DH Article: Vista Gaming: Yay or Nay? Part 1: ATI - Page 2

Judas · Mar 2, 2007, 11:13 AM

hey since using vista 64, i'm familare with the driver state, it's no where near perfect, or as reliable as 32bit, but it isn't horrible either.

***Zardon*** · Mar 2, 2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

hey since using vista 64, i'm familare with the driver state, it's no where near perfect, or as reliable as 32bit, but it isn't horrible either.

Excellent, well if anyone wants a "not horrible" experience which is worse than the 32bit version then take Judas advice.

Everyone else who is sane, stick with the 32bit version unless you want a year of massive hair loss

Dark Lord · Mar 2, 2007, 01:05 PM

something ive been wondering for awhile now, does vista still have that gameing mode they had talked about?

it was supposed to shut off all other non essential processes running so almost 100% of the hardware could be dedicated to gameing. or was this one of the many other things that got scraped along the wya?

WhO_KnOwS · Mar 2, 2007, 02:17 PM

Well, aero gets shut down and most of the memory caching operations are stopped when you launch a game, so it is kinda included...

**temeteus82** · Mar 2, 2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zardon

Everyone else who is sane, stick with the 32bit version unless you want a year of massive hair loss

I'm insane

and ready to massive hair loss if some one gives me Vista Ultimate x64

legal version of course...

Sonata · Mar 2, 2007, 04:51 PM

I'm using Win x64 and still have a full head of hair. I will use the x64 bit version of Vista Ultimate when I get around to installing it. Of course if I just want a windows OS that can at this present time play any game or do everything, my USB 2.0 external drive with plain old 32 bit XP that MS claims isn't possible to boot off takes care of that!

***Vikingod*** · Mar 2, 2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonata

I'm using Win x64 and still have a full head of hair. I will use the x64 bit version of Vista Ultimate when I get around to installing it. Of course if I just want a windows OS that can at this present time play any game or do everything, my USB 2.0 external drive with plain old 32 bit XP that MS claims isn't possible to boot off takes care of that!

I run x64 Xp as well, and I can conclusivly say that x64 Vista is a whole different ball of wax... a ball of wax made of shit.

***Zardon*** · Mar 2, 2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikingod

I run x64 Xp as well, and I can conclusivly say that x64 Vista is a whole different ball of wax... a ball of wax made of shit.

As was 64bit XP when it was initially released. i think people are misinterpreting what I said, in that 64 bit windows is "useless" - I didnt mean that. 64 bit Driver development and support is months behind, thats the issue. I have an MSDN account with MS and I dual boot both on another system - have been doing so since august 06.

WinXp 64 bit is a lot better now after years of development, but Vista? I dont think it will be a viable solid OS until at least 2008. Same kind of time frame as XP - maybe a little sooner.

Necrosis · Mar 2, 2007, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zardon

As was 64bit XP when it was initially released. i think people are misinterpreting what I said, in that 64 bit windows is "useless" - I didnt mean that. 64 bit Driver development and support is months behind, thats the issue. I have an MSDN account with MS and I dual boot both on another system - have been doing so since august 06.

WinXp 64 bit is a lot better now after years of development, but Vista? I dont think it will be a viable solid OS until at least 2008. Same kind of time frame as XP - maybe a little sooner.

Another way to say it is this.

XP 64 has way better driver support compared to 64 Vista.

Mazuko · Mar 3, 2007, 12:37 AM

Ultimately I think it is safe to say that even without proper driver support from hardware manufactuers at this point it is, surprisingly, a viable option to play games on Vista.

I think it would be advantageous to do the same kind of comparisons with Vista say 6 months from now, when proper drivers are released for most hardware, and the current comparisons done here in this article.

Makes one wonder doesn't it?

MrSpock2002 · Mar 4, 2007, 09:02 PM

Me having a laptop it's difficult to decide if I want to upgrade to Vista. Besides what's the point of Vista other then DX10. I have an x600, so no point in DX10 now. In a year when I decide to get a new machine, then it will be different. Besides I'm not to keen on the DRM crap with Vista.

Intelman · Apr 9, 2007, 12:28 AM

First of all, I loved the article, nice reading, and lots of fancy eyecandy!

My FEAR performance has been hurting me on Vista. It just doesn't feel as smooth as it did on XP, even if it is about 30 FPS. (I am sure it doesn't matter that I'm using FEAR Combat, the free multiplayer) I suppose I can lower my res and turn off AA and AF and see if I get my smoothness back.

Supreme Commander is pretty darn smooth on Vista, I never tried it on XP. I can confirm that Oblivion feels smoother in Vista, at least smoother than it felt in XP.

Can DH contact ATI and express some concern for F.E.A.R. performance? I would really love to see this improved!

WhO_KnOwS · Apr 9, 2007, 04:08 PM

I've dropped ATI an email and they've reassured me that their tests show little to no difference between XP and Vista performance, especially with the newer driver suites.
If you have any actual benchmarks (other than the ones we posted) and if you would post your system configuration alongside ATI could try and reproduce the issue you are having (if you are in fact not a lone case).
Again, keep in mind that there are countless factors that could be affecting your results, and even our own results would probably be different in a slightly altered system.