Gaming in Vista 32-bit

[JimiP]

Hey all,

I'm curious. I am using Vista Home Premium on the system listed in my signature and I wondered... How many frames am I losing compared to playing games in Vista as to playing them in XP? I can't imagine it would be that much but some of my games just are playing as I would like.

COD4 (I can play with all the eye-candy turned on with well over 65FPS so I shouldn't be complaining... but I'm used to 125FPS constant)

Oblivion just looks and plays... strange. Is it optimized for NVIDIA GPU's or something? The textures don't look very good and the far away land doesn't have grass on it (or sometimes blurred textures...) at all. Strange.

Anyways, I was just curious. I'm thinking about switching back over to XP (as I haven't used XP on this machine before) to see if my frames improve. Either that or I'm getting a new GPU. lol

 

[ZappDogg]

That system should be fine, although I'd get 4 gigs of RAM and use the 64 bit version of Vista.

 

[Xavier434]

These days with the progression of drivers you should be losing none. I am also running Vista Home Premium 32 bit and have been doing so for about 6 months. If anything, your system should show improvement in overall performance due to Superfetch. It won't increase your frame rates, but load times should be faster for many games unless your other hardware is bottlenecking the system.

 

[JimiP]

Thanks for the replies guys,

I've come to the conclusion however that Vista is a great OS for the casual gamer who is fine with a fluid 65FPS in most games. However, for more hardcore or competitive players, I still find XP to be the icing on the cake.

Don't get me wrong, I have liked using Vista for as long as I have. It has an awesome GUI and some very very cool features. I will not bash Vista for any reason - simply because I have not come across a reason legit enough to complain about. LOL But since I need the fastest, most stable platform to game on, I'm probably going to move back to XP for the time being.

Also, still the fact that I'm using an nForce 680i chipset mobo and an HD2900XT kills me. haha, I was being experimental with my purchases. Original plan was to go with the Ultra but my boss cut me a killer deal on this card. I might end up purchasing an 8800GT or GTX instead but I still haven't made my decision.

Anyways, thanks for the replies!

 

[jonmcc33]

I agree. Windows XP is the prime choice for gamers. Vista is suitable only for those that browse the web and check e-mail.

 

[EvixKeth]

As more and more DirectX10 games are released, though, Vista will soon take XP's place.

I still have an XP installation on my other hard drive, though the only times I access it are for either recording music, or playing Age of Empires II at a LAN party. For some reason, in only that game, Vista and XP don't like talking to each other. We can get an all-Vista AoE II LAN, or an all-XP AoE II LAN, but not a mix. Most of us end up installing MS Virtual PC and Windows XP if we have VIsta.

I digress. I love Vista, for gaming and other tasks as well. I can't imagine switching back.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33
I agree. Windows XP is the prime choice for gamers. Vista is suitable only for those that browse the web and check e-mail.

As always you spread FUD about Vista in every post.I consider myself a serious gamer (over 250+ games ) currently 40+ games installed in Vista x64.

I've come to the conclusion however that Vista is a great OS for the casual gamer who is fine with a fluid 65FPS in most games. However, for more hardcore or competitive players, I still find XP to be the icing on the cake.

As always it can be a number of things,anyway you tried turning off Windows Defender real time scan and V-Sync too?I play Oblivion and don't notice any FPS drop and looks the same to me as in XP(you set textures to high quality via Nvidia Display panel?..Also check your Oblivion options settings too).


Gaming in Vista is the future with DX10 and DX10.1 etc..

Btw gaming is fine on my Vista x64,and I mean FPS/stability and no artifacts in gaming.

 

[Stas]

Vista is way too slow and unreasonably bulky fo rme. Sure if you turn half the features off in Vista and pretty much turn it into XP+DX10+Custom Themes then, yeah, it'll be ok. But why bother, if you can have the real thing - Windows XP?
Plus I can choose to not install the DRM for XP, while Vista comes with privacy violating software preinstalled. Of course, XP will yield to Vista eventually. No, not because it's superior, it's not. But because of marketing policy of M$, and laziness of software developers. If only the world was perfect...

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: EvixKeth
As more and more DirectX10 games are released, though, Vista will soon take XP's place.

I still have an XP installation on my other hard drive, though the only times I access it are for either recording music, or playing Age of Empires II at a LAN party. For some reason, in only that game, Vista and XP don't like talking to each other. We can get an all-Vista AoE II LAN, or an all-XP AoE II LAN, but not a mix. Most of us end up installing MS Virtual PC and Windows XP if we have VIsta.

I digress. I love Vista, for gaming and other tasks as well. I can't imagine switching back.

That is true. Hopefully by that point SP1 or better has fixed the many issues with Vista.

 

[Xavier434]

I predict that gamers will be singing a different tune about Vista once the majority of game developers utilize DX10 to it's fullest. By that time, the drivers will be even better than they are now and we will see a ton of Vista bug fixes and performance enhancements. SP1 is right around the corner. Not to mention that more and more of the latest graphically intensive games are pushing the threshold when it comes to a 32 bit OS. When 64 is much more in demand as a result of maxing out game settings, I believe we will see tons of people move to Vista 64.

For now though, it's a toss up based on how your hardware's drivers feel about Vista. They are getting much better, but still need polish. Some more than others.

 

[JimiP]

OK, funny this is... I installed Windows XP again. Installed COD4, cranked it all to high, I achieve NO higher FPS in XP than I do in Vista. I turn my graphics down to where I normally play and I still achieve no higher FPS.

Mem, is Oblivion optimized for NVIDIA GPU's? I have the HD2900XT so I don't have the NVIDIA Display Panel. I am thinking though, after knowing that there is hardly a difference in performance (with this kind of high-end components) that I will probably be switching out my card to an 8800GTX. And before everyone says, "OMGOSH purchase a GT for the love of God!" I have thought it over and I'd rather just go with the flagship. I don't plan on upgrading for at least two years so I think I'll still get my money's worth out of it. Plus I hear they get pretty toasty, can anyone give me the low-down on heat with the GT's?

So after deciding that I achieve no higher FPS in XP than in Vista, I have re-installed Vista Home Premium 32-bit. It just has better (even if you think they're small) features. Search within folders option is a Godsend. lol

Thanks for the replies guys!

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: JimiP
OK, funny this is... I installed Windows XP again. Installed COD4, cranked it all to high, I achieve NO higher FPS in XP than I do in Vista. I turn my graphics down to where I normally play and I still achieve no higher FPS.

I load Vista Business and run Battlefield 2 and the game does nothing but stutter for me. Doesn't happen in Windows XP.

 

[Mem]

Mem, is Oblivion optimized for NVIDIA GPU's?

I would not think so, as always its down to your hardware and quality of the drivers,I run it in same res and settings as my old XP PC ie 1680x1050 etc....and still with my old 7800GT card.

I'm guessing that if people have stutter thens its something in the background (unknown process or something).

FYI I always had good stability/gaming with AMD drivers when I was using it in XP, I don't see why AMD/Vista would be any different to my Nvidia/Vista combo that I'm using now.

 

[1ManArmY]

Originally posted by: EvixKeth
As more and more DirectX10 games are released, though, Vista will soon take XP's place.

I still have an XP installation on my other hard drive, though the only times I access it are for either recording music, or playing Age of Empires II at a LAN party. For some reason, in only that game, Vista and XP don't like talking to each other. We can get an all-Vista AoE II LAN, or an all-XP AoE II LAN, but not a mix. Most of us end up installing MS Virtual PC and Windows XP if we have VIsta.

I digress. I love Vista, for gaming and other tasks as well. I can't imagine switching back.

what benefits do you gain by having XP on a different hard drive than Vista? Is it unwise to partition XP and Vista on the same drive? Considering a 40 gig partition of XP on 500 gig Seagate Barracuda the remainder of the drive will be the Vista OS and programs.

 

[WraithETC]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: JimiP
OK, funny this is... I installed Windows XP again. Installed COD4, cranked it all to high, I achieve NO higher FPS in XP than I do in Vista. I turn my graphics down to where I normally play and I still achieve no higher FPS.

I load Vista Business and run Battlefield 2 and the game does nothing but stutter for me. Doesn't happen in Windows XP.

Its probably because vista uses more ram and battlefield 2 is a ram eating monster.

 

[Bradtechonline]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: JimiP
OK, funny this is... I installed Windows XP again. Installed COD4, cranked it all to high, I achieve NO higher FPS in XP than I do in Vista. I turn my graphics down to where I normally play and I still achieve no higher FPS.

I load Vista Business and run Battlefield 2 and the game does nothing but stutter for me. Doesn't happen in Windows XP.

I can confirm that 2 GB of RAM for BF2 in Vista just does not cut it. I've had 2 GB, 3 GB, and now 4GB of RAM. Going from 3 GB to 2 GB of ram in Vista with BF2 is like going from 1 GB to 2GB in XP. I would alt-tab out of BF2, and see that 98-99% of my RAM was in use with just 2 GB. Shell out the extra cash, and upgrade to 3 GB *hopefully you aren't 4x512*. Going from 2 GB to 3 GB for BF2/Vista will make you very happy. I went from normally being the first person in the server with 3 GB/4GB to being one of the last or middle of the pack in BF2 after a map change just when I dropped back down to 2 GB from 4GB. 2 GB never was an issue in Windows XP, but if you are going to run Vista, and play BF2 in high settings then be prepared to stutter, and lag or go beyond 2 GB.

 

[Captante]

I havn't done many back-to-back comparisions with the same game on my main PC which dual-boots XP-Pro & Vista Ultimate 32-bit, but the three I have tried, Oblivion, FEAR & most recently Crysis has all performed quite a bit faster under XP.

The biggest difference by far was Crysis which at 1920x1200 went from virtually unplayable at maximum settings under Vista to smooth & solid under XP after applying the DX9 maximum-quality mod. (it looked very close to the same in both OS's too)

 

[AzN]

I went from xp to vista x86 and it works about same except that vista requires more ram.

I've also tried vista 64 and doesn't work as good as vista x86. You will get some compatibility problems whether it be drivers or some older games that doesn't work.

Vista x86 is the way to go if you want dx10 with no problems.