Vista 64 vs XP 32: HD 4870 X2 Runs better under Vista!

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-06-2008, 01:53 AM
safan80

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Really safan?
What is the differencde exactly?

clarity
09-06-2008, 02:58 AM
Eastcoasthandle

If this driver shows positive strides in performance what will be said when Cat 8.54 is finally released? I've read a few posts saying how good the current betas are. :yepp:
09-06-2008, 03:12 AM
xMrBunglex

i run 4870 CrossFire on a machine that dual boots Vista and XP. i can say from experience that the Radeons' better performance in Vista is strictly due to better drivers from ATI. it's not that Vista is better than XP in any way - it's just that ATI's driver team has made Vista their top priority now. even the driver installer for Vista has a whole new design that isn't used on the XP drivers yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly Fox

Of course it's the most "bloated," it's the newest.

XP was more "bloated" than 2000 as well, yet I don't see you history-rewriters complaining about that. Don't even get me started on Windows ME...

If you guys want to ignore the fact that in the past the same crap happens with every new OS (waah, it's bulky. waaaah, it crashes. waaaaah, it underperforms) that's fine, but don't drag your dribble into EVERY topic with Vista in the title. Nobody wants to hear it.

can it. so far you're the only one trying to start a Vista vs. XP war.
09-06-2008, 03:30 AM
Coldon

well by your own admission then the OS plays no great part in the performance of the card compared to the drivers. Which is practically what most of the vista power users have been saying for a year now. Most of the terrible *game* performance in vista has been due to crappy drivers (mostly from the nvidia camp). I still remember the whole "driver stopped responding" mess with nvidia drivers, how long did it take for them to sort that out.

Also don't get me started on the ability to disable lcd scaling which in XP is broken on the 8series card but in vista works. If i didn't need nvidia cards for CUDA, I'd be using ATI.

CPU performance has been near identical to XP since the launch of vista, i got the exact same times on my simulations in XP and vista, the only issue regarding performance was in games. (I'm ignoring guys trying to run vista on 512mb of ram).

I am glad that driver focus in now on vista (where it should be) and that ATI is taking the effort to improve on their drivers, it might force nvidia to get their asses in gear.

Aside: As for the higher memory usage in vista, all the people :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing about it must just shut up, i like it using my ram to cache apps thank you, XP's memory model was "broken" from the start, so your ram sat idle until it was needed, i like vista caching my apps in my free ram, so when i need them they start up instantly.
09-06-2008, 04:53 AM
BulldogPO

I have been using Vista X64 for a long time now, it is very stable and mature OS now.
09-06-2008, 05:16 AM
Mechromancer

64 bit OSes perform better than 32 bit because of the memory management. If you have a 4870X2 with 2GB of memory and a system with 2+GB of system memory (4GB+ recommended for that config) both the GPU and system memory are handled more efficiently. Remember, even with PCIe we still cache graphics data in GPU memory (or at least the OS sets aside a certain amount just in case).
09-06-2008, 06:53 AM
GAR

ATI's dual GPU's run better under Vista, like Crossfire and 4870x2/3870x2
09-06-2008, 12:39 PM
Sly Fox

Quote:

Originally Posted by xMrBunglex

can it. so far you're the only one trying to start a Vista vs. XP war.

:clap::rofl::yepp:
09-06-2008, 02:38 PM
jmke

Quote:

Update 07-09-2008:: Some readers pointed out that NVIDIA uses different AA rendering modes compared to ATI and for fair comparison sake the following needs to be taken into account:

- NVIDIA 8xAA = 4xMSAA, 16xAA = 4xMSAA (CSAA mode), 16xQAA = 8xMSAA (CSAA mode)
- ATI 16xAA is a superAA mode where each core will render the same frame with a different AA pattern resulting in superior image quality.

This does put in perspective the performance of the Geforce GTX 280 when the high quality AA levels are forced to match ATI's levels, as the performance of the GTX 280 is really trailing then. Of course you have to consider how much AA you need for the game to look smooth to you, this changes from person to person.

^^ if IQ is your thing, apples vs apples put ATI HD 4870 X2 in the lead.
09-06-2008, 02:50 PM
Sr7

They claim performance in DMC4 goes up on ATI with AA applied? umm what?
09-06-2008, 03:01 PM
Sr7

Quote:

Performance Scaling XP to Vista

On average with the Geforce GTX 280 you lose -1.6% by switching to Vista 64-bit, so in short: same performance and no loss!

The Radeon HD 4870 X2 does even better, if we leave out the numbers of Stalker and Tomb Raider (as Crossfire failed to run properly under XP) we see a +5.8% boost in average FPS going from XP to Vista. If we add the two game titles and let them enjoy CF-scaling the number jumps up to +27.7%!

This is laughable because it's such poor logic. What you'd want is that there be NO difference between XP and Vista. They paint the "gains" in Vista as a plus.. when in fact it's just a testament to poor ATI XP performance...
09-06-2008, 03:06 PM
Cooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sr7

This is laughable because it's such poor logic. What you'd want is that there be NO difference between XP and Vista. They paint the "gains" in Vista as a plus.. when in fact it's just a testament to poor ATI XP performance...

and why would ATI bother with driver optimisations for XP if 99 out of 100 new desktop systems come with Vista?
09-06-2008, 03:15 PM
Sr7

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper

and why would ATI bother with driver optimisations for XP if 99 out of 100 new desktop systems come with Vista?

That has nothing to do with what I said.. I'm faulting the reviewers poor logic in the statement I quoted, not AMD's optimization decisions.

The point was that he says Vista "does better/gains" on ATI when in fact it's just that XP loses... it's just funny because it seems like it would make a perfect marketing statement.
09-06-2008, 04:11 PM
Cooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sr7

That has nothing to do with what I said.. I'm faulting the reviewers poor logic in the statement I quoted, not AMD's optimization decisions.

The point was that he says Vista "does better/gains" on ATI when in fact it's just that XP loses... it's just funny because it seems like it would make a perfect marketing statement.

Agree on that. Well with so many websites and reviewers trying to make some bucks final product will loose objectiveness or lack in-depth investigation of the results. Though in this case making decision just by result of single driver version does not show statistics in performance changes. But at the same time it's very hard if not impossible to narrow the changes down to driver only since the hardware used are rather new thus only 2-3 driver packages with pre-mature initial versions could've been used.
09-06-2008, 07:09 PM
xMrBunglex

i am confident that ATI's XP CrossFire performance will catch up to Vista soon. my fear was that XP would always be trailing behind Vista by a month or two. that is the only reason i got myself a copy of Vista 64.

so far i've noticed:

-Race Driver GRID runs well with CrossFire enabled in Vista. it was buggy in XP.

-Gears of War runs a little better when i use DX10 w/ AA. in XP i had to run DX9 and force AA through the driver. i like the Vista method better. i imagine this applies to most or all UE3-based games. any UE3 game with DX10 AA is going to be better in Vista.

-ATI's driver installer for Vista is like a whole new generation of software. this style of installer hasn't been used for XP drivers yet. i really like the new interface.
09-06-2008, 07:46 PM
Stukov

Lol. I just mentioned yesterday that testing in XP-64 then Vista x64 on 8.7 Beta, I went from 33 Crysis to 50fps, and on Fear I went from 150 to 260. There was a substantial increase in performance from going from XP to Vista. My 2900 XT tests however, show almost the opposite in effect. The X2 performs better in Vista (64 at least) regardless of the reason (better drivers or something with Vista).
09-06-2008, 08:03 PM
Clint

Quote:

Originally Posted by xMrBunglex

...any UE3 game with DX10 AA is going to be better in Vista...

With that I can agree 100%, DX10 AA on XP won't perform much...:D
09-06-2008, 08:37 PM
xMrBunglex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clint

With that I can agree 100%, DX10 AA on XP won't perform much...:D

you know what i meant. i meant forcing AA through the driver in XP versus DX10 AA in Vista.

also, this thread is specifically about CrossFire. none of this should apply to people with single GPU's. it isn't that Vista performs better. we all know Vista runs games slower than XP. it's just that ATI's CrossFire drivers are better in Vista right now. for all we know, next month's driver release can improve XP and even things up.
09-06-2008, 11:02 PM
Clint

Quote:

Originally Posted by xMrBunglex

you know what i meant. i meant forcing AA through the driver in XP versus DX10 AA in Vista.

also, this thread is specifically about CrossFire. none of this should apply to people with single GPU's. it isn't that Vista performs better. we all know Vista runs games slower than XP. it's just that ATI's CrossFire drivers are better in Vista right now. for all we know, next month's driver release can improve XP and even things up.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.:D

You are perfectly right, it's just a matter of focus on driver development.
I do believe it's going to get even worse though, and XP x64 will lag after the worst.:shakes:
09-06-2008, 11:15 PM
Stukov

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clint

Sorry, couldn't help myself.:D

You are perfectly right, it's just a matter of focus on driver development.
I do believe it's going to get even worse though, and XP x64 will lag after the worst.:shakes:

Well, it does make sense because, who are the majority of Vista owners that play games? Enthusiast. Who is most likely going to be using CF setups? Enthusiast. It would make sense to forcus driver developmetn on a platform where most of your users are going to be.

I am sure that since most sites test with Vista that has a little to do with it as well.
09-07-2008, 03:06 AM
jmke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sr7

They claim performance in DMC4 goes up on ATI with AA applied? umm what?

they also mention that it's most likely a software bug, only present with ATI on using the DX10 path. Don't see what else could be added, it was not a single bugged run, it did it every time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sr7

This is laughable because it's such poor logic. What you'd want is that there be NO difference between XP and Vista. They paint the "gains" in Vista as a plus.. when in fact it's just a testament to poor ATI XP performance...

wait... what? it's not a poor logic, it's just mentioning the performance effect going from XP to Vista. Nothing more, nothing less. CF scaling fails in XP for two games, but even without those performance overall is better on Vista compared to XP for ATI. NVIDIA is not bad either, where XP and Vista performance are basically on par. Only when AA is thrown in the mix you really see a nice boost under Vista using ATI (-20% in XP, -10% in Vista performance hit going to 4xAA);

only the facts are mentioned, and if you are a gamer, you are better of with Vista when using ATI, no poor logic there...
09-07-2008, 03:48 AM
bigslappy

Quote:

Originally Posted by safan80

I like my 4870x2 way better than my GTX280. the sad thing I can't get both of my 4870x2s working on my DFI even with the latest bios 8/29.

edit: the image quality is much better on my 4870x2 compared to my gtx 280.

Yeah ,I noticed that as soon as it booted up DAMN that looks way better even on the wall paper
09-07-2008, 09:53 AM
ahmad

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

they also mention that it's most likely a software bug, only present with ATI on using the DX10 path. Don't see what else could be added, it was not a single bugged run, it did it every time.

wait... what? it's not a poor logic, it's just mentioning the performance effect going from XP to Vista. Nothing more, nothing less. CF scaling fails in XP for two games, but even without those performance overall is better on Vista compared to XP for ATI. NVIDIA is not bad either, where XP and Vista performance are basically on par. Only when AA is thrown in the mix you really see a nice boost under Vista using ATI (-20% in XP, -10% in Vista performance hit going to 4xAA);

only the facts are mentioned, and if you are a gamer, you are better of with Vista when using ATI, no poor logic there...

QFT :up:

I could not make a response that nice and easy to understand as yours. I get angry when I see posts like that.
09-07-2008, 11:25 AM
Seraphiel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper

and why would ATI bother with driver optimisations for XP if 99 out of 100 new desktop systems come with Vista?

Because more people have XP than Vista, and in the end ATI and nVIDIA should optimize for both systems.

Only reason I will get Vista is support for 2 x HD 4780 X2. If it wasn't that I wouldn't bother with it ... for now.

Not that I don't like Vista, it is simply just because I see no reason aside from that one to upgrade from XP to Vista. I am not into getting the latest and new simply because it is just that, I want a somewhat good reason to upgrade and I finally have one. DX10, Aero and everything else new in Vista aren't compelling enough to me.

I am sad to see ATI is not as focused upon XP yet, but it should eventually happen.
09-07-2008, 11:38 AM
Bo_Fox

Quote:

Originally Posted by xMrBunglex

i am confident that ATI's XP CrossFire performance will catch up to Vista soon. my fear was that XP would always be trailing behind Vista by a month or two. that is the only reason i got myself a copy of Vista 64.

so far i've noticed:

-Race Driver GRID runs well with CrossFire enabled in Vista. it was buggy in XP.

-Gears of War runs a little better when i use DX10 w/ AA. in XP i had to run DX9 and force AA through the driver. i like the Vista method better. i imagine this applies to most or all UE3-based games. any UE3 game with DX10 AA is going to be better in Vista.

-ATI's driver installer for Vista is like a whole new generation of software. this style of installer hasn't been used for XP drivers yet. i really like the new interface.

Ok, here I go..

I've been dual-booting with XP-32bit on my main HD and Vista 64-bit Ultimate on my Raptor HD for a couple months now. The only reason why I got Vista is because of DX10 support (and that I'd need a 64-bit OS anyways to use more than 4GB of RAM).

So far, DX10 fails to impress me much at all.

-Crysis runs with pretty much all the DX10 candy via tweaks in XP, with faster performance.

-For most DX10 games, the performance hit with enabling DX10 is still a bit too much for even my 8800GTX'es (since I usually game at 1920x1200, let alone FSAA).

-Bioshock in DX10 does not allow FSAA, not even if it's "forced" in the drivers. The DX10 benefits only relate to water ripples and a bit of fog, and I would much rather enjoy 4x FSAA instead in XP.

-Fonts are more blurry in Vista. I turned off Truetype font, and it just still rubs me the wrong way--it's not just the font but the whole interface. Hopefully there will be more programs to support Vista desktop customization like Windows Blinds or StyleXP.

-Vista still does not allow for some programs and older legacy hardware products especially in 64-bit mode, thanks to the required driver signing! A program like PeerGuardian 2 is really important to me, but there's nothing like it for Vista! I cant even use my Logitech Wingman Formula Force (the smoothest racing wheel ever made) on Vista 64-bit:down:!

-There's still no way for me to game in stereo-3D with my shutter glasses in Vista. True, Nvidia has Vista support for anaglyph (red/blue) glasses, even in DX10 games :up: but anaglyph 3-D loses red and cyan colors compared to shutterglasses :down:.

Remember how long it took for some of us to finally adapt to WinXP from Win98SE or WinME? I was using WinME for at least 2 years before WinXP finally became feasible with gaming performance and driver support. It's all deja-vu, except that Vista is getting a lot more flak this time IMHO.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page