Windows 7 Gaming Performance or Lack Thereof and Random Thoughts

TestFreaks Data
Galaxy S6 Cases on Amazon


Windows 7 the beta! Yep got me one along with most people reading this I’m sure, is it all that? Not sure yet as it’s just a beta. Though if you look around the web you’ll find many sites touting the superiority of W7 over Vista and even (god forbid I say anything bad about it) XP, I still can’t figure out how they do this with a beta, maybe they know something I don’t…

Of course I still read all of the Vista bashing and well and it rather ticks me off, there’s nothing wrong with Vista at all actually, I’ve been running it since it came out and I haven’t had any problems at all really. Now if I go back to XP, well that was a nightmare when that came out, hardly anything I had worked in terms of hardware, even stuff that was brand new didn’t work with XP, but when I installed Vista everything worked fine. I can remember getting it the day it came out, all excited to run home and install it only to run into more headaches than I care to remember, I hated it honestly, nothing worked right at all. When I read all of the Vista bashing and how wonderful XP is, it makes me wonder if any of these people actually remember the problems with XP when it came out, the numerous hardware and software incompatibilities that existed with that OS, none of that was there with Vista. Sure I ran into some small issues, but everything worked, every piece of software, every piece of hardware that I used on my XP system I installed on Vista and it worked, and I can’t say the same for when I upgraded to XP though, I had to quit using programs, I couldn’t use hardware that I recently bought, and it crashed quite often, no such things to report with my upgrade to Vista though.

So I’m happy with Vista, some might call me an MS or Windows Fanboy, but not really, I’ve tried flavors of Linux, and my netbook has it installed, but I like what I know, and you’ve got to admit there’s just tons of stuff for Windows as opposed to the other operating systems out there in terms of both hardware and software. As I said I’ve been using Vista Ultimate Edition since it came out, first 32bit, then I got 64bit and I’m more than happy with it, it’s much faster and quicker in everything than XP ever was. I did have XP installed as well on a second hard drive, I would just swap them out via mobile rack when I wanted to switch between Vista and XP, but not anymore, XP is no longer on this machine, about 8 months ago I formatted the hard drive and haven’t looked back, it was to the point I never used it anymore anyway so what was the point of it taking up space. When I went from Vista to XP it was reminiscent of going from XP to Windows Me, it sucked, it was so much slower to do everything, XP is officially dead in my eyes. I’ll say it, XP sucks compared to Vista, and I don’t care what anyone else thinks either…

On to W7 now, or sort of, I was on Digg earlier and I saw something on the front page that made me LOL, someone submitted a Gizmodo link about them getting a BSOD on Windows 7, and the comments on Digg and Gizmodo are funny as well, they’re talking like W7 is a failure already because  Gizmodo got a BSOD, it’s a fracking BETA, get over it, it’s bound to happen, I don’t understand how that makes it to the front page of Digg and gets all of this publicity. XP BSOD all the time but no one made a big deal about that, they tout XP as the best OS in the world, unless of course if you’re using OSX or Linux and then they’ll tell you theirs is the best, but I’m not going there today…

So, Windows 7 right now is a beta, and at this stage people are already judging it as if it were a finished product, I’m not sure if a public beta was in the best interest of this OS really, it seems people are taking this beta as the finished product and making assumptions about how the final product is going to perform, you know what they say about assuming things right?

So yes, it is a beta, but I felt the need to cover it as news or an article for those that might be interested in it, I’m interested in it of course, and I’m sure others are as well.

Installing Windows 7 was the fastest OS install I’ve yet encountered, it installed in under 20 minutes for me, from start to usable desktop. The installation screens are familiar, they look  like those of Vista, there’s nothing new there.

DSCF2486 DSCF2483 DSCF2484 DSCF2491 DSCF2496 DSCF2495


Once I was at the desktop everything was installed by W7, no problems there, everything worked fine with Windows default drivers, but to do testing on the gaming or video performance I hopped over the ATI and grabbed the W7 beta Catalyst drivers, that’s where I ran into a problem, not with the OS but with the drivers. See, I run two video cards, not SLI, or CrossFire, but just two separately, my main card is a Diamond Radeon 4870 1gig to run my main monitor, a 22" 1680×1050 Envision LCD, then I have a secondary X1800GTO video card to run my dual 17" Samsung LCDs that are just extra desktop real estate. The ATI beta drivers didn’t recognize the X1800GTO as an ATI card, guess it’s just too old, or seeing as they are beta drivers, support isn’t there yet. So as of now I’m running two 4870 cards doing the same thing as I did with the other two cards so I can run my three monitors. Not a problem with the OS, just the drivers, something ATI can fix themselves.


Other than that everything works fine, I’ve got an Epson WorkForce 600 network printer that is connected to my network wirelessly, Windows 7 saw that printer and I just had to click install and now my printer works with W7, no disc, no configuration, no work on my part to get the printer to work even though it’s on the network, that was a pleasant surprise. Another small surprise was that when the printer was installed and I opened up Printers and Faxes I saw my the WorkForce 600 there, and I don’t mean it was installed, and actual icon was there that looked exactly like the Epson WorkForce 600 printer, not some generic printer icon, a small detail but rather cool nonetheless.

I went about installing basic programs I figured I would need, no problems there until I came to SiSoft Sandra 2009, it installed but just wouldn’t work correctly, I didn’t play with it too much, so I may have missed something in the configuration.

While I was playing around with the desktop I checked out Windows Sidebar, I like it and use it in Vista, I was happy to see that it’s not a sidebar anymore but single gadgets that you can place anywhere on your desktop or other monitors.


So next was installing games, Crysis installed fine, FarCry 2 installed fine, then I installed Stalker Clear Sky, it installed but every time I tried to start the game it would tell me to insert the disc, yes the disc was in the drive, the only thing I could think of is that the failure has something to do with the protection on the game. Next game I installed was Call of Duty World at War, and that didn’t work at all basically, it started to install, but it kept throwing out errors that it couldn’t find a file on the disc and to make sure I had permission to access the file, it’s a DVD, not sure why that didn’t work.

I said Crysis installed, yes it installed and worked, but only in Direct X 9 mode, when I tried Direct X 10 it would crash every time I tried it no matter what I did, and yes it was patched.

I did also run into some other small problems with programs not running correctly but they were fixed by just clicking ‘Run as Administrator’ and they worked perfectly after that.

So for testing here today for you I was hoping to have a few games for comparison, but as of now I really don’t, I’ve only got FarCry2 in DX9 and DX10, Crysis in DX9 and I ran 3DMark06 as well. I mentioned earlier I was using a 4870 1gig, but I’m currently reviewing a 4870 512mb, so that’s the main card used in all of the testing.

I’ve got Windows 7 installed on my main PC which basically consists of an Intel C2q6600 and 8 gigs of ram, and I did run the Windows Experience test as well just to see where my system stands, got a 6.3.


So Vista is also installed on the same machine, just a different hard drive, exact same configuration, and that’s what or how I’m comparing the performance today, Windows 7 to Vista.

Just remember that this is a beta OS with beta drivers, so take the results with a grain of salt…

First up is 3dmark06:


Scores are close, not bad for a beta.

Next is Crysis DX9 testing:

Settings are High, 1680×1050 Resolution with 2xAA enabled.


not bad but not good either, below the magical 30FPS on average


Finally we have FarCry2 in both DX9 and DX10.

Demo(Ranch Small), 1680×1050 (59Hz),  Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(2x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)


not good here really either… oh well, just lower the settings and it’ll be fine, at least it works right.

Here’s the DX10 chart:


W7 does a little better running DX10 but not enough…

So anyway that’s that, I just wanted to throw this out there now for people to ponder over, remember though it’s just a beta and not indicative of the final product really.

So let me get some more time with the OS and I’ll be back with tons more screenshots and impressions, along with some performance numbers as well for the system testing.

So far though I do like it, even if it resembles Vista quite a bit, but that could be why I like it…

  52 comments for “Windows 7 Gaming Performance or Lack Thereof and Random Thoughts

  1. K
    January 14, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    “ATI Radeon beta drivers for Windows 7 are still buggy POS” – news at 11.

    Had you tested with NVIDIA hardware, the conclusions would be different. It’s not the OS, it’s the unfinished beta drivers.

  2. kristofer
    January 14, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    No I didn’t test it with Nvidia, I was thinking about it though, I’ve got two 8600GTS cards sitting here that I was thinking of running in there when I get time, and to test SLI as well to see if there’s any difference.. but the problems I encountered didn’t have much to do with the ATI drivers though I would think

  3. Anonymous
    January 14, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    Download and installed the ATI catalyst 8.11 or 8.12’s for vista and install them…

    and retest…. typically the numbers will be identical and in some cases slightly higher on the win7 version.. the preview drivers are quite dated.

  4. Anonymous
    January 14, 2009 at 9:17 pm

    I use a 8800gts 512 and a q6600 @ 3.0 and i get 30 fps in crysis warhead and before i got 25 in gamer mode. In windows 7 i was on entusiust and i got 25 and before vista it was unplayable.

  5. MarauderXP
    January 15, 2009 at 12:36 am

    Yeah it is definately the drivers causing the weakened performance. I have a heavily OC’ed 8800gtx and performance under 7 using latest Nvidia drivers was superior (albeit mainly only slightly) to that of XP’s and Vista’s in all games I’ve played so far (including Far Cry 2).

    Maybe at the moment there are some differences in 7’s Directx and maybe a bit more optimized for Nvidia drivers or something?

  6. Jman
    January 15, 2009 at 3:55 am

    One thing about any Beta Os it has alot of Debugging code still built into the OS and as far as Vista over XP. Xp was an upgrade from Windows 2000. Comparing win2k to XP is apples to oranges. Win2k wasn’t built with with home users in mind. Xp was and it required quite a bit of redesign over win2k to make it so. Vista is more of an apples to apples to XP. Most of the differences are really more cosmetic and some updated security procedures. Since the changes didnt really fundamentaly change the core of the OS Vista had a much cleaner product. Win7 Im sure will be of the same caliber of Vista. Win7 is just losing all the damn fat that Vista brings to the table.

  7. Zoltan
    January 15, 2009 at 10:22 am

    Nice review. Finally somebody with the same opinions as me, Im so tired of ppl complaining about Vista about thigs that really is very easy to work around or dissable. Ppl complained a lot about the security in XP, and when they finally turned up the security in Vista ppl complained about the security being to restrictive.. … … …

  8. Dan Buske
    January 15, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    My problem with Vista is it would automatically install MS wddm video drivers without asking on install. The wddm drivers do not support all the features of my gpu, thus opengl would not run saying the opengl api could not be found.
    2 Hours with MS on the phone and they couldn’t fix it eventhough they knew what was wrong from the get go.
    MS really does not care about gaming on the PC. They have the xbox 360 for that! They would love it if the PC OS would not run games. They had to be forced to develop DirectX to begin with.

  9. X-Zone
    January 15, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    You are right. Vista is way better…I should upgrade my motherboard so I can run 4 gigs of ram. That way the OS has 2 gigs, and my games have two gigs. Then i can get the same performance as xp. Maybe it’s great for people that don’t have gaming rigs, but for games there is no appeal in vista, and the resource hog it is. The majority of people I hear complaining are gamers, and they have every right to complain. Vista is a resource whore and has no stripped down version.

  10. jebus
    January 15, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    Some people seriously need to google how Vista’s memory management works. I know I’d rather have the OS utilizing as much of my RAM as possible when its available rather than letting it sit there unused.

  11. GoatofMendez
    January 15, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    The fact that the author bangs on about there being nothing wrong with Vista invalidates the rest of the article straight off the bat. I’m a dev and work with 15 MS platform PC’s (dev and testing etc) the Vista machines are slow, bloated and unintuative to use. No more than eye candy, not built for power users but the surfer.

    User clicks control panel Icon;
    “are you sure you want to open that? Yes. really sure? Yes! really really sure?? aawwwwww f£$%%!!£$ off”

    The basic thing wrong with Vista is that MS built it to be a big brother and stop people getting viruses etc. Good idea… but it has to be the worst implementation of an idea I’ve ever seen!

    Vista = Windows ME (II)

    PS as mentioned I’m a dev and know hundreds of professionals in the IT industry, I had a count up of all those professionals to see how many use Vista for their personal or direct chosen working OS.

    The count was ZERO.

  12. kristofer
    January 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    Hi there Mendez – Thanks for your comment, and you’re entitled to your opinion, and of course I’m entitled to disagree with it.

    I’m not sure where you get the whole “slow, bloated and unintuative to use” comment as I find that Vista is much faster and snappier than XP ever was.

    The point you make about UAC invalidates your whole comment really in that you can turn it off very easily and it won’t do that, everyone I know that uses Vista turns it off because it is annoying, if you have actually have PC knowledge and leave UAC on then you must enjoy the aggravation it causes you. I think it works well at protecting people from themselves, those that aren’t PC savvy need something like this really. If a novice turns it off and gets a virus or other problem it’s their own fault, it was built to protect the end user.

    If you’re a dev and have UAC turned on then… I just can’t comment on that at all…

    as I said in the article I’ve used Vista since it came out, and I will tell you that I had no problems with it honestly, I’m very happy with and I will never go back to XP as it is slow in comparison to Vista, it’s a decrepit old dinosaur that needs to be retired.

    Your comments resemble those from the Anti-Vista crowd, those people that have never tried Vista, but yet will tell you right out that the OS sucks.

  13. TestVistafanboysblog
    January 15, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    Hahaha you are full of BS Mr. Vista fanboy
    XP SP3 is lighter stable and faster from Vista

    I have also tried Vista and they are a resource hog compared to XP…
    but i am happy that MS seems to learned their lesson and Windows 7 is generally better from Vista.

    But nooooo please do not let me stop you from continuing praising your Crapista…

  14. kristofer
    January 15, 2009 at 9:05 pm

    That means so much coming from someone who hides behind anonymity… Haha on you….

  15. Joe
    January 16, 2009 at 12:51 am

    Though I do not completely agree with the idea that Vista has no problems I will say that on my dual boot Vista 64/XP 32 system I spend far more time in Vista than XP.

    In the MMO LOTRO for instance I get an average of 5-10 FPS better performance in XP, but the real reason I keep XP on my system is so I can run a few transcoders that won’t run on Vista 64.

    Vista does have problems. I just wish they would have made a gamer version with less of the bloatware that bogs down its performance.

  16. Dante
    January 16, 2009 at 2:47 am

    WTF i get higher FSP in FC2 Than this with 4850 and Pd 925 in W7 using 8.12 Hotfix for vista in W7 and yes it works as it must be and better
    GTAIV Run Faster than Vista
    i play my copy from mirror Edge without any problem
    better than vista in all Ways

  17. Andrew
    January 16, 2009 at 3:06 am

    Hey, here’s an idea: Let’s write an “objective” article about Windows 7 gaming performance. Instead of being impartial, however, let’s write an introduction that bitches about Vista bashing (which I mostly agree with you regarding, but it has no place in this article), and then setup some “tests” that uss one type of video card (an ATi card noless) using shitty beta drivers and conclude “NOPE Win7 IS SHIT BACK TO VISTA!”

    You didn’t even TRY to get good performance in Windows 7. Guess what, it’s faster than Vista if you don’t use the shitty beta drivers that it installs for you (which is ATI’s fault, not MSFTs). I have an 8800GTS 512 right now. I installed WIndows 7 and used the beta drivers. Guess what, most games didn’t even display correctly. I didn’t even get to a point where performance mattered because I mostly couldn’t see anything at all. Then, however, I installed the Vista 64 drivers for my card and it runs beautifully. Your Crysis issues were surely related to those beta drivers and some strange problem with your WaW disc as mine works perfectly fine.

    This article might not have wasted my time if you hadn’t gone in trying to show that Vista didn’t suck and that Win7 wasn’t faster. Thanks.

  18. sHin
    January 16, 2009 at 3:11 am

    as far as i know vista is doing fine on my pc but most of the time i am on my OSX. my pc is basically much to an entertainment system LoL!

    cant wait for w7!

  19. Mjhieu
    January 16, 2009 at 6:51 am

    I agree with you. We both have a same thinking about windows OS and people …. Yeah I never go back XP, sure ppl only want to kill microsoft, but I love microsoft, I’m microsoft fan boy.

  20. Pedros
    January 19, 2009 at 9:59 am

    Just my 2 cents,

    Last Thursday i received a new machine. right away, i installed the Windows7. I really liked what i saw but some Asus driver issues ( well i though at the begining ) made me go back to Vista. Although, until i had these problems i installed all the drivers without any problems … no errors or what so ever.

    The OS is much lighter and runs smoother then Vista, even in Beta.

    Although i just understood that the Asus drivers are not a W7 problem but a general problem and in the end, i think i will be going back to Win7 until July, when the Beta program will be over!

  21. Tango
    January 20, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    I bought Vista the day it came out as well excited about MS releasing a new os. And I expected it to have loads of issues, but usually by the first service pack it starts stabling out and faster. Obviosly this didn’t happen with Vista. I still had hopes for Vista until it looks like MS is scraping it for windows 7 which I HOPE they give the people who actually bought Vista a voucher for…. “Windows 7, the os Vista was supposed to be!” I just pray that windows 7 pulls through for us all. Im a gamer but I also love the eye candy that vista has to offer and DX10. But at the momeny XPSP3 vs VistaSP1, every game I play gets considerably more fps running Vista (yes comparing both in dx9 with the same settings. Enough to look past the eye candy and install XP again, I’ve done this back and forth waiting for something to spark up, i.e. new drivers, SP. Nothing so far… As I said before I pray windows 7 doesn’t bomb

  22. Blaze
    January 23, 2009 at 9:31 pm

    I honestly don’t get why some people are saying Vista beats XP in speeds. It must be the luck of the computer, because I’ll tell you right now, XP is literely almost twices as fast as Vista (Using 4 Gigs of RAM). Even in games I get a minimum of 20-30 fps more in XP than in Vista. Must be the luck of peoples hardware or something, because for me, XP owns vista. With W7, it ran games about the same as XP. (Using 9800 GTX heavily overclocked) GeForce Drivers at the moment own ATI drivers.

  23. Mark
    January 27, 2009 at 7:50 am

    ExtremeTech ran Vista sp1 vs XP SP3 gaming shootout and Vista won in every benchmark ….You can read the article to see how they tested. Below i pasted the testers final thoughts.,2845,2302495,00.asp

    Final Thoughts
    If you were expecting a huge drop in performance as your eyes scanned from the XP to the Vista results, well, surprise! As many a tech analyst predicted, Windows Vista’s gaming performance conundrum has largely been solved, and it was mainly due to early graphics drivers.

    It took about a year and a half, but the performance gap between Vista and its forerunner has finally evaporated.

  24. kristofer
    January 27, 2009 at 11:19 am

    Yeah, I ran a similar set of tests back in July on my site actually with more focus on computing than gaming:

  25. lllDrAculalll
    February 23, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    I ran FarCry 2 on XP SP3 and Windows 7. Windows 7 is better one for this game. I have amd x2 4450 @2,6 Ghz and Gainward Radeon 4850 1 GB mem (700/2000). Everything on veryhigh 1680×1050. Win7 DX10 Avarage – 40,32. WinXP DX9 Avarage – 37,77. I must tell you something else. NFS: Undercover on WinXP not working for me perfectly. Freezing some times for seconds. It’s very irritating. On Windows 7 works fine. But there is some opposite situations when games works better on Window XP, like GTA4 or TombRider Underworld.

  26. Morten
    February 24, 2009 at 12:47 am

    I was running Vista Ultimate x64 since last Christmas! until now a month ago! Original expected to hate it but was proven wrong.. Mine worked perfectly on my new Shuttle computer with AMD x2 5000+ cpu and 2 gig ram half the time and 4 gig ram up to this day! ati gpu! mine is snappy and fast and ive gamed alot on it! It made me forget XP ever existed!

    Now i am on win7 x64 and love it! ive found it a little buggy compared to Vista but as mention, its a Beta so i dont complane.. Currently playing alot of Grid at 1680×1050, and no problem so far!

    Apart from that i think Vista and 7 are very similar! would think the haters of Vista will hate win7 too!

  27. Jabsu
    March 6, 2009 at 8:25 am

    Thank you for your article, Kristofer.

    It’s funny as it always seems that they who hate Vista (and prefer XP SP3 more) aren’t very skilled at configuring a new operation system. Of course there can be hundreds of subjective reasons to hate Vista, but most of them start with the frustration of UAC (they don’t know how to disable it) and RAM usage (they don’t know WHY Vista uses it so much). Other reasons are like, well, “it’s so friggin’ slow”… yeah, it may be true when running it on an old computer which barely meets the recommended specs. I guess some of the Windows 3.xx users got frustrated as well when Windows 95 didn’t work at all on their computers 😉 This may be generalising, but I guess it’s just that I’m frustrated too, on those who keep barking about OS’es without proper experience and knowledge of setting them up.

    I’m not a Microsoft lover, nor am I a hater. I’ve used Windows from that 3.xx version to Windows 7 Beta (Win2000 is the only one which I have not used), and along the path I have experienced many Linux distros as well. If not counting linux, Windows Vista (with Service Pack 1) has been the most stable OS in my use! There may be other opinions, which I only respect if they’re based on real experience.

    And finally, as for Windows 7 Beta… I just love it! 🙂 It feels good and runs smoothly. Not that I’d use it as main OS yet (beta is beta), but still, it’s very promising!

  28. gordonk
    March 24, 2009 at 4:58 am

    I have been able to run anything I can throw at windows 7. Any software that was made even for vista for the most part..and my version of windows 7 is 64 bit as I am sure yours is given your 8 gigs of ram. When I first installed windows 7 I had an ati hd3870 nd now I have two hd4850’s cfx and everything works great. Race driver Grid runs better for me on windows 7 everything on ultra high 8xmsaa@ 1920x1080p havnt used fraps, because its smooth as butter…even with lower settings in vista I get frequent game stutters. Cod world at war ran fine for me from the start even with the earlier beta drivers. Even with the 3870 all settings were maxed out and windows 7 is pretty much snappier at everything. I dont even have a beefy system I just upgraded to an intel e7400 from an e2200 I had to oc to 3.1 ghz to get good performance out it. Also just upgraded to 4 gis from 2 of patriot 800mhz ram oc to 900.

    With all my hardware overclocked I have not had any system crashes I ddtn experience with vista. I did notice far cry 2 dx10 seemed to run smoother on vista than windows 7 but that was with the beta drivers. With the 9.3 drivers everything is great. You should reevaluate with ati’s new unified drivers in the 9.3 flavour….they are sure to impress.

    GAMES: RACE DRIVER GRID, DIRT, CODWAW, COD4, FAR CRY 2(DX10 RAINBOW 6 VEGAS 2 ) all ran great. I do know my friend has problems with pnk buster b in windows 7 so he can’t run the battlefield series…sometiems youll get a server boot from packet loss.

    I love the windows 7 desktop experience that you didnt really discuss too much. It uses the new dx10.1 api and has some pretty cool featurs. My favorite is the themes selection you can choose from. Your ENTIRE windowss experience will match any desktop background you can find. It is very smooth and very crisp.

    I love the facts you brought up with xp. Although my first edition was home and my second edition was professional(which I still use sometimes). I love xp pro, but I do concur that windows vista is an wntire experience where xp pro was really good for all around “suff”. Games now suffer from having to use dx9 even though alot of games havnt migrated to dx10 like I thought they would have…some have the choice, but a few years ago dx10 was the future and most games were going to use it…pretty much 50% of games seem to Mostly shooters. There were lots of faults with windows xp when it first game out and the people who complain about vista only complain about it becaues they heard other people complain about it. I work at staples part time in electronics and hear peple bitch and moan about vista and request to get a new pc with xp instead. They dont realize that the problems peopel have with vista are when people use old hardware and software that is not compatible. Thats not necessarily Vistas fault..its the manufacurers who didnt make the right drivers or drivers good enough..and the rule of thumb is tha t if your printer is the old parallel style..its time to upgrade…and no you cant instal dx8 gmes and software in vista.

    You hit this pretty good. Your def right that windows 7 is very smart and installes very fast. Everything works “out of the box”. My network drivers and everything..with vista nd xp I had to manually install them form my flash drive as they would not connect to the internet at all with basic drivers. Even windoes 7 basic display driver is better than vista.

    However, I think you should update this post and re benchmark a lot of your games with the new drivers. Some of the games you said didnt work, worked just find for me.

  29. Moe
    May 10, 2009 at 6:09 am

    I’m using windows 7 RC.

    System specs: Phenom 9850BE, 780-G mb, 4GB 1067MhZ RAM, Geforce 260GTX OC’d. (649/1180)

    I can tell you that I’m taking a 15% + frame rate hit compared to XP. I’m love the OS, but I didn’t pay for all that hardware only to take a peformance downgrade using this free version of the the OS. Hopefully the retail version will perform at least as well as XP (In speed). I skipped Vista completely after the horrible frame rates I got during it’s first 3 months on the market, and nothing convicned me to take it back.

    XP is really begining to show its age compared to the snazy new OS that Windows 7 is. I HOPE they can resolve this performance issue for gamers. I know the OS uses more system resources, but they HAVE to get around that somehow. Maybe add a feature that turns down all system processes for gaming mode (don’t tell me about game booster, it’s no help), or something.

  30. Martin
    May 17, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    May just be me but on my end vista64 runs alot better then my XP64 did.
    I used vista when it was out and hated it , A while later everything seemed to run faster.

    My cpu is a 3.8 oced Q6600 and i can say Both VISTA , XP are ok although i prefer vista persoanly as my games run allot better and when im doing multimedi it generaly seems to respond better.

    Now windows 7 ?? Now thats quick. You have to sit down and set everything up before you jump into installing all the junk.

  31. Strife
    May 19, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Hi all, Well I’ve been using Vista since its release, it had a few performance issues at first, I didn’t actually encounter these driver issues a lot of people had, well maybe 1 or 2, but it was a new OS afterall. Since about 6 months of using it I decided I would never go back to XP, as soon as Sp1 came out for vista its been nippy for me, I’ve customized/tweaked it slightly i.e. new glass theme, msconfig, ultimate windows tweaker, in games it runs everything superbly, even play crysis and warhead at decent frames from my own experience. I have the Windows 7 RC installed on another partition, it boots about 3 seconds faster for me, it’s nippy and the new UI/taskbar is quite fun to use, along with the other aero feature additions like snap/peek/shake. Gaming performance wasn’t much different to Vista to be honest, both running 64-bit version on a C2D E6850 @ 3.2Ghz/ 4gb DDR3 1600Mhz Ram/Ati HD 3850 512mb gfx card/WD HDD. I do like what M$ has done with W7, and will buy it once it shows bigger gaming advantage over Vista, for me I’m a very happy user of Vista and haven’t encountered many problems, in fact since about 2 months before sp1 it was running perfectly great, and after its superb.

  32. Strife
    May 19, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    PC I’m running is C2D E6850 @3.2Ghz, 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz RAM, Ati HD 3850 512mb.
    Vista since 2 months before sp1 has been running great for me, would never even think of going back to XP, ever. W7 64 gaming performance in comparison to Vista 64 (7 on another partition) have very similar results from games I’ve tested which include: Crysis, Crysis Warhead, GTA IV, The Witcher, FEAR, Elder scrolls 4: Oblivion. I have been using W7 from beta 1 to RC and yes I like the new UI and task bar, the libraries are great, there’s been changes all over the OS, cleaning it all up, adding stuff that’s useful optimizing everything, Aero snap/shake are good as well as aero peek and its a joy to use. I’m almost being dazzled by 7, but Vista’s overall performance is similar using my rig to W7 actually, W7 just feels fresher and an even further step forward from XP. W7 shares many similarities to Vista, in a way I think the W7 team should thank the Vista team for its efforts.

  33. Billy
    June 28, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    Ok I have run Windows 7 RC, Vista Home Premium & XP Pro sp3 on both my gaming laptop and gaming desktop.When installing Win 7 I used all Vista drivers and not 1 problem After doing benchmarking with games and apps i have come to some interesting results. Vista runs games and office apps faster on laptop with Win 7 very close and XP Pro falling behind a little ( this did suprise me quite a lot ) but on my desktop gaming rig the results are reversed with XP Pro quickest with Win 7 & Vista not far behind- Some1 care to explain these results to me because I have no idea why Vista runs quicker on laptop and XP quicker on desktop for gaming. That was with all the latest driver updates. But to be honest I am not a big fan of Vista, I do prefer XP Pro but I am liking Win 7 and think it will be a good OS . Then again i was not a fan of XP either, I liked 98SE and thought that was better for gaming and so did 85% of MS users at the time. So just use what ever you like & suits your needs best.

  34. choudry
    July 10, 2009 at 5:57 am

    well i might sound old n dead to you , but despite all my efforts and wish to switch to vista and win 7 , i just found 2 problems , all of sudden my tv tuner acted strangly and catching only 50 channels , while 150 on xp.

    games like CS and farcry 2,(farcry 1 is totally coming un textured and white :S)

    i dint fine this topic helping at all, oh nad 2fps gain and 3 seconds quicker is not something you bother for

  35. zol
    September 19, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    the thing about vista’s resource consumption, is that you can toggle it.
    when ‘gamers’ are complaining, it’s because they just want instant gratification. Vista was designed as a techies playground, although one guy who ‘techs for 15 vista compies’ must only fix them.

    by default, it is bloated, but anybody with the slightest bit of computer literacy can disable most of the stuff that bloats it (how many of you REALLY need 250megs of ram set aside for remote access, gamers?) you freed up a MAJOR part of your ram, from one thing. if you don’t understand how to play around with a computer, or what things do…you shouldn’t have been pining over it in the first place. “ (vista ram reduction) step by step guides for those who are clueless

    not to mention, any 32 bit windows system limits the ram you use to roughly 50%. on xp, or vista, if you have 2 gigs your OS at all times, has 1gig set aside *in case* vista by default uses about 2/3 of a gig, xp roughly 2/5. but vista can be more efficient than xp, if you know what you’re doing.

    also most people complaining were using home basic at launch, which aero support which isn’t *just* cosmetic. I’m agreeing with an above poster, in most cases it’s simply someone trying to be current with technology, with a machine that’s not ready, and a user who doesn’t understand.

    if you really had any knowledge prior to coming here about how to manage your computer, odds are, you already had vista configured to purr. odds are if not, you defended xp.

  36. Caleb
    October 6, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    Hi im a gamer and I just yesterday upgraded to 2 gigs of ram, so I can’t wait to install vista! Is it good for games I have a nvidia geforce gts250 512mb gddr3 thanks!

  37. Calvin
    October 26, 2009 at 12:20 am

    Hello, I just bought a laptop yesterday with Windows 7 Home edition on it, and i cant bring up my WOW, FLYFF, or any of my MMORPG’s to come on screen, it just shuts out and goes back to the WINDOWS 7 desktop screen.
    My laptop is a HP G61 3gb ram, 250 hard drive. CAN YOU HELP ME OR POINT ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION to get the correct drivers for my laptop to run the games i want.

  38. Tom
    November 21, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    Windows Vista had plenty of things wrong with it. I hate these stupid articles where one guy states that everybody is retarded because Windows Vista ran fine on his computer. Well maybe he had hard ware where the drivers were compatible and he didn’t encounter any problems. That doesn’t change the fact that a large percentage of people have had a terrible experience with Windows Vista, myself included. So please next time you write a supposedly (objective) review try to take in consideration that just because you didn’t have any problems, doesn’t mean other people didn’t.

  39. Sathish
    December 8, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    i’m using windows 7 now. its like a dream come true. perfect for gaming. i’m using nvidia geforce 8500 gt. i downloaded the latest version of the drivers which includes directx 11 for win7. having great entertainment. no problems at all. i give it 11 stars out of 10.

  40. Satchfan
    December 18, 2009 at 3:02 am

    Speaking about gaming performance – why when you look on the every game box you can see that for running the game Vista demands more RAM than XP?! I mean, the first thing I do is to look at Minimum Requirements and the most common fact is while under XP a game needs for example 1 Gb of RAM, Vista needs 1,5Gb. As for me, using Xp I would have an additional 0.5 Gb of RAM that sometimes can be very useful! Greetings everybody!

  41. Daan Berks
    March 19, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    Hello all,

    I have been trying to play some older games on Win 7 (64bits and 32 bits a like) Somehow all the games i play can suddenly just crash. Not to go back to the windows screan, no just the whole computer will crash. Sound freezes, screen freezes. everything. I have bought this computer in november last year. A game i am talking about is Gangsters 2 (old) Anno 1402 (new)

    I am getting the feeling it is my grafic card. but i can not realy point it out. I use a NVIDIA GeForce GT 220. Updating everything there is will not help. Finding the drivers on a site is also not helping. I will get the proper drivers, but everything still crashes.

    Are there more people with this kind of problem or is it just me?
    I hope people willebe able to help me. i can not find that much about this problem on the net yet.

    Greetings Daan

    April 9, 2010 at 9:51 am


  43. john
    April 10, 2010 at 9:07 am

    well the windows 7 is not so good at game but it is very kool and awesome but sucky at game y, i don’t know

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *