Very disappointed with Vista's performance especially gaming!

I must say after 3 months now I am very disappointed with Vista Ultimate x64
when it comes to gaming and general performance. I have a core2 e6600, 4gb
of DDR II 800MHZ, 2 raptor X 150GB 10,000rpm hard drives in a RAID-0 and the
darn thing is still considerably slower at EVERYTHING than my XP pro which
is installed onto a single Samsung spin-point 40gb drive! I fail to see how
something that is supposedly better and more modern is so much slower. I
doubled the ram from 2 to 4gb and it made no noticeable difference in load
times or hd activity while gaming. THe background tasks are supposed to be
low priority but the just happen to coincide with lag? Programs like MS
Flight SIM X and BF2, BF 2142 take forever to load in comparison not to
mention there are frequent lag spikes during game play. I just feel that for
Gaming Vista is a huge step backwards. I hope that future updates/service
packs do something for the performance because so far I am not seeing any
reason to continue using Vista on a Gaming PC. All of my hardware is vista
x64 compatible and I have latest drivers and BIOS. It's just Vista. It's
slow!!!

 

Are you running Vista x64 instead of 32 bit?

 

Yes but I have supported drivers for all hardware.

 

Well that's your problem.

You need to be running a 32 bit OS on a 32 bit processor and a 64 bit OS on
64 bit processor.

And not running 32 bit software on a 64 bit OS.

Slows everything down.

I have graphic intensive Battle Field 2 and it runs fine on 32 bit Vista.

 

You might have misunderstood me. I have a 64bit cpu and a 64bit OS. I have
run both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions on this system. Don't see much of a
performance difference at all. If anything 64 bit seems faster.

 

Having used 64 bit edition on a comparable system to my own, it did seem
slightly faster. But running 32bit apps in a 64 bit OS always seems to have
a performance drop.

 

I have Vista Business on an Asus A8N5X with an AMD 4800 X2 AMD x1800xt 2
gigs ram with a 250 Gig HD. Have XP Pro on an Asus A8N5X with AMD 4600 X2
Nvidia 7900GT 2 gigs ram and 120 gig HD. The XP machine feels quicker

 

I have Vista Business on a ASUS PC-DL Deluxe motherboard, Dual 2.8ghz
Xeon CPU (with Hyper threading enabled), Mirrored 200GB SATA drives, 4GB
RAM, and a cheap 128MB AGP card and I can say that on the exact SAME
computer, that XP and/or Server 2003 provides MUCH BETTER PERFORMANCE.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(remove 999 for proper email address)

 

Yes that also.

The same thing occured when Windows 95 came out and people running 16 bit
apps on the 32 bit OS.

He is going to either go back to 32 bit or by another computer with a 32 bit
CPU.

before Vista I had XP x64 and XP on the same computer dual booting.
Had to when playing games. All the games were just too slow on 64 bit OS.

 

Yes for 32 bit apps, but when trying to run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS it
goes to crap because it has to emulate 32 bit.

 

Yep, and the majority of systems are 32 bit as are the applications.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(remove 999 for proper email address)

 

Geekboy did you read my post? I said I tried both and the 64 bit was faster
to load in general and in benchmarks than the 32bit vista so your 32 bit
application on 64bit OS theory doesn't appear to be true.

 

It's not a "theory", it's a fact

If you are still having problems the you prob have a defective motherboard
or some other part.

I have had those bad notherboards where for some reason the board ran like
crap and I exchanged out the board and it ran a heck of a lot faster.

I have a cousin same problem with a bad MB on a laptop.
Everything I did the thing just ran like crap....even just booting seemed to
take forever.

Exhanged it under warranty..problem solved.

 

None of my parts are defective and I am not having any "problems" All of my
benchmarks and games perform well just not nearly as fast as XP. I have XP
still on another drive and if I boot from that it is fast as can be. Bottom
line is VIsta at this point cannot compete with XP for performance. Just
because that is true does not mean I have faulty hardware.

 

If that is the case, then I think the problem lies in with your video.
With PCIE it perform a lot better than with AGP.

If I had $300 to spare, I would solve my slower Vista performance problem.
I had bought a $75 nVidia 7300 back in March, but it only increased te Index
Peformance by .7
That sucks.

What is is your perforance index rated at?

 

With that index, there must be something else going on.

Maybe you should run 3rd party peformance tests like the ones PC Magazine or
Ziff Davis uses for their opinon on a cmputer.








I don't have AGP I have an Nvidia 8800GTS, that is a PCI express card

 

False, in that the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit is nothing like
the 16-bit to 32-bit.


In the Win95 / NT 3.x era, new processors such as the Pentium Pro and
(to a lesser extent) the Pentium II were heavily optimised for 32-bit
code, whereas older processors were not. So there was a large YMMV
element in 16-bit vs. 32-bit code performance.

In that era, the move to 32-bit came after the processor hardware had
been in place throughout the 386, 486 and Pentium generations. It
took ages for OS and software to catch up, and the new 32-bit code
world was vastly different in ways beyond addresing range - think
pre-emptive multitasking, hypervisor control over application code,
virtual memory paging, address relocation, etc.


In this era of early 64-bit computing, we do have completely new
64-bit processors, but they have remained niche products. What you
currently refer to as "64-bit" processors are merely variations of
32-bit processors with 64-bit addressability added on.

So aside from the ability to address larger scopes, such as > 4G RAM,
there really isn'yt much inherent value in moving to 64-bit computing.
Much of what value there is, has been compatibility-shedding security
enhancements such as PatchGuard, mandatory driver signing, etc.


The downsides of 64-bit are a far smaller subset of compatible drivers
and utilities. Other applications generally don't need to care
whether they are on a 32-bit or "64-bit" platform, though 64-bit users
would like them to make use of 64-bit addressability.

In particular, consider your WinPE 2.0 maintenance OS:
- WinPE 2.0 64-bit will not access 32-bit Vista, and vice versa
- so you have to use 64-bit WinPE 2.0
- 64-bit WinPE 2.0 will not run 64-bit programs
- so you have to use 64-bit av, data recovery, diagnostic etc. tools

It's hard enough to find maintenance tools that will work from WinPE,
without them having to be 64-bit as well.


In particular, the assertion that "he is going to either go back to 32
bit or b(u)y another computer with a 32 bit CPU" is totally absurd.
All current CPUs are likely to have 64-bit support, and that means all
current (new) PCs are running Vista32 on "64-bit" CPUs.

The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope

 

Couple of points to consider. First, the 8800 is an awesome board, but
nVidia's drivers have been problems...do you keep up with the latest drivers
of the week?

Raid slows things down too - are you using hardware raid or software? Do you
really need raid?

Have you tweaked the system to enhance performance? Turn off the sidebar,
disable the Windows Search service. Download Microsoft's "autoruns" utility
to see what's in your startup, and get rid of a lot of it. What are you
running for antivirus?

Dana Cline - MCE MVP

 

I am no longer running raid but it was hardware raid-0 or striped.

I am always getting the latest drivers for the 8800.

I have tweaked the system about as much as I can without losing
functionality. Disabled indexing, sidebar, system restore. Not much help.

My performance is not by any means poor, the only thing that was
disappointing to me (very disappointing I might add) is the fact that my XP
partition loads so much faster, is so much more responsive. I can click
multiple things without waiting and the hard drive isnt running all the
time. With 10krpm Raptors this is very annoying to listen to all the time

I don't think that a newer more modern system should be that much slower.
With that being said I think my rating is not bad at all (5.2) and I have
seen numerous other systems with ratings of 2 or 3. It's all relative to XP.
Maybe I'm just asking to much for it to be as fast...

 

Have you checked each drive properties to see if index box is checked?
Made one hell of a difference on 2 machines here. Uncheck it.

In general I find the same things as you and have removable drives so
hardware is identical so I would compare as follows.

Vista 32 is slower than XP on 32 bit machine.

Vista 32 on 64 bit machine is somewhat slower than XP 32 on 64 bit machine.

Vista 64 is slower still than XP 32 on 64 bit machine.

XP 64 is a waste of space on any machine, no drivers etc.

Unless you have some software that requires 64 bit OS stick with 32. Of
course your experience might differ so it's probably cheaper to try both