Gaming Performance

Users expecting to use the current Vista beta as a gaming platform are going to be the most disappointed. The results of our gaming benchmarks largely speak for themselves.

Gaming Performance (1280x1024)
  XP Vista x86 Vista x64
3DMark 2006 2749 2533 2088
Doom 3 79.3 59.5 60.5
Doom 3 4xAA 58.8 47.7 49.3
Half-Life 2 81.46 61.19 N/A
Half-Life 2 4xAA 76.25 49.73 N/A
Black and White 2 22.3 23.3 23.6
Black and White 2 4xAA 19.5 15.3 15.3


The overall performance penalty on the current version of Vista depends largely on what the game is. Among the games tested, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why some games do worse than others. The only clear pattern is that Vista gaming performance is almost universally worse than under XP.

With antialiasing off, with the exception of Black and White 2, everything takes a moderate to significant performance hit. 3DMark, which we normally shy away from but tends to make a good diagnostic tool in situations like this, shows Vista x86 only trailing XP by a small margin, whereas the x64 version is doing significantly worse. However, in the games that would work under Vista x64 (HL2 would not work; its 64-bit binary would not accept our benchmark), Vista x64 is doing no worse than Vista x86.

If this means that Vista x64 is only suffering under a fraction of games or if this is an issue with 3DMark isn't something we can determine, but we're leery of the x64 version of Vista at this point anyhow, due to other reasons (more on that later). As for the slightly more compatible Vista x86, half of our tests have it coming in 25% slower under XP when antialiasing is off, which doesn't bode well for the fledgling operating system at this point. How much of this is early drivers, an early OS, or the result of still-active debugging code remains to be seen.

Antialiasing seems to be a significant sticking point for Vista right now, as our entire suite of test scores dive hard with it enabled on Vista versus XP. Half-Life 2 ended up facing the largest drop, more than 30% off from its numbers under XP, and while Doom 3 actually suffered less of a drop than without antialiasing, it's clear that there's something holding up our test bed when antialiasing is enabled. This unfortunately is a double whammy for gaming enthusiasts using top of the line cards like the 7900 and X1900 series, as this kind of slowdown affects them the most since they're the most capable of using antialiasing in the first place. It's hard to recommend gaming under the current Vista beta given that these performance drops are the largest for those who are most likely to be able to cope with a beta operating system and the high system requirements.

It's also worth noting that with our OpenGL title, Doom 3, we did not encounter any issues other than the normal performance slowdown. There had been some concern earlier about how using a full OpenGL client driver will force Vista to disable the desktop compositing engine since OpenGL takes full control of the GPU, and that GPU makers may switch to a slower OpenGL wrapper for Direct3D to keep the compositing engine working. While firing up Doom 3 did indeed disable the DCE, it's not a problem since Doom 3 is a full screen game that doesn't even normally allow Alt+Tabbing. OpenGL engines may not be as popular as they once were (largely in part to the slower adoption of the Doom 3 engine), but between the gaming market and the professional workstation market, both of which desire a full-performance OpenGL implementation, it doesn't seem like OpenGL is going to suffer on Vista as much as earlier feared. We may yet see some issues with certain professional applications, but many of the workstation users we know are still running Windows 2000 anyway.

More Impressions and Test Setup General Performance
Comments Locked

75 Comments

View All Comments

  • rqle - Friday, June 16, 2006 - link

    dont really need bad memory module, overclock the memory just a tad bit to give errors while keeping the cpu clock constant or known stable clock.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, June 16, 2006 - link

    That still only works if the memory fails. Plenty of DIMMs can handle moderate overclocks. Anyway, it's not a huge deal I don't think - something that can sometimes prove useful if you're experiencing instabilities and think the RAM is the cause, but even then I've had DIMMs fail MemTest86 when it turned out the be a motherboard issue... or simply bad timings in the BIOS.
  • PrinceGaz - Saturday, June 17, 2006 - link

    Erm, no. Just overclock and/or use tighter-timings on a known good module beyond the point at which it is 100% stable. It might still seem okay in general usage but Memtest86 will spot problems with it. Now see if Vista's memory tester also spots problems with it. Pretty straightforward to test.
  • xFlankerx - Friday, June 16, 2006 - link

    I love how I was browsing the website, and I just refresh the page, and there's a brand new article there...simply amazing.
  • xFlankerx - Friday, June 16, 2006 - link

    Masterful piece of work though. Excellent Job.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now