XP SP2 vs. Vista RTM vs. Vista SP1: Gaming benchmark

[alfhenrik]

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes from ZDNet.com executed the tests using the AMD Phenom 9700, Radeon 3850 graphics card, 2GB of RAM and ATi Catalyst drivers 8.2.

The three games which performed better on Vista than on XP SP2 were Call of Duty 4, F.E.A.R. and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Vista gave The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion the best performance boost compared to XP SP2, working out at an average of 9 frames per second faster on Vista RTM and 13 frames per second faster on Vista SP1.

Seven out of ten of the games tested produced frame rate averages which were lower under Vista than XP SP2, however, a closer look at the numbers shows that when Vista is slower than XP SP2, the actual frame rate differences are only in the single digits.

Here are the results: average frame rates for each game on each platform

CoD4
XP SP2: 56 fps | Vista RTM: 58 fps | Vista SP1: 62 fps

Fear
XP SP2: 70 fps | Vista RTM: 71 fps | Vista SP1: 71 fps

Oblivion
XP SP2: 56 fps | Vista RTM: 67 fps | Vista SP1: 69 fps

Bioshock (DX9)
XP SP2: 50 fps | Vista RTM: 46 fps | Vista SP1: 47 fps

CoH
XP SP2: 30 fps | Vista RTM: 28 fps | Vista SP1: 28 fps

Crysis
XP SP2: 27 fps | Vista RTM: 24 fps | Vista SP1: 23 fps

Doom3
XP SP2: 157 fps | Vista RTM: 138 fps | Vista SP1: 142 fps

SC
XP SP2: 47 fps | Vista RTM: 44 fps | Vista SP1: 44 fps

UT3
XP SP2: 68 fps | Vista RTM: 64 fps | Vista SP1: 65 fps

WiC
XP SP2: 24 fps | Vista RTM: 22 fps | Vista SP1: 22 fps


Now why couldn't they have used some different hardware as well...not just the ATi 3850...would have been nice but this gives a good comparison between XP and Vista in some ways.

[Scott]

SP1 will bring Vista alot closer to XP SP2. As drivers mature more for Vista and eventually driver teams can quit developing for XP things will get better for Vista.

I myself do like Vista, it has matured greatly since I fist started playing with it in Feb 07. I use Vista 32 on notebook and Vista 64 on home gaming rig.

[alfhenrik]

I love my Vista...after installing SP1 it has become a bit nippier...especially in the file copy department...what used to take ~10mins now only takes ~5mins...so that's a big bonus as I copy a lot of files between my computers.

It has also become a bit more stable...I haven't had any unexplained BSOD's since installing it which is great.

I was thinking there for a while to go back to XP but I got bitten by the Vista Vampire and now I'm converted.

[Exilon]

Most of the anti-Vista trend is generated by people who don't remember Windows XP pre-service pack. Either my memory is playing with me or man was it bad. It felt like a snail to 2000 and kept getting spyware and adware out of no where. Now that technology has moved along a bit and a few dozen patches are applied, my parent's have yet to completely trash their XP systems... yet. :frown:

I upgraded to Vista 64x when it came out with the Vista upgrade deal. It felt much better than XP at first. I didn't run into any compatibility problems or crashes what so ever.

[alfhenrik]

Most of the anti-Vista trend is generated by people who don't remember Windows XP pre-service pack. Either my memory is playing with me or man was it bad. It felt like a snail to 2000 and kept getting spyware and adware out of no where. Now that technology has moved along a bit and a few dozen patches are applied, my parent's have yet to completely trash their XP systems... yet. :frown:

I upgraded to Vista 64x when it came out with the Vista upgrade deal. It felt much better than XP at first. I didn't run into any compatibility problems or crashes what so ever.

Exactly the same story was being told back in the days when XP was released...when everyone was using Win98 (or God forbid ME). But look at them all now :) The Service Pack 1 should hopefully overcome all this negativity against Vista (although I read somewhere that even the M$ execs had issues taking to Vista when it first was released) :lol:

[Methious]

I like Vista myself, but run multiple hard drives and dual boot through Bios Hd selection, yea I got one or two hard drives laying there not running, but you get the best of both worlds.

[Kougar]

That's very true... XP was just as bad before its first SP1, and still it required SP2 before it became a great OS with most of the security gaps finally plugged. I think it was something along the lines of 13 seconds for a new XP install to become infected by simply connecting to the internet, if no service packs were installed on it. I don't remember who did the article on that...

I'll reserve judgement until I can finally try the final SP1. My experiences with RC1 and RC2 service packs for Vista were not good, although I do still prefer Vista's interface... and I am not talking about Aero Glass either!

[PP Mguire]

Best performance for Oblivion? Man they must be on some heavy crack or something. Crysis and Oblivion take the heaviest hit for me because they are the heaviest graphical games i have. And for games i couldnt tell a single difference between pre and SP1.

Also, i used XP SP1a for the longest time and still think its better than SP2. The only reason i started switching everybody over around here is because games and programs where out the required SP2 and we started to feel it. (Like Halo2)

[trueg50]

Yay, finally more proof for what I have been attempting to tell friends, that the performance hit is very little.

I have Vista x64, and love it, I am never going back.

[PP Mguire]

Oh yea? What do you play? The performance hit is great.

[CoolZone]

I worked with RTM,SP1,I can say the performance hit is quite noticeable,like running a game without a hitch a game on XP SP2,and the same game is like a slideshow on Vista Sp1 with Aero deactivated