Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

DarkBASIC Professional Discussion / Vista to XP Downgrade Performance Results

Author
Message
Mage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posted: 21st Oct 2007 21:38 Edited at: 21st Oct 2007 22:06
So I've been using Vista since February and nothing else, and while it's real great, 3D App performance really sucks.

I've been working on a 3rd person shooter, and when I upgraded I noticed a huge drop in framerate.

So this motivated me to do framerate independent code and to optimize everything, cull objects etc. I basically made up the loss with optimized code.

Just before I downgraded I wrote down some of the steady framerates in a variety of levels (AI off).

I'm using:
AMDx2 6000+
2GB DDR800
GeForce 6800XT 256mb
Vista and WinXP



Polygons - FPS Vista - FPS XP
-----------------------------
107799 - 23 - 46
103713 - 25 - 50
82590 - 28 - 65
50711 - 44.5 - 81
41981 - 51 - 104
36833 - 46 - 85
36248 - 61.5 - 117
29782 - 54 - 110
23312 - 74.5 - 131
6465 - 149.5 - 300
(Using identical scenes in XP and Vista)

The Windows XP performance seems to be exactly double Vistas.

I however I noticed, the maximum number of hardware lights in Vista was 8 and in Windows XP only 1. I only use 1 - 2 lights in a scene and sparingly. Lighting takes less than 10 FPS. It doesn't even begin to account for the performance difference.

------------------
[Custom Signature]
gordon ramp
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Oct 2007
Location:
Posted: 21st Oct 2007 22:35
Looks about right.

gordonramp.
andrey d
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 21st Oct 2007 23:54
Quote: "I however I noticed, the maximum number of hardware lights in Vista was 8 and in Windows XP only 1."

Weird. The type of OS isn't supposed to dictate the number of hardware light available. You sure it's not just you?
Mage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posted: 21st Oct 2007 23:58
Did not change
The source code.
The hardware.
The version number on the nVida drivers.

Changed
Version of windows.
Version of DirectX (From 9.0E back to 9.0C)

I can confirm the hardware lights are limited to 1.
(For reasons unknown)

------------------
[Custom Signature]
Jallen
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st Jul 2007
Location: object position x(Jallen)
Posted: 22nd Oct 2007 00:07
Nothing is really good about vista...

It has compatibity issues
Its ineffiecient and slow
Its got lots of stupid features nobody wants
TinTin
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th May 2006
Location: BORG Drone Ship - Being Assimilated near Roda Beta (28)
Posted: 22nd Oct 2007 11:17
Another excelent example of MS Bloatware...

Cyberspace was becoming overcrowded and slummy so I decided to move. These nice chaps gave me a lift.
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 22nd Oct 2007 11:54
I find those scores quite difficult to believe unless you're running default installations of both OS.

Windows Vista now with the more recent Forceware (and Catalyst have for a while) provided much better performance than XP.

Half-Life 2 shows this extremely well, as I can run it at 1024x768x32bpp with everything max; except MSAA which is set to 2x and get a very stable 35fps on my 6100.

Yet on Windows XP SP3, I only get 28fps with the same settings. Still playable and you wouldn't notice much of a difference.
This said on Vista loading new areas, or large changes that go on cause momentry jittering as the fps falls to almsot zero; but then it's right back after the HDD finishes accessing.

I've heard this issue has finally been seen to in SP1 for Vista, however provided you have the hotfixes that NVIDIA recommend; and also have Vista fully updated, you will find an extreme performance increase. Particularly on PCI-E based cards.

Stock, HL2 was unplayable on Vista; but now it's smooth as no matter how much it's pushed.
Can't say much about DBPs performance, as I no longer use XP in any form.. about 4months ago finally moved everything to a pure Vista solution, as I feel it's now ready. Drivers for it have finally matured enough, and the hotfixes done so far really help and seem to focus on performance issues.

Mage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posted: 22nd Oct 2007 14:41 Edited at: 22nd Oct 2007 14:43
Quote: "I find those scores quite difficult to believe unless you're running default installations of both OS."


Latest Forceware 163.71 Drivers on each OS.

I had the hotfix nVidia recommended.
I had the DX9e update.
I used a PCI-E Card.

------------------
[Custom Signature]
jeffhuys
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th May 2006
Location: No cheesy line here.
Posted: 22nd Oct 2007 18:35
Maybe it is exactly double because of the windows vista version, some versions only support one CPU, and xp supports up to [?] 8 [/?].
What is your vista version?

-Jeff


You're the 'th to view this signature!
GatorHex
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 22nd Oct 2007 19:17 Edited at: 22nd Oct 2007 19:21
I'm using Vista Home 32bit (lowest with none of the Aero crud) with Core 2 Duo and 8600GT and it seems to run as fast as XP on all my stuff. 64bit OS is known to run 32bit software a bit slower maybe it's that.

DinoHunter (still no nVidia compo voucher!), CPU/GPU Benchmark, DarkFish Encryption DLL, War MMOG (WIP), 3D Model Viewer
Darktib
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Jun 2007
Location: France
Posted: 22nd Oct 2007 21:19
This results are normal : DirectX9.0 (a or b or c or E) is not optimized to be used onWinVista : DX10 uses a parser for DX9 so the performances are 'taken down'... On XP there is no DX9 parser... If you want to increase performance on Vista, you can wait for DarkBASIC DirectX10 (which will be out in few month I think)

Sorry if my englich is bad - I'm french

RTS game project : 3.2% finished
|||%
Mage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posted: 22nd Oct 2007 21:36 Edited at: 22nd Oct 2007 21:36
Quote: "64bit OS is known to run 32bit software a bit slower maybe it's that"

I was using 32bit Vista.

Quote: "DX10 uses a parser for DX9 so the performances are 'taken down'... On XP there is no DX9 parser..."

Wrapper is the term you should be using.

Quote: "Sorry if my englich is bad - I'm french"

Bonjour, je parles peu en francais.

------------------
[Custom Signature]
jason p sage
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 22nd Oct 2007 23:51
Quote: "quote: "Sorry if my englich is bad - I'm french""



Quote: "Bonjour, je parles peu en francais."


LMAO!!!


Mage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posted: 18th Dec 2007 05:53
Quote: "I however I noticed, the maximum number of hardware lights in Vista was 8 and in Windows XP only 1. I only use 1 - 2 lights in a scene and sparingly. Lighting takes less than 10 FPS. It doesn't even begin to account for the performance difference."


I changed the code to skip creating NULL lights, and it seems that I can get 4-5 active hardware lights.

Remember If you create too many lights, the old lights start disappearing.

So I can get more lights just not as many as was in Vista.

James H
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Apr 2007
Location: St Helens
Posted: 18th Dec 2007 21:12 Edited at: 19th Dec 2007 00:03
Ok this may seem silly but i found on my two machines - 1 with dual boot xp and vista 32 the other with vista 64 - that setting sync rate 900 or below seriously affected frame rate in vista. Sync rate 0 or 901 onwards whilst in windowed mode returns a more normal frame rate with a slight loss of around 3 fps from the same test in xp. The reason I mention windowed mode is that fullscreen mode acts differently. In fact it caps frame rate around 75 fps which is exactly the same as some shaders I use ie using any of the shaders caps at 75fps also...imagine the shock when I stopped using the dual boot machine (sempron 64 3000,ati x1300 - 128 vram, 1gig ram, dx 9c - latest and dx10 - shipped,dbp u6.6b) and started using my new machine (intel quad core,8800gt - 512vram, 4gig ram, dx9c - latest and dx10 - latest,dbp u6.6b) only to find a loss in fps!!!
Spotaru
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2006
Location: Over the next rise.
Posted: 19th Dec 2007 00:22 Edited at: 19th Dec 2007 00:30
I recently received this article in a newsletter concerning XP vs Vista.


I also found this gaming related article online. It compares framerates of some of the latest games on both systems.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
heartbone
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 19th Dec 2007 17:01
It's all the verification of data authenticity and network data transferring slowing everything.

This is the first OS that works harder for the content owner than the hardware owner.

I'm unique, just like everybody else.
Mage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posted: 19th Dec 2007 18:31 Edited at: 19th Dec 2007 18:36
Could be like you said authenticity... or...


1. Shared GPU use with OS since windows doesn't know Darkbasic is full screen. Manually shutting off 3D desktop still doesn't help.

2. DirectX 9 Emulation/Wrapping.

3. User Mode. Far more System Calls to switch to kernel mode, causing increased overhead.

4. Faulty display drivers, that are optimized for most commercial games, but may be choking on DBP specifically. Most people don't know that they optimize the drivers for specific popular games.

5. NTFS Extensions, Defragmentation. Overhead caused by additional file system Meta data, and automatic defragmentation that occurs without notification.

6. Managed Code, JIT "Just In Time" Code, Code that isn't compiled until it is executed.

Cash Curtis II
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Apr 2005
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posted: 19th Dec 2007 19:35 Edited at: 19th Dec 2007 19:41
You can have 8 hardware lights in DX9. Perhaps you've erroneously created a black light?

The graphics look good in the screenshot, although her top looks like a pair of weird hands that are holding her breasts. I'd personally just round that off.


Come see the WIP!
Mage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posted: 19th Dec 2007 20:23
Quote: "You can have 8 hardware lights in DX9. Perhaps you've erroneously created a black light?

The graphics look good in the screenshot, although her top looks like a pair of weird hands that are holding her breasts. I'd personally just round that off."


Yeah The lights I mentioned above that this was the case. Even though this wasn't happening in Vista, in XP the "Null Lights" caused some of the actual lights to disappear.

The girls suit is actually feathers if you ever see a closer shot.
Also I notice that shading was disabled in that shot.

Ah yes I took it right after the XP switch and the lights were still not working.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-04-19 17:18:01
Your offset time is: 2024-04-19 17:18:01