Gaming Performance - OpenGL
Moving on to OpenGL and Quake 4, we'll be able to see how well NVIDIA and AMD have done in building their own OpenGL ICD (installable client driver) for the API. This is more taxing on hardware vendors, because Microsoft's implementation of OpenGL is just a wrapper around DirectX. By default, unless an ICD is used, OpenGL applications cannot talk directly to the hardware.
We did have some issues with Quake 4 as well. We were unable to get the application to run stable with multi-core support enabled, so we tested without this option. Even on Windows XP we see much higher numbers during CPU limited testing with this option enabled, but we will have to do without for a while. It isn't clear whether this is a problem with the game, with Vista, or with OpenGL, but hopefully it will be resolved (preferably sooner rather than later).
As expected, OpenGL performance is much worse both in CPU limited and GPU limited cases. The reason the low end AMD cards look better off here is that their performance is simply bad across the board. NVIDIA seems to perform closer to XP in general here, and both companies are saying that performance will improve over time. GPU limited performance does seem to improve over CPU limited performance, indicating that driver overhead on the CPU is a major factor contributing to the reduced frame rates.
Now let's take a look at how Vista x64 compares. This will actually serve as a good test of how well NVIDIA and AMD have implemented their x86 and x64 versions of their OpenGL ICD as well.
Again, the low end AMD cards just look like they are doing better because they perform poorly in general. In CPU limited cases, x64 actually seems to perform better than under 32-bit Vista, and even GPU limited performance is very close between the Vista versions. This could indicate that AMD and NVIDIA's OpenGL ICDs benefit from 64-bit processing, even if the game itself does not. However, unlike Oblivion, the performance of Quake 4 in Windows Vista is substantially slower than under XP, sometimes as much as 30% slower.
Last up for Quake 4 is resolution scaling.
While it's very clear that XP is a better option for OpenGL apps right now, there are no real scaling surprises. The CPU performance/driver overhead seems to be a bigger factor in reduced Vista scores than the actual GPUs, as the scores tend to get closer in GPU limited situations.
Gaming Performance - x64
Finally, we have Half-Life 2: Lost Coast with its native 64-bit application running under Vista x64. Is it worth it? We're only providing resolution scaling results for this game.
Clearly the 64-bit application runs slower than the 32-bit, especially at CPU limited resolutions. Even the games we tested running under WoW in 32-bit mode on Vista x64 showed better performance parity with Vista x86 and Windows XP. While the resources are there to offer better performance with more registers and better memory management (especially on systems with more than 4GB of RAM), there is clearly something that's lacking here. It is likely that Valve has more work to do on their 64-bit Source engine, but we can't rule out Vista x64 as a factor altogether.
We had hoped to see better performance from a native 64-bit game, but it looks like we'll have to wait longer until game developers figure out how to capitalize on the extra resources available under Vista x64 without adversely affecting performance.
Moving on to OpenGL and Quake 4, we'll be able to see how well NVIDIA and AMD have done in building their own OpenGL ICD (installable client driver) for the API. This is more taxing on hardware vendors, because Microsoft's implementation of OpenGL is just a wrapper around DirectX. By default, unless an ICD is used, OpenGL applications cannot talk directly to the hardware.
We did have some issues with Quake 4 as well. We were unable to get the application to run stable with multi-core support enabled, so we tested without this option. Even on Windows XP we see much higher numbers during CPU limited testing with this option enabled, but we will have to do without for a while. It isn't clear whether this is a problem with the game, with Vista, or with OpenGL, but hopefully it will be resolved (preferably sooner rather than later).
As expected, OpenGL performance is much worse both in CPU limited and GPU limited cases. The reason the low end AMD cards look better off here is that their performance is simply bad across the board. NVIDIA seems to perform closer to XP in general here, and both companies are saying that performance will improve over time. GPU limited performance does seem to improve over CPU limited performance, indicating that driver overhead on the CPU is a major factor contributing to the reduced frame rates.
Now let's take a look at how Vista x64 compares. This will actually serve as a good test of how well NVIDIA and AMD have implemented their x86 and x64 versions of their OpenGL ICD as well.
Again, the low end AMD cards just look like they are doing better because they perform poorly in general. In CPU limited cases, x64 actually seems to perform better than under 32-bit Vista, and even GPU limited performance is very close between the Vista versions. This could indicate that AMD and NVIDIA's OpenGL ICDs benefit from 64-bit processing, even if the game itself does not. However, unlike Oblivion, the performance of Quake 4 in Windows Vista is substantially slower than under XP, sometimes as much as 30% slower.
Last up for Quake 4 is resolution scaling.
While it's very clear that XP is a better option for OpenGL apps right now, there are no real scaling surprises. The CPU performance/driver overhead seems to be a bigger factor in reduced Vista scores than the actual GPUs, as the scores tend to get closer in GPU limited situations.
Gaming Performance - x64
Finally, we have Half-Life 2: Lost Coast with its native 64-bit application running under Vista x64. Is it worth it? We're only providing resolution scaling results for this game.
Clearly the 64-bit application runs slower than the 32-bit, especially at CPU limited resolutions. Even the games we tested running under WoW in 32-bit mode on Vista x64 showed better performance parity with Vista x86 and Windows XP. While the resources are there to offer better performance with more registers and better memory management (especially on systems with more than 4GB of RAM), there is clearly something that's lacking here. It is likely that Valve has more work to do on their 64-bit Source engine, but we can't rule out Vista x64 as a factor altogether.
We had hoped to see better performance from a native 64-bit game, but it looks like we'll have to wait longer until game developers figure out how to capitalize on the extra resources available under Vista x64 without adversely affecting performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
105 Comments
View All Comments
Lifted - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
That's odd. I can search network drives using XP Pro. Maybe it's a Pro vs. Home issue?
Was also wondering about the network test myself. 10MB/s file copy on XP Pro seems abysmally slow when using gigabit NIC's. Just testing right now I about 35MB/s between a pair of 5 year old servers (dual Xeon 1GHz) with Intel GB NIC's. I haven't checked transfer rates with XP as I'm on a 10/100 switch at the moment, but I can't believe it's really THAT much slower than 2003.
Aikouka - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
I remember running a gigabit cross-over (CAT6) cable between my roommate's computer and my computer in college. We achieved about 33MB/s (through FTP) running Windows XP Professional on each. So I'd say that you'd probably see about the same speed if you were running a gigabit switch.mjz - Monday, February 5, 2007 - link
i think windows xp sets a limit when downloading from another computer to 33MB/s..Nehemoth - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Same here.I just wanna Vista for the improve TCP/IP Stack, now I'll wait for SP1
tallsummi - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
I'll wait for SP2 of vista and then go for it..keitaro - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Perhaps Microsoft should have copied the idea from Novell's SUSE Linux Desktop (powered by XGL and compiz). The compiz software package (compositor and window manager) comes with its own alt-tab that surpasses Flip 3D in every way. http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/xg...">See here for a look at what XGL and compiz can do.mlambert890 - Friday, February 2, 2007 - link
I think that xgl crap is an overenginered waste that adds 0 productivity. Flip 3d gives you the one thing you need - a live shot of running apps. Who the hell needs some spinning cube? And look how bad video playback perf is in that Novell demo...bleh... I dont feel myself drawn back to 1992 when I lived and breathed Novell; sorry...
Locutus465 - Friday, February 2, 2007 - link
I dont' know, personally I like flip 3d better..archcommus - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
The article makes me a bit sad about Vista. It made me realize - wow, yeah, it really IS a shame that Vista doesn't totally smash OS X Tiger given how long it's been in development and how long Tiger has been out for. I guess they just got in such a rut of catch-up that not many new revolutionary features could be developed.In particular, I'm disappointed with how similar (and ugly) certain aspects of Vista look compared to XP, for example the quick launch area, system tray, clock, and the overall taskbar. With the exception of the Start buttion being replaced by an "orb," it looks EXACTLY the same as XP, and this could have been and should have been revamped to improve productivity. Quick launch is just...stupid, and ugly. All it is is additional shortcuts, and they waste taskbar space. I think a small menu that appears and disappears on the fly would be nicer. I'm not sure what improvements to suggest for the taskbar, all I know is, with how pretty the rest of the OS looks, the application blocks down there just look out of place. Same with the system tray icons.
Explorer is better though and the transparency is great. It's too bad x64 performance and drivers aren't up to snuff yet.
thebrown13 - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Microsoft has to cater to about 349852395472039 more software programs.That's why. Updates, bug fixes, feature designing, it all takes A LOT longer than with an OS with 5 people that use it, like Apple.
We're lucky the mainstream OS isn't MUCH farther behind.