaming title I currently enjoy is ran at the 3007WFP’s native resolution of 2560x1600.
If SimHQ were to hand Windows Vista a public school report card, based on our performance testing its grade would be a "B". While performance in SimHQ’s benchmark suite lagged too far behind XP for our tastes, we honestly expected more compatibility and/or stability issues to arise due to using the 64-bit version of the new operating system and were instead pleasantly surprised over how few problems arose during the hours of installation, configuration, and testing spent for this article. In its current state, however, Vista incurs too much of a performance hit on older or new gaming titles to merit a higher score. There are also niggling issues that can arise from adopting a new operating system, such as driver support for peripherals; such issues aren’t within Microsoft’s domain of fault, but are a part ‘n parcel of migrating to a new OS. That said, however, Vista isn’t XP, the new OS includes quite a few unique features and, perhaps most important for those who game on Windows, boasts DirectX 10. Developers are already dipping their toes into those exclusive waters and it’s only a matter of time until they drink from no other well when choosing a D3D shader model to target as a primary development platform. In terms of comparative performance analysis, however, it’s possible that we’re being too hard on Vista and future testing could show less variance as more polished video drivers become available, particularly 64-bit driver sets. In the meantime, though, there’s no harm in waiting a while longer to giving a second, post-Service Pack 1, look at Windows Vista.

I'm still on XP, and that will not change so soon.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I'm still on XP, and that will not change so soon.

Me either.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Fish

Me either.

I wont be touching Vista with a 10 meter wooden stick for a long time.

[GunnySarge]

guys I have found Vista is another POS- PITA.... but saved a few $$getting it... I hope to put XP on too so I can run SH3 .... :hmm:

[bookworm_020]

Will keep running XP till I upgrade my computer. Vista will not realy be ready untill the first Service pack comes out for it, and even then I would be wary of it for the near future.

[JSLTIGER]

Oh please...it's not that bad. I happen to like Vista.

[d@rk51d3]

It's now becoming a trend here for new PC's to be advertised as: "Now with XP!", it seems the XP is still the preferred OS for the discerning user.

[Chock]

Well, I have Vista on my laptop, and even though I'm not a fan of its obsessive security features and naff Mac-wannabe looks, I can confirm that MS FSX runs a lot faster on Vista than it does on XP, and FSX is a mega frame-rate hog.

Still prefer XP myself, but there you go.

Chock

[SmithN23]

It might be good to keep in mind, with all of their FPS tests, that vista was manly designed for DX10. It will be interesting to see how the tests compare after DX10 comes out.

[Lafferty]

I've still got a XP i want to wait for all the bugs to be worked out before i get Vista.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

Oh please...it's not that bad. I happen to like Vista.

Me too

I have both, Dual install XP and Vista on the same PC. So when Vista does pi$$ me off i head to XP and vice versa.

[The Avon Lady]

Vista business edition 32 bit has been super stable on my Dell D820 Lattitude notebook since it was purchased in March.

I would assume, however, that older hardware has a more likely chance of encountering hiccups. That was true, too, when XP came out.

Very happy with performance.

[Skybird]

Ssnake (you tankers know him) made some important coments at the top of the feedback thread here:
http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthread...gonew=1#UNREAD

(...) Overall I think that Microsoft made a row of very critical design and product policy decisions that are going to hurt us consumers in the long run. I do not intend to bash MS just because they're MS. But I see several design decisions which were clearly not made to favor reliability and ease of use. Discussions of Vista for people who haven't bought it yet need to point out these rather critical elements IMO to provide a basis for decision that involves more than just the question which OS provides better frame rates.