Even now, it's hard to think of a single killer app that makes DX10 look any better than the huge swathe of DX9 games. This is why there are still plenty of people out there who are running their games under Windows XP. Add Windows 7 into the mix and you now have a three-way fight for your gaming attentions. But which one should you have running on your main gaming rig?
The reliable Windows XP, the pretty but oft-maligned Vista or the new kid on the block who hasn't even earned his racing wheels yet? We think it's time to put these operating systems to the test on a suite of benchmarks and see which one impresses us the most.
How we tested
In order to assess how these operating systems perform on a mainstream gaming PC, we've elected to torture a Dell for your delectation. The Studio XPS M435T we've picked boasts a Core i7 920 at its heart and 6GB of DDR3 1066MHz triple channel memory, making it a serious number cruncher when given room to strut its stuff.
Things aren't quite so carefree in the graphics department though, and in order to hit a decent price point (the machine can be picked up for around £700) it features a single 512MB GeForce 9800GT. Not a gaming powerhouse, but a capable enough performer for our testing.
For the benchmarks we've focused on gaming, putting Codemasters' seminal GRID, Ubisoft's brilliant Far Cry 2 and the splendid RTS-'em-up World in Conflict to task separating the OS wheat from the chaff.
GRID boasts a brilliantly optimised rendering engine, which shouldn't push the hardware too much. Far Cry 2 is taxing with all the features turned on and requires just as much rendering muscle as processing power. World in Conflict shows off the differences between DX9 and DX10 rendering and is one of the most reliable benchmarks we've used in the office.
To accompany these results, we've also benchmarked the operating systems using that perennial favourite, 3DMark06. Futuremark may have released 3DMark Vantage a while ago now, but we're still not convinced about its usefulness for assessing a system's gaming performance. For overall system performance we've used PCMark05 (although this only works in 32-bit versions of Windows) and Cinebench R10 for more serious work (there are separate 32-bit and 64-bit executables).
Finally, we've recorded boot times for the operating systems and for GRID and Far Cry 2. The results for these timed tests were a little surprising as well.
Meeting expectations
We'll freely admit that we expected Windows 7 to shine like a particularly shiny thing in these gruelling tests. One thing that came to light straight away though, is that it isn't as honed under the hood as it feels. The interface might be smooth and everything might work, but the code isn't optimised, there's debug code swilling around and, from what we can see, Nvidia's drivers still have room for improvement.
There is some good news with Windows 7 though. Firstly, raw processing performance is stronger than in Windows XP and Vista. The Maxon Cinebench test can be used on machines boasting up to 16 cores, so it quite happily handles the eight that show up here (that's HyperThreading across four real cores).
The first two sets of results focus purely on CPU rendering and put Windows 7 in the lead, particularly in the multiple-core test. Vista isn't far behind, but if you want a serious rendering platform there are good things coming. This message was backed up when we configured the graphics settings as low as possible in World in Conflict.
By doing this, we push the graphics card out of the rendering loop as far as we can and focus on straight computation. The 64-bit version of Windows 7 managed 245fps, while 32-bit Vista brought up the rear with 210fps. Microsoft has heavily optimised the code paths in its soon-to-be -released OS, which will benefit gamers as well as more serious number crunchers.
The key reason Windows 7 isn't topping the benchmarks is due to the state of Nvidia's drivers. This isn't a dig at the GPU giant, merely a statement of fact – after all, the OS hasn't been released yet. Cast your mind back to the release of Vista and the shaky start that had and we'd hazard a guess that Nvidia will be pushing up the framerates as the launch date nears.
We saw a hint of this as we went from the 179.11 drivers that were installed by default, up to the latest available at the time of testing: 181.71. Framerates didn't rocket, but a few extra frames are always welcome.
Vista is at the other end of this development cycle now and, as such, has a solid driver base. Indeed, Vista produced strong results in testing, particularly in Far Cry 2, where it managed the best frame rates of any system. Strangely, Ubisoft's game put in comparable performance in DX10 and DX9, although it's good looking whichever code path you run it on.
As far as graphics drivers are concerned, Windows XP is in the strongest position. The performance garnered from this operating system was great everywhere except for Far Cry 2 – and judging by the minor differences in framerates between DX10 and DX9 and Vista, it appears that this engine was developed with DX10 in mind.
If you're planning to play World in Conflict in DX9 mode for instance, you'll get the best framerates in Windows XP. GRID is the same – you'll get a couple more frames out of this game in XP than any other OS. Of course, that begs the question: what about DX10?
It's true that you're going to need Vista or Windows 7 if you want to run DX10 games. The real question is, do you actually want to run games in DX10 mode? World in Conflict certainly looks a lot better in DX10, but it's still the same game in DX9 and you suffer a major penalty for turning on all that graphical loveliness, dropping from 42fps to 27fps in Vista.
To be fair to Massive Entertainment, this was one of the first DX10 titles and possibly isn't as optimised as it could be. Even Microsoft isn't pushing DX10 for its Games for Windows titles as much as it did initially.
0 comments:
Post a Comment