robotskip Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vi...ss_performance/ It seems so. That's another myth down the drown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 goddammit, and you say you arent another fanboy. All ive ever seen from you is Microsoft stuff, first the Zune, now Vista. Aero slowed down my gmaes, i play doom3 and quake 4 faster in xp than i do in vista, and i have the lates drivers installed on both platform, but now ur porolly going to ask for proof and all that other {censored}, so i'll keep my mouth closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conan Obrien Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 yes you are right... and coca cola still has cocaine in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Aero or Vista has slowed my games as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Ahh, dont worry, its all cleared up now. He means Solitaire isnt affected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotskip Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) The only reason games would be slower is because of a lack of decent drivers from hardware companies, like Nvidia. It's basically impossibly for Aero to slow your performance, I mean, if it's turned off (Which it is when you launch games) how could it possibly slow it down ? Yeah.. If you're going to say something, back it up otherwise don't say it. Edited February 1, 2007 by robotskip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cringemaster Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Aero uses up a small amount of system resourses so i does in fact slow down games, even when they run full screen because its always running in the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Bond Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 From what I understood in one of the ATI vs. nVidia tests, most games will take a 10% performance hit when run under vista. Like others have stated, I think this may be more of a driver problem than anything. I remember reading similar questions about this a while back (correct me if I'm wrong); MS stated that Aero would have little, if no impact upon gaming performance, because it would simply be disabled, or not used when gaming. Time will tell, of course... BTW: this is better of in the appropriate sub-forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonefr Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Sorry but I gotta agree with the original poster there : Aero is turned off when starting a game, and while it's still running it'll use 0% of CPU, just some ram (but hey, ram doesn't make you LOSE FPS if you don't actually swap while playing it). And no, it won't affect the GPU as it's TURNED off. Gaming performances in Vista are now quite good with today's drivers. If XP is A BIT faster, it's because as the guy said, NVIDIA and ATI can't make proper drivers yet. About OpenGL ? Nothing to do about Aero, if your OpenGL games are slow (while D3D are comparable to XP) it's because MS got rid of OpenGL support in Vista. My guess Kiko is you are using an ATI card which OGL performances are poor (even poorer than in XP) while NVIDIA's are fine (almost as good as in XP). No, i'm not a fanboy, I run OSX, but I do play games in Vista. Once upon a time, you could (I think you can't anymore but i might be wrong) install XP display drivers in Vista. Of course, Aero would be off (as when running a game with WDDM drivers), but the game would run EXACTLY at the same speed as in XP. It's a matter of month before you see good Vista drivers, specially from ATI as NVIDIA's are almost done. But you can't blame MS on this one. Edited February 1, 2007 by cyclonefr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conan Obrien Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 It's a matter of month before you see good Vista drivers, specially from ATI as NVIDIA's are almost done. But you can't blame MS on this one. dam... but i really wanna!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curlyboy Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Well i play ut2004 in xp and now ive got vista up and running i can honestly say it runs way smoother and its faster under vista but quake 4 is {censored}e like software mode lmrfo but that not to do with vista its to do with nvidias drivers and dx10 and over all vista pisses all over xp easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 i dont mean just aero, i mean vista as a whole, sure it might be drivers, but the opengl performance in vista is still {censored}.+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Bond Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 You could almost say that's to be expected. In reality, MS has no reason to improve it's OpenGL support at all, simply because their own DX10 technology is priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollcage Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 i dont mean just aero, i mean vista as a whole, sure it might be drivers, but the opengl performance in vista is still {censored}.+ If you give Vista the right hardware, it will run faster than XP could possibly could. Vista has added more support for multi-core processors, and with enough RAM Superfetch greatly increases performance because frequently used files are saved in RAM instead of having to be read from the HD. I expect hybrid HDs to also add performance over what XP could deliver. With a decent graphics card and the right drivers, Aero should actually increase performance because it uses the GPU and not the CPU/RAM. To really make a fair judgment we're going to have to wait for DirectX 10 cards and drivers. And Aero shouldn't have any impact on game performance because the system won't be using it when you are playing a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotskip Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Vista on the same hardware as XP should perform better because it has better memory handling and many other things, I'd go into detail but I don't know too much but over at Channel9 they have a lot of videos explaining it all. There are 2 reasons why performance would be slower: 1) Drivers - companies have to figure out the new driver model 2) Software - it just isn't coded/designed to take advantage of Vista About OpenGL - I don't believe it was until the most recent build from Nvidia (100.54) that they actually had OpenGL support to Vista. So, I OpenGL will be fine when ATI/Nvidia finally bring out decent drivers. ATI has been doing a lot better than Nvidia but the last build or 2 from Nvidia have showed a lot of performance. // Kiko, see, I am not a fanboy. Numerous people in here have agreed with what I have said and corrected people like I normally would. Face it, I'm not a fanboy and you're only labelling me as one because I simply correct people like you who have this weird inherent desire to bash MS.. speaking of fanboys ?? Edited February 1, 2007 by robotskip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest goodtime Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Aero = Aqua knockoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conan Obrien Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Aero = Aqua knockoff. well not exactly.. there is no blurr effect in aqua Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 i aint a fanboy either lol, i just know a better product when i see one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackShadowWolf Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Its not just Aero that slows down game performance, it goes for the entire system, regardless of what OS it is. Why?, because the operating system has so much junk its doing in the background to keep it running, it drains resources needed for game performance. Think about it, the Sony PS2 is a CPU core: 128-bit RISC (MIPS IV-subset) Clock Frequency: 294 MHz (299 MHz in later versions) ( It does say this about the engine in Wikipedia:According to MicroDesign Resources, it is two times the speed of a 733 MHz Pentium III and 15 times the speed of a 400 MHz Celeron at handling tasks like full-motion video (SIMD), though I can't verify that myself.) Look at the games that can run, notably Grand Theft Auto 3. It takes a Intel/AMD processor clocked at least 1Ghz to run the same title decently, and so on with other games. Now of course the architectures are different, but it shouldnt make that big of a difference in the big picture. The system is dedicated to the game, nothing else. A PC has so much its doing that all those resources are being used in some way. So to answer your answer your question robotskip, in some ways YES it does slow down as it is part of the underlying operating system that uses background resources, as well as NO because even without it you still have that resource issue. From my perspective, it really depends on how you look it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotskip Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) No, he's right. You're a fanboy. People haven't backed YOU up, they've backed up the article to which you linked. Face it, no one likes you. Except maybe other fanboys like you... only because you are their leader, of course.How old are you, 13 ? I'm not a fanboy and if I was why would I prefer OSX to Windows, own numerous Apple products, suggest Apple products to others, prefer Evolution to Outlook (Well, not 07), prefer FreeBSD to IIS, etc. I do not care if people do not like me on the internet and quite frankly, the only people who voice that they don't are people like you and I'm glad you don't, I'd rather not have you around me. I also never said they backed me up, I said they backed up what I said. I could say 1+1=2 and someone could 'back that up' but that doesn't mean they're supporting me, just one thing I've said. Can you please stop trolling all the posts/threads I make. Everyone gets it, you don't like me and you think I'm a fanboy. Good for you, now get over it and leave me alone. Blackshadow, your post was a silly circle lacking logic. Edited February 1, 2007 by robotskip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.manatane Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Just take a look at this bench comparing windows Xp to Vista: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/ UT2004 just drop 32% of its FPS under Vista on the same hardware ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Vista has slowed down gaming for me also. Gaming in XP is far smoother and I get a constant FPS of over 100. In Vista my FPS regularly drops below 70 and skips during large areas of a game. I think if we give Vista a couple of months, we will see improvements with better drivers and hardware performance. BTW kiko, everyone has a right to post a new topic without getting insulted. If you are not interested or don't agree with what the topic is saying, just don't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexb17 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 from what i can tell, ati cards seem less affected by vista. nvidia is taking a big hit beacause their drivers suck big time ( ). and guess what card i have... the only thing i ran in vista was fifa 07 which ran just lovely, with the drivers suplied by microsoft, NOT nvidia. recently, i installed vista rtm. my initial gaming rating was 3.1. i installed the latest drivers from nvidia and... my gaming rating dropped to 3.0! pathetic!!! alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U.C. Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 The XBox is a 733 MHz Intel Pentium III with a 233 MHz NVIDIA NV2A. My machine has a 300 MHz NV 25 along with a 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium IV, still it performs much worser than a Xbox. The only reason, I can think of it performing worse is that the OS on the XBox is a very optimized and slimmed down build of Windows. If MS actually releases such a build on PC's, they would give awesome gaming performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_muad_dib Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 even if i think Vista is a huge pile of junk with a good dress(you know.. resource drain and so on), i guess we just need to wait a bit for better (gaming) performances. i remember a similar situation with XP in its early times. in matter of opengl i guess that if MS will drop support for it...(imagine no more id software games etc...)there will be a massive move to macos or linux! the death of microsoft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts