Sign in to follow this  
bovinedragon

Vista vs XP hardware performance

Recommended Posts

bovinedragon    122
I am planning to buy a laptop, and I dont know if I should get vista or XP. I am hesitant to get vista because of all of the people saying the OS itself takes up tons of RAM. How does the performance of the same RAM, or all the other parts for the matter, perform on vista vs XP. I want to get a computer that would give me the best plafrom to develope games on, which would mean that i want to have the best performance out of the hardware to do 3d modeling, coding, and all that stuff. I do not care one bit for the difference of how vista looks, or all the new 'features' that they have finally stolen from apple. I just care about the hardware performance, and what would be the fastest. So basicly, would i be better off getting a laptop with XP over vista to get more performance out of my hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palidine    1315
Quote:
Original post by bovinedragon
I want to get a computer that would give me the best plafrom to develope games on


then don't get a laptop. [smile] Desktop replacement laptops are: heavy and hot. The latter generally leads to a really short lifetime compared to an equivalent desktop. I also found that a heavy laptop meant that I hated bringing it with me which kind of defeats the purpose of having a laptop in the first place.

Vista is a hog (you'll want at least 2GB of RAM, probably an 80G HD and a Core2 chip). You can go lighter on the HD but no matter what turn off it's assy backup scheme: it updates frequently and it took about a week for my HD to get full. funtimes.

There's also a 1337 bug somewhere between Vista and my hardware where if my machine hibernates i have to flush the local DNS cache in order to sucessfully resolve host names after it wakes up.

The only advantage I see in Vista is DX10.

As for hardware, it performs the same because it's hardware. Whether the computer uses it efficiently or not is a driver issue (which is mainly outside of the OS's control).

I have Vista on my laptop and it works fine for development. I have a smaller HD but otherwise good specs. I got the Thinkpad T61 14.1" lappy. It's got an NVidia NVS card which isn't stellar but does the job. It's perfect for development when i want to go to a friend's house or a local cafe. My desktop is the beast that I use for more advanced graphics features and gaming.

Having a laptop you can't really play current games on does wonders for productivity.

-me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bovinedragon    122
Quote:
Original post by Palidine
Having a laptop you can't really play current games on does wonders for productivity.


LOL, good point.

Anyways, i am getting a laptop for "school", so its not a question if i should get a laptop vs a pc. I am asking that since XP takes less RAM to run, it will leave more RAM for me to use for my own things. Are there any good tests that someone has done that shows how much RAM vista takes vs XP. Im not really asking if vista is more efficient driver wise, just the background work that the OS does to suck up my precious RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobofjoe    322
The reason that Vista takes so much more RAM than XP is because Vista is much more aggressive in prefetching memory - it will prestore the programs that you use the most in RAM, allowing for faster startup - after all, Free RAM is wasted RAM.

I've been using Vista for a while now, and I think that my productivity has gone up significantly over XP, though your milage may vary.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LockePick    707
Get a laptop with 2GB of RAM (no system should have any less these days) and Vista will run silky smooth. On my desktop I find it boots considerably faster than XP so that may be nice for a laptop (I turn mine off and on a lot moving from place to place).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schrompf    1035
One opinion: my brother had WinXP 32Bit on the machine, now he has Vista 32Bit. The very same hardware underneath. All own games, all commercial games, all benchmarks, any apps run less than half the speed the used to run before. We profiled our games a bit, DirectX calls seem to need about three times more time to execute than before. But it doesn't explain why a release build now takes about ten minutes when the very same project (ours) on the very same hardware (Athlon 3200+, 2GB, GF7800GT) and the very same compiler (VC2005 Prof) used to take less than three minutes before.

The Aero GUI is another point that costs some performance but it's not that much and you regain it when running the application in fullscreen.

This opinion is by no means representative. Yet it's frustrating. We had some hopes when Microsoft announced they solved a mysterious bug that costed so much gaming performance, but applying the hotfix didn't change a thing. Thus I suggest avoiding Vista. Give it some more time to mature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zerorepent    663
If I remember correctly the low performance bug isn't fixed until you've installed sp1 (final version isn't released yet), however several computer magazines have reported that the performance have increased greatly after the installation of the sp1-beta.

One could only hope that it will be released soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pzc    216
If you want something to compare with, the official requirements for Crysis was released a few days ago. The ones for vista is actually significantly higher than the ones for xp.
Check it out for yourself at the official homepage, section News: rig ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiddler    860
Quote:
Original post by Schrompf
One opinion: my brother had WinXP 32Bit on the machine, now he has Vista 32Bit. The very same hardware underneath. All own games, all commercial games, all benchmarks, any apps run less than half the speed the used to run before. We profiled our games a bit, DirectX calls seem to need about three times more time to execute than before. But it doesn't explain why a release build now takes about ten minutes when the very same project (ours) on the very same hardware (Athlon 3200+, 2GB, GF7800GT) and the very same compiler (VC2005 Prof) used to take less than three minutes before.

The Aero GUI is another point that costs some performance but it's not that much and you regain it when running the application in fullscreen.

This opinion is by no means representative. Yet it's frustrating. We had some hopes when Microsoft announced they solved a mysterious bug that costed so much gaming performance, but applying the hotfix didn't change a thing. Thus I suggest avoiding Vista. Give it some more time to mature.


Update your disk controller/chipset drivers. I had a comparable system (Nforce 4 motherboard), and disk performance quadrupled(*) as soon as I installed the latest drivers from Nvidia (released this month, I think).

(*) slight overstatement, but the difference was *huge* - compile times went down, and everything became *much* more responsive. Worth a try.

Quote:
Original post by bovinedragon
Ive also read that the opengl driver for vista is really bad. Is this fixed in the sp1 update also?

Im thinking now i should wait a while, and see how this turns out.


The opengl vista driver..? Well, the opengl XP driver sucked more (software rendering vs D3D emulation on Vista). As long as you install drivers for your graphics card, you will have native OpenGL support which is as fast as on XP. Never had a problem with graphics drivers, and I've been using Vista since beta 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hplus0603    11347
If you're going to lug the laptop around (between classes, say), I suggest getting a lighter laptop, rather than a heavy desktop replacement. I'd also go with Vista now; SP1 is around the corner and will iron out a few kinks that haven't been solved through Windows Update. I got a Vista laptop for my wife this summer, and it works fine.

If you can find a lightweight laptop with a GeForce 8500 or 8600 in it, that'd be ideal I think, unless you want the absolutely best frame rates playing games like Crysis. Go for 4 GB of RAM if you can, and an extended life battery (or two).

Make sure you get the T7 series of CPUs; a T7500 is a good CPU to aim at.

A Dell Inspiron 1420 can be had with GeForce 8400, 4 GB of RAM, T7500 CPU for about $1700. The 8400 is a little on the under-powered side for "true gaming," though it's fine for development.

The Inspiron 1520 is a little bigger, but can be had with an 8600 and the CPU/memory trimmings for $1800. (Add another $400 for a writable blu-ray drive) If you can deal with the heft of that machine, it's probably a very good bet for your needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this