Quote:
Originally Posted by runawayprisoner
Ehh... any proofs to back up what you claimed? I have proofs for the other way around. 
Anyway, I'm not comparing XP vs Vista. Performance-wise, Vista DX9 loses to XP DX9 already... and that's not a driver issue. I mean... you can argue that DirectX 10 drivers haven't matured yet, but what are you going to say about DirectX 9 drivers? That's one thing. I can also run Windows Vista with a Celeron processor (single core), 1 gig of RAM, and with an Intel graphics processor, too. And of course it's not going to degrade your performance so drastically it's noticeable. And I'm not bashing anything here, just stating the fact that Windows Vista degrades performance to the point where the gain from DirectX 10 is not even comparable to DirectX 9 under Windows XP. |
Have you compared Vista DX10 to Vista DX9? That's what I'm trying to say since you can not compare Vista performance with XP since they are different operating systems and Vista is technically doing more under the hood than XP such as caching the most used programs, games and applications into memory to launch faster and more responsively and a host of other things it's doing under the hood.
Since Vista has a bit of overhead when compared to XP, a fair comparison would be Vista DX9 vs Vista DX10.
I heard Vista DX10 outshines DX9 in intensive scenes with a lot of physics, objects flying around, explosions and gunfire.
Also I think it would be fair to at least wait for a true DX10 game before denouncing Vista. Mostly all games so far are DX9 with a poor implementation of DX10 slapped on.
