PDA

View Full Version : Windows 7 vs. Vista VGA Performance Analysis



Comment Bot
02-27-2009, 07:56 PM
Please feel free to comment about our story entitled "Windows 7 vs. Vista VGA Performance Analysis (http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1767/windows_7_vs_vista_vga_performance_analysis/index.html)"

technogiant
02-28-2009, 03:02 PM
Would have also been interesting if this could have been done using bother Nvidia and ATi cards...as Nvidia are claiming better driver performance in Windows 7 than ATi

Cannyone
02-28-2009, 10:36 PM
I found it amusing to note you admit that "... SLI is showing troubles under Windows 7 as it’s still showing troubles under Vista at certain times." I just reverted away from my first, and "Only", SLI experience. Primarily because of performance issues under Vista. I'm finding that, with a new P45 chipset board, my new HD4870 is performing better than 2x 8800GTs in SLI. So I have to agree with technogiant, it would have been informative to see this comparison made with both ATi and Nvidia hardware.

taelisyn
03-01-2009, 03:20 AM
I've heard some nasty rumors about the kernel in Windows 7. Seems it's just a dressed up version of Vista's kernel, which would account for how close these tests came up.

How often is it that when comparing different operating systems that you get almost identical performance? Shouldn't they just call windows 7 "Vista SP2"? After all, it's just Vista with some of the nastier mistakes removed, and some nastier ones put in (UAC).

I've noticed for a very long time that hardware requirements go up, and performance goes down. XP was much slower in games than 98SE (the gaming king), Vista was WAY slower than XP. (actually ripped it off my system because of how damn slow it was - 40% slower in many cases)

This time around, the requirements have gone down, and the performance hasn't dropped, but it certainly isn't going up.

I wish the linux scene would get it's act together... Been fooling around with it since slackware 96, and it still hasn't gotten anywhere, not really.

crenn
03-05-2009, 06:50 PM
I've heard some nasty rumors about the kernel in Windows 7. Seems it's just a dressed up version of Vista's kernel, which would account for how close these tests came up.

How often is it that when comparing different operating systems that you get almost identical performance? Shouldn't they just call windows 7 "Vista SP2"? After all, it's just Vista with some of the nastier mistakes removed, and some nastier ones put in (UAC).

I've noticed for a very long time that hardware requirements go up, and performance goes down. XP was much slower in games than 98SE (the gaming king), Vista was WAY slower than XP. (actually ripped it off my system because of how damn slow it was - 40% slower in many cases)

This time around, the requirements have gone down, and the performance hasn't dropped, but it certainly isn't going up.

I wish the linux scene would get it's act together... Been fooling around with it since slackware 96, and it still hasn't gotten anywhere, not really.
You're half right about the windows 7 kernel. A little birdy has told me it's a hybrid of Windows Server 2008 and Vista. Windows 7 will never be Vista SP2 (For that you want: Download details: Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2 Release Candidate and Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Release Candidate - Five Language Standalone (KB948465) (http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=dca54ecc-362a-4b4d-b62b-22780e839a7e&displaylang=en)). Last I checked, Vista still has UAC, just with Windows 7 isn't not as bad and can be modified.

New OSes normally have a performance decrease. Most would argue now that Windows XP is the gaming king (Sorry to let you know, but 98SE is old and isn't supported). As for Vista being 40% slower than XP? Prove it. I switched from XP to Vista last year because of matured video card drivers and the performance difference for me at least was only a couple of FPS (has a 8600GT at the time). I will say that Vista unpatched is horrible, but SP1 has helped change that.

I think everyone wants Linux to get the majority of games working on Linux. Progress is always going to be slow, and it's not like a lot of them are getting paid for it (I could be wrong).

taelisyn
03-06-2009, 02:11 AM
Unfortunately, UAC in Windows 7 can be fiddled with without the users knowledge. That's a nasty bug that needs to be fixed.

I tried running Vista for a while, and I have to admit, I liked parts of it. But giving up EAX for Vista is just wrong. (ALchemy is a horror). Giving up functionality in my TV Tuner, and my sound card isn't worth some eye candy. What's the point of having a sound card in Vista? Might as well run on-board (yeck!)

And while 98SE isn't supported anymore, nobody will deny that it outperformed everything for games.

Bioshock in XP I can run at 1600x1200 maxed at over 50fps. In Vista, that number drops to about 25-30. Same story in MANY other games.

I dropped Vista and went back to XP SP2 and it looks like I won't be bothering with 7, not unless there are VAST changes.

As far as I can tell UAC serves only as a nuisance, and serves NO real security purpose. It can be bypassed at any time without the users knowledge.

And sorry, but I don't need to PROVE anything. I making observational statements, I'm not talking about geometry.

gunnercarvo
03-10-2009, 01:06 PM
I want to know how much W7 eats up. That was my first issue with Vista. It was using 1.5GB of RAM when it was just sitting there. I went back to XP MCE, and it was only using <500MB at an idle, 900MB while using Firefox with 10 tabs open including pandora.com playing music. Also, Vista would reboot the computer if it didn't touch it for about 10 minutes. I learned that one day while cooking dinner. I heard the start-up sound and ignored it until I heard it again 10 minutes later. I hate Vista. It's just prettier than XP with a few RAM-munching goodies that I don't need. I hope W7 doesn't have those issues.