Windows Vista Gaming Performance

Windows Vista Gaming Performance

• samltd

  1GB of RAM is more than enough for the majority of games, so that's probably not the problem.
  
  

• baswegan

  I know you can tune down your vista settings in the control panel. Also, I have run WoW, Guild Wars and AoM with no problem on my dual core. I am going to make a program that allows me to turn of AERO and all the other non needed resources when gaming. Or I will just make an account on my computer that doesn't have those enabled.

  Greetz,

  Tyrael

  
  

• mshvw

  Are you sure you have updated your drivers

  Maybe your ammount of RAM or processor speed is low

  If not, it's a serious problem!

  I think they must fix in the final version or Vista will not mean anyhting for most of the users.

  
  

• Harshil_Patel_5326c0

  It is apparently true for DX9 games (and below) and has something to do with the fact that behind the full-screened game, Vista will still be running Aero and everything else, and so taking up resources that could otherwise be used by the game.

  I thought I remembered reading that Vista was going to have a special setting for full-screen gaming that involved shutting down or turning off any resource that wasn't vital in order to give the games the maximum amount of computer power possible.

  Either this never happened or maybe it will only apply to DX10 games.

  We'll see what the actual benchmarks are when the completed Vista is released, which shouldn't be too long from now.

  
  

• khaleel

  the slowdown is due to how vista processess ram and graphics. the only difference between vista and xp (aside from a few os tweaks) is that vista is ram hungry and processess graphics differently. this change is due to the aero interface and how that works. i don't know why, i'm just a n00b.
  
  

• Poledog

  So I wonder what Will happen when Vista is Running entirely on Directx10 Software and hardware
  
  How would this impact the Collection of games I already own given DX10 is a different kind of architecture.
  
  Let alone the power it will be consuming and the dual core situation.
  
  
  Anyone has a Dual Core processror in which to test some games to See if there is any proficiency on loading times and gameplay
  
  

• RBecker

  Oh yeah, it is probably the RAM. I remember it takes 60% of 1Gig RAM without running anything else. But I have only tried Beta1 though. I haven't try my RC1 nor the games.
  

• T.Gunaseelan

  the confg: (albeit a little old)
  
  Athlon 64 2 GHZ with 1gb of slow ddr333 ram and a X550 Ati of 256 mbs.
  
  Half lfie 2 runs the same at 1024 * 768 all max, in 1280*1024 it would run at 1 fps.
  Tony Hawk Underground 2 runs Just as Win XP
  Age of empire III runs slower (800*600 and it just wouldn't go beyond 5 fps)
  
  I noticed that only games That use full Shader and vertex 3.0 and Diretcx 9.0c suffer the penalty.
  Need for Speed Carbon is a Special Case, In my Config it is fixed at low res with no textures. And I can't Change it.
  
  So in short, Yes, there is a penalty for games that re recent and in XP already Eat resources. In Vista they do eat twice.
  
  
  

• Shawn Wildermuth - MVP (C#)

  Hummm... this Areo feature can be a bad for me because I am running CS:S on window mode, not full screen mode. No matter what, my computer will take a big hit. I guess I will make a gamming account that only uses XP UI.
  

• anubisascends

  My god, CS runs at 15 FPS Something's seriously wrong here.

  Try enabling XP styles rather than aero.

  
  
  

• logogamer

  My gaming performance is 80% slower in Vista with 7800GT. So what's wrong

  ( CS:S 100fps in XP and 15 in Vista )

  
  

• GoodMorningSky

  There seems to be a huge difference between different games, some work just like before and some works realy bad.

  This is my experience of vista so far:

  Battlefield 2, Equal framerate, slightly faster loadingtimes on vista. BF1942, 50% lower framerate and double loadingtime on vista(auch!). WarCraft 3, Equal loadingtime and framerate. Quake 3, Equal loadingtime and framerate in fullscreen, in windowmode framerate and loadingtime is about 10 times slower on vista(unplayable). Quake1, About 10times slower on vista(unplayable). FlatOut 2, Equal loadingtime and framerate.

  System: nforce2, athlon 3200+, 1gb ram, 9800pro 128mb

  
  

• Doug 123

  Things run fine on my A64 3000+ / 6800GT /1GB DDR400.. the ONLY thing I can see causing a lower performance is the theory that Vista uses more memory than XP. 1GB is not enough to do high-perf gaming in Vista IMO because games take longer to load and stutter more often due to page-filing or something.
  
  I think memory is the only issue. As for the guy with a 85FPS difference - that is merely something wrong with the display driver... get WDDM drivers for the 7800GT and call it a day..
  
  
  

• Prerak Shah

  DirectX 10 games should run really well, due to the architectural advances in the new DirectX model. The API has completely eliminated the GDI as an "intermediate" layer and now can access hardware more directly.

  Now, for DirectX 9 games, there could be a potential, although in reality I don't see a difference (I am running the latest Vista both 32-bit and 64-bit) in any of my games.

  Also, from what I understand, having Aero enabled or not has minimal to no impact on fullscreen games. As long as the game is written to use "Exclusive" mode (a feature available since the beginning of directX), then the desktop will not be drawn in the background (hence, using up mem and processor).

  If something I said doesn't make sense, let me know.

  Thanks,

  Reza

  
  
• Windows Vista Gaming Performance