Windows Vista SP1 vs Vista SP2 Release Candidate Performance

[Mav3ricK]

Final Thoughts So, from our testing here today, what conclusion do we come out with at the end of the day? <a href='http://www.tweaktown.com/phpadsnew/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a695f25f' target='_blank'><img src='http://www.tweaktown.com/phpadsnew/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=186&n=a695f25f' border='0' alt='' /></a>Vista Service Pack 2 RC managed to steal some surprising gaming wins away from Vista SP1 - some by a fairly large margin. SP2 RC managed to offer much better performance under the PT Boats benchmark by up to almost 33% in the average FPS. And under Crysis Warhead the minimum frame rate was vastly improved, moving from four FPS in SP1 to ten FPS in SP2. That unfortunately is about as good as it gets, though, for SP2 - in some of the other tests, both ended up with very even results, but most of the time SP1 came out first on the podium. As for hard disk drive performance on the Intel ICH9R controller chip, performance was rather poor under SP2. We are not sure at this stage if it is due to the service pack or a poor driver, but clearly something needs to be done. It affected read performance greatly, especially in the minimum read speed where SP2 dropped right down to around 48MB/s whereas SP1 stayed strong at about 136MB/s. This impact on HDD performance also had a negative effect on loading times with SP2 taking a full 8.5 seconds longer to fully load into the Windows desktop. Likewise, game level loading was also affected with SP2 taking six seconds longer to load into a Far Cry 2 benchmark demo. Unless you require some of the new features in SP2 or like the idea of having all the latest bug fixes and security updates, we wouldn't recommend upgrading to SP2 at this point in time. New drivers from the likes of Intel, AMD (ATI) and NVIDIA may help boost numbers, but at this stage of the game and if performance is what matters to you, stick with SP1.

Read the full and very interesting review at least give this site some credit for doing the review plz visit this link


Windows Vista SP1 vs Vista SP2 Release Candidate Performance :: TweakTown

[vasishta.sushant]

Great. Thanks for the info.

[stonedsurd]

LOL.
No one cares about Crapsta anymore. Most gamers prefer XP, and if at all considering a change, they're looking at W7 more than Crapsta.

:/

[vasishta.sushant]

Originally Posted by stonedsurd LOL. No one cares about Crapsta anymore. Most gamers prefer XP, and if at all considering a change, they're looking at W7 more than Crapsta. :/

Get real man. You need to work on it. VISTA is better. Way better.

[Ad1tya]

^^ Ok, its way better, wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy better.
Feeling better now?..

You can say what you want, but Crapsta ***** for Gaming performance, as we found over the weekend again.

XP + 7 4tw!

[Rohan]

Windows 7 is Much better than Vista afaik...Its just soo much more stable and all..and for games i still prefer XP.

[vasishta.sushant]

Originally Posted by Ad1tya ^^ Ok, its way better, wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy better. Feeling better now?.. You can say what you want, but Crapsta ***** for Gaming performance, as we found over the weekend again. XP + 7 4tw!

LOL its not about the frames. Its about quality frames. And I dont bother what all say, I know how things work at my machine. The games I play look much better on vista than on XP. I dont care for +/- 5% frames for the visual appeal. VISTA FTW.

But agree Windows 7 is best amongst the lot.

[Ad1tya]

Wow.. so XP renders frames worse than Vista..

Now ive read everything

(Not referring to DX10 vs. DX9, because that's a total different topic.) Referring to same games at same settings.

[Rohan]

roflcopter.

[stonedsurd]

Dude, suashtant -- rendering is the hardware's job. Running XP and Crapsta on the same rig will see a DEFINITE performance drop in Vista with the same settings.
Also Steam+Crapsta = mega phail, for some reason :/

[vasishta.sushant]

Originally Posted by Ad1tya Wow.. so XP renders frames worse than Vista.. Now ive read everything (Not referring to DX10 vs. DX9, because that's a total different topic.) Referring to same games at same settings.

Aditya, think before writing what you write. When I mean quality and when I say things look better, didn't that click something ?

[stonedsurd]

^er, but he replied to that (as did I).

The QUALITY has NOTHING to do with the OS fgs.

[muralimahe]

is this performance comparison is based on x64 or x86...

[vasishta.sushant]

Leave it guys. You be happy with what you are good with, I am good with my selection. I am not gonna get anything out of this thing.

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by stonedsurd Dude, suashtant -- rendering is the hardware's job. Running XP and Crapsta on the same rig will see a DEFINITE performance drop in Vista with the same settings. Also Steam+Crapsta = mega phail, for some reason :/

who the hell said the part in bold ... ROFL ... i am using it for last 1 year ... and i don't see any mega PHAIL ....