XP benches better than VISTA

Posted by: DLC

XP benches better than VISTA - 11/28/07 05:55 AM

WOW ... > 2 X in some areas.<br><br>that's wonderful news for Wintel users, huh ??<br> Windows XP outshines Vista <br><br>This explains that Apple add about PC people switching back and "UPgrading" to XP <br><br>WAY to go Bill !!<br><br>"well- here's another fine mess you've gotten us into" <br><br><br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: Topper

Re: XP benches better than VISTA - 11/28/07 06:15 AM

Good news for Apple.<br>There's gotta be more and more people switching to Apple.<br>I read many tech news sites throughout the day. Most of the articles about Vista are not good.<br>I've always said, if Microsoft is unhappy, then I'm happy.<br><br><br>
Posted by: Akula

Not a good bench - 12/16/07 04:21 PM

OfficeBench is a benchmark done via OLE automation and basically attempts to do "real world" things as fast as possible (e.g. click a menu, click a button, and so on). Faster than any human could do it.<br><br>But because it is using OLE automation and because Office/IE are not accelerated by Aero, it is making heavy use of GDI. GDI is unaccelerated in Vista, where as Windows 3.x to XP had accelerated GDI (apparently it was a trade off for Vista).<br><br>OTOH, Vista is doing just as good as XP, and with D3D10, having better graphics than XPs D3D9, at the same frame rate. This is with nVidia drivers built later than Sept.<br><br>Play World of Warcraft, for free!
Posted by: zwei

Re: XP benches better than VISTA - 12/17/07 08:40 AM

XP is actually getting an upgrade pretty soon. XP SP3 is supposed to give it a 10% speed boost. Further lengthening the speed gap between it and Vista. <br><br>zweisoft<br>
Posted by: Akula

Re: XP benches better than VISTA - 12/17/07 08:52 AM

That number, again, was from this single flawed test.<br><br>Play World of Warcraft, for free!
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Not a good bench - 12/18/07 02:13 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>OTOH, Vista is doing just as good as XP, and with D3D10, having better graphics than XPs D3D9, at the same frame rate.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well to be fair, most of the DX9 and DX10 comparisons I've seen show the same frame rates with DX9 in Vista. In XP they've generally been 10-15% faster.<br><br>Of course "better graphics" is so far mostly bunk, the only improvements I've seen are hard edges where sprites intersect are mostly non apparent in DX10, otherwise in the current crop of games there's pretty much zero difference. It's not the underlying technology as much as it's the talent of the artists using that technology. You can all too easily make a DX10 game that looks like complete crap.<br><br>What will be interesting will be next year about this time when hardware has advanced more and crytek releases some of the features in Crysis that they've crippled because the hardware can't run it currently. Of course it wasn't much different with the changeover from DX8 to DX9, the games that will show the real difference haven't even been released yet. DX10 is better than DX9, but I don't know how quickly those features will be realized.<br><br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!
Posted by: Akula

Re: Not a good bench - 12/18/07 04:50 PM

Currently BioShock is the only "true" D3D10 title. Crysis is D3D10 in artifical constrant only. The graphics ARE better in D3D10 mode and gives the same FPS as XP.<br><br>Play World of Warcraft, for free!
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: Not a good bench - 12/18/07 08:20 PM

ExtremeTech has good performance review of Dx9 & 10 using Crysis as a benchmark.<br><br>The graphics ARE better in D3D10 mode and gives the same FPS as XP.<br><br>That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for Dx10.<br><br><br>M i c h a e l (OFI)
Posted by: Akula

Re: Not a good bench - 12/18/07 08:24 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>ExtremeTech has good performance review of Dx9 & 10 using Crysis as a benchmark.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Crysis uses no D3D10 features.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for Dx10.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Only to those who don't understand that D3D10 was just going to bring improved visuals at the same frame rate. Microsoft has said this all along the dev cycle for D3D10.<br><br>Play World of Warcraft, for free!
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: Not a good bench - 12/18/07 09:24 PM

Crysis uses no D3D10 features<br><br>Not yet... news from SIGGRAPH<br><br>Crytek's Carsten Wenzel talked about getting the D3D10 renderer in CryEngine2 up and running, supporting D3D9 and D3D10 in the same binary, the CryEngine2 D3D10 shader and material system, CB usage (21GB of CB updates per frame in early experiments!), shader input signatures and plenty more.<br><br><br>M i c h a e l (OFI)
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Not a good bench - 12/19/07 06:28 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The graphics ARE better in D3D10 mode<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah, you get some smoother edges on a couple of sprites in Bioshock. That's it. wooo... Hardly setting the world on fire there.<br><br>You saying the graphics are better in Bioshock in DX10 is strikingly similar to the ad tactics Apple's marketing uses for new "features" in Leopard. Bioshock is hardly an example for DX10 features when 99.99% of it is easily rendered with DX9.<br><br>Now in ten months when we see some REAL DX10 games come out that actually utilize some of it's advanced shader features, then we can talk.<br><br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!
Posted by: MacGizmo

Re: Not a good bench - 12/19/07 06:41 AM

I really don't think the average consumer cares about HOW something was benchmarked and whether or not it was done with the proper tools.<br><br>They see the headlines that Vista is a mess and is slower than XP - and that's as far as they read. Perception is reality.<br><br>CreativeGuy for daily tips, tricks and commentary on all things graphic design.
Posted by: Akula

Re: Not a good bench - 12/19/07 12:50 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>I really don't think the average consumer cares about HOW something was benchmarked and whether or not it was done with the proper tools.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br>I don't disagree there. Most people won't look into why something is the way it is or is not.<br><br>Play World of Warcraft, for free!
Posted by: Akula

Re: Not a good bench - 12/19/07 01:19 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Yeah, you get some smoother edges on a couple of sprites in Bioshock. That's it. wooo... Hardly setting the world on fire there.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br>So you admit that it does have better graphics. Awesome. Glad we're in agreement, SgtBaxter.<br><br>Play World of Warcraft, for free!
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Not a good bench - 12/19/07 02:35 PM

No we're not in agreement because it doesn't have better graphics. It has the same graphics. Better graphics means higher detailed models, higher resolution textures, more objects on screen. Bioshock has none of that in DX10, it doesn't utilize DX10's advanced shaders.<br><br>A better example of DX10 would be the tech demo of the crytek engine.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!