- Back to homepage

Windows 7 Gaming Performance Vs Vista & XP

@ 2009/09/12

In the latest of our articles focusing on Windows 7 we look at the gaming performance when compared to Microsoft's older operating systems, namely Vista and XP. Many people (and websites) still hail Windows XP as the OS of choice so today we will ascertain if you should be making the leap to Windows 7 when it is released next month. We think you will find the results very interesting, we know we did !

Comment from jmke @ 2009/09/15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kougar

Last I heard 7 shrank the install size compared to Vista.

not as much as I'd hoped. We used it for performance test with a DDR2 ram disk; total size of that disk 14gb...

Quote:

With Windows 7 installed on the ACARD ANS-9010 we were left with approximately ~6gb of free space. We had already disabled the hibernation file and reduced the page file to minimum size.

Next up we started the installation of Crysis… just a reminder here are the minimal system requirements:

Minimum System Requirements:
OS - Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor - 2.8GHz or faster (XP); 3.2GHz or faster * (Vista)
Memory - 1GB RAM or 1.5GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card - 256MB **
Hard Drive - 12GB
Sound Card - DirectX 9.0c compatible

Our systems had 4gb of RAM, plenty fast CPUs and VGA cards. But hard drive space we had not. Minimum requirement is 12gb… we started the setup of Crysis, hopeful but a bit doubtful.

On the OCZ 30Gb SSD installation finished without incident, the smallest Vertex drive can easily host your OS and a few games. The ACARD powered system halted at 99% of the installation. We then remember the 100Mb temporary file created by the Windows 7 NVIDIA drivers, we deleted the folder and continued the installation which finished successfully! We were left with ~80Mb of free space left. Next up we launched the Crysis 1.2 patch, this updater finished ok on the Vertex system, but it wouldn’t even launch on the ACARD one. So what we did was copy the patched game folder from the system 1 to system 2. We had now only 2.16Mb free on the ANS-9010

=-)
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=9 35

Comment from Kougar @ 2009/09/14

As far as image quality goes, DX10+ games offer higher level IQ settings that DX9 games simply don't. Just looking at their screenshots shows the IQ differences because of those extra settings.

This article just shows that Vista/7 are both optimized better for dual-GPU setups... wouldn't of minded seeing a single GTX 285 or 4890 tested, single GPU performance is more of a wash.

XP is fine, but I won't use it anymore. It is not optimized for Quads and higher threaded systems, the GPU rendering stack has some serious flaws, and it has zero optimizations for SSDs. Whether it's an 8-thread CPU, SSD, or dual-GPU Windows 7 is the better option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeghoofd

and the Vista i want to grow forever phenomena I don't appreciate at all....

Last I heard 7 shrank the install size compared to Vista.

Comment from leeghoofd @ 2009/09/13

and the Vista i want to grow forever phenomena I don't appreciate at all....

Comment from jmke @ 2009/09/13

A few months back the only really affordable SSDs where 30Gb in size, so yes, install size does matter

Comment from Diegis0n @ 2009/09/13

I dunno mates, i've had it with XP personally. I like the looks and the feels of Windows 7

That an OS takes 5Gb, or 25Gb of HD Space isn't really an issue, unless you prefer to use expensive SSD's with little room ofcourse ... i mean what is 25Gb these days?

The only reason i would have to switch back is that my G15 G-buttons don't work but hell, the G19 is there to grab too!

PS: Is nero 9 really 1Gb btw? WTH? i use ashampoo burning studio (111mb), never used nero

Comment from jmke @ 2009/09/13

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeghoofd

that review dunno, but the differences between the osses are very very big

that's because he's running SLI/CF; without that XP has the lead

Comment from leeghoofd @ 2009/09/13

if they make win7 install sub 10Gb and it boosts as fast as my XP does, then I might consider buying it... I still run XP64 as 24/7 OS and not willing to surrender for all that marketing mumbo jumbo, wizards and waste ridicilous amounts of HD space for apps...eg nero 6 takes 90mb here and does all I need, why am I obliged to install nero 9 or higher version and waste over 1gb for the same basic functions...

A full install of Vista64 at the moment takes me over 25Gb while my XP with the same stuff with with crappy looks is under 5Gb...

Till now a no buyer here... I can miss DX10.1 or even 11 features as I'm not too much impressed by the current games that support it's functions anyway... and there are workaround programs that support DX10.xx on XP.

XP is not dead yet... that review dunno, but the differences between the osses are very very big

Comment from jmke @ 2009/09/13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diegis0n

My point is, XP days are over

holding still more than 75% of market share worldwide, it's far from over, even if it only holds 30% in a few years, it's still a potential 30% revenue less if your product doesn't do DX9.

games next year will run on XP flawlessly, while DX10/11 features will be minimal

Comment from Diegis0n @ 2009/09/13

Don't u think that the DX10/DX11 games that will come out say, next year, will show better quality on Win7 then on XP?

My point is, XP days are over unless you are benching imo, Vista wasn't really "de moeite" but Win7 now is, even if the change isn't "yet" noticeable.

Comment from jmke @ 2009/09/13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diegis0n

The main argument to remember is that XP is limited to DX9, whereas Vista engine base OS's rendering DX10 games will put out a better IQ

this is DX9

CryEngine3 = DX9 (multiplatform engine, so needs to be DX9 for the consoles). DX10/11 doesn't necessarily mean higher IQ

AMD would love for CE3 to be DX11 so they can boast their unique feature, but that's not just the case, CE3 is DX9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICjHTa83Qh0

Comment from Diegis0n @ 2009/09/13

The main argument to remember is that XP is limited to DX9, whereas Vista engine base OS's rendering DX10 games will put out a better IQ

Comment from jmke @ 2009/09/12

what they tested was the SLI scaling in XP vs Vista/7
single GPU performance will paint another picture

All information and graphics contained in Madshrimps are sole property of the Madshrimps crew and may not be reproduced or copied in any manner without written permission from us.