jmke

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 !

http://www.driverheaven.net/articles.php?articleid=137

__________________

jmke

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

__________________

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

jmke

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

__________________

Diegis0n

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.

jmke

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

__________________

leeghoofd

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

__________________

jmke

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

__________________

Diegis0n

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

jmke

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

__________________