Vista worth it?

[NCC10281982B]

I'm happy with it after a few tweaks. The gamming performance hit is noticeable but I can live with it.

[ccokeman]

I don't play with vsync off, the tearing bothers me.

 

EDIT: Fear runs a constant 60 FPS with vsync on. It averages about 100 with vsync off. This is with in game settings at maximum at 1920x1080.

There is no way you average at 100 FPS at 1920 x 1200 with the settings we use to review video cards. The reason to use v-sync off is to get a true maximum FPS and not bounce off the refresh rate. You can use a refresh rate over ride but v-sync off is easier.

[Waco]

There is no way you average at 100 FPS at 1920 x 1200 with the settings we use to review video cards.

I simply clicked on maximum for both video card and computer settings and changed nothing else (it's 1920x1080 btw). I know what vsync does and I know it affects the framerate. For Bioshock bouncing between 30 and 60 isn't a problem. FEAR never came down from the max refresh of my monitor when I had it on.

[Guest ajmatson]

I simply clicked on maximum for both video card and computer settings and changed nothing else (it's 1920x1080 btw). I know what vsync does and I know it affects the framerate. For Bioshock bouncing between 30 and 60 isn't a problem. FEAR never came down from the max refresh of my monitor when I had it on.

 

Can we get some screenshots to show this?

[ccokeman]

Just as a reference and a few quick benches.

 

F.E.A.R in XP Quake 4 In XP

1024x768 124 1024x768 80

1280x1024 83 1280x1024 71

1680x1050 62 1680x1050 58

 

F.E.A.R in Vista Quake 4 in Vista

1024x768 116 -7% 1024x768 63 -22%

1280x1024 79 -5% 1280x1024 66 -6%

1680x1050 58 -7% 1680x1050 61 +5%

 

Apophysis run at the same settings in both XP and Vista.

XP Vista

31 minutes 40 minutes -23%

Lower is of course better.

 

To say there is no performance loss across the board is false. The percentage drop is there regardless of what anyone says. The quote earlier is Performance loss. This little example is with the benchmark settings I use in my reviews. F.E.A.R. and Quake 4 are U.S. retail versions with the most recent patches and full release nVidia drivers.

[Waco]

To say there is no performance loss across the board is false.

Nobody ever said there wasn't. I said it was negligible and not noticeable in normal play. 5% is not something can see and I doubt any can when the framerates are up into the 60s or so.

[Bosco]

To add on to what Frank has said

 

Medal of Honor

XP on the left Vista on the right

 

1024X768 - 100 vs 104

1280X1024 - 103 vs 97

1680X1024 - 87 vs 83

 

 

COD4

 

1024X768 - 141 vs 114

1280X1024 - 113 vs 100

1680X1024 - 96 vs 83

 

Bioshock

 

1024X768 - 108 vs 97

1280X1024 - 82 vs 78

1680X1024 - 65 vs 65

 

3Dmark06

 

1024X768 - 12197 vs 11735

1280X1024 - 11565 vs 10815

1680X1024 - 10936 vs 10426

[Guest ajmatson]

1024X768 - 141 vs 114

 

I think I would notice something like that.

[Bosco]

I think I would notice something like that.

Well I could have put Fear on there but its not fair since it really needs a patch mind you AJ I don't think you would see the performance loss at 1680 when its a 107 for XP to Vista's 8 frames. <_>

[sdy284]

cleaned up the thread... stay on topic (If you want to discuss the delete/combining features of the forums, discuss them here: Comments, Feedback & Site Bugs )

[Waco]

I think I would notice something like that.

115 FPS versus 140? Riiight. Your eyes can't see over 100 fps.

 

Well I could have put Fear on there but its not fair since it really needs a patch mind you AJ I don't think you would see the performance loss at 1680 when its a 107 for XP to Vista's 8 frames. <_<

I have yet to see anything like what you are describing.

 

Can we get some screenshots to show this?

I'm in the middle of an instance in WoW, can't take any. Why the hell would I make things up though?

[bigred]

I'm in the middle of an instance in WoW, can't take any. Why the hell would I make things up though?

 

 

the sky is BLUE.

 

 

 

seriously though. when the INDUSTRY is calling for Vista's replacment in less than 18 months from it's lanuch... it's a really major problem. Less than a dozen questions relating to vista on the MCP tests (written by microsoft)... big business saying no to it... people who have a friggin clue are saying no more. early adopters of the leading edge hardware (not dual core DDR1 based, dual core, single socket opterons, bottlenecking the spunk out of thier video cards) are staying clear of vista... MAYBE they know a hell of a lot more than you do. it doesn't matter in what market you're talking... it's got issues, they're not being addressed right... it's OVER. go and justify your purchase on newegg. no one has a clue who posts comments there.

 

 

it's OVER. 7 is coming very soon to replace vista instead of patching a lost cause. it's called ME release 2 on the developer forums for a reason... it IS. vista is going to be short lived and quickly replaced with an OS that does all of the good things of an OS 2 generations old with some more features (XP in relation to 2000 and ME).

 

 

another clue to the issues... Vista home premium OEM is selling for $79.99 while XP home OEM is going for $99.99 as MSRP's. a dead give away that the game is over for vista. microsoft has only done this ONE other time. ME was $79.99 while 98se was $99.99. see the patern of admitted failures? oh that's right I forgot, the sky is green.