IS IT TIME TO CONSIDER LINUX?
VISTA VS XP VS WINDOWS 7
INSTANT BOOTING AND GAMING
THE DEFINITIVE BENCHMARKS ISSUE 227 JUNE 2009
PERFORMANCE GEAR & GAMING
ISSUE 227 HERE’S TO SWIMMING WITH BOW LEGGED WOMEN
HERE’S TO SWIMMING WITH BOW LEGGED WOMEN
Nvidia GTX275 versus AMD HD 4890 UNDER THE SCOPE: BUILD YOUR OWN USB MICROSCOPE FOR £15
Torturing webcams so you don’t have to...
WWW.PCFORMAT.CO.UK
THERE’S MORE… Big screens from £140 AMD’s budget super-computer Game coding: Explosions Empire Total War guide
FR EE
61 G a m 90 Appes s S ee pa g e 118
Issue 227 June 2009 £5.99 Outside UK & ROI £6.49
COMPANY OF HEROES FALLOUT 3 THE PIT: TALES OF VALOR DIGGING DEEPER PCF227.cover 1
15/4/09 3:17:54 pm
Illustration: Paul Blachford
Which version of Windows is the best for gaming? We take one PC, ďŹ ve operating systems and a whole bunch of benchmarks and patience to ďŹ nd out
30
PCF227.feature1 30
June 2009
20/4/09 9:01:57 am
W
indows 7 is on the horizon. This time next year we’ll either all be using it, wishing we were, or potentially wishing we weren’t. In the meantime, the beta of Windows 7 is out there – games developers and device drivers are testing code on it, and we end users are seeing if it lives up to our expectations. It’s already received favourable mentions from many, but how close to completion is it? That we play games on Windows at all is somewhat remarkable. Beyond the
odd game of minesweeper or solitaire, Microsoft didn’t develop Windows as a gaming platform. Gamers flocked to it all the same though, because DOS gaming was such a chore. Indeed, that we’ve all stuck with PC gaming is testament to something – probably just our own bloody-mindedness, but it’s a testament all the same. DirectX was key to the big shift over to Windows and ever since then, Microsoft’s operating systems have been a means of getting our games running. Microsoft took this to the logical next step with Windows Vista when it made the OS the only place you could flex your graphics card’s DX10 muscle. We’re sure Microsoft was hoping that this would force all gamers to make the
shift over, but in practice it didn’t pan out quite like that. 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.
June 2009
PCF227.feature1 31
31
20/4/09 9:02:6 am
Vista vs XP vs Windows 7
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, 32
PCF227.feature1 32
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
High-end gaming performance WiC (low quality)
FRAMES PER SECOND: HIGHER IS BETTER
WINDOWS XP
235
VISTA 32-BIT
210
VISTA 64-BIT
234
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
243
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
245 50
100
150
200
250
Real world gaming performance Far Cry 2 (DX10)
FRAMES PER SECOND: HIGHER IS BETTER
NA
WINDOWS XP VISTA 32-BIT
19.21
VISTA 64-BIT
19.36
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
13.45 15.03
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
5
Far Cry 2 (DX9)
10
15
20
25
FREAMES PER SECOND: HIGHER IS BETTER
WINDOWS XP
16.69
VISTA 32-BIT
19.56
VISTA 64-BIT
21.89
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
15.36 18.52
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
5
10
15
20
25
June 2009
20/4/09 9:02:34 am
Vista vs XP vs Windows 7 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.
DX10 VS THE REST OF THE WORLD
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
WINE FOR THE WIN
Don’t think that Microsoft is your only option for playing your games There is, of course, an alternative to all this Microsoft shuffling and it’s something that a considerable number of us have undoubtedly tried at some time or other: Linux. Not too long ago, many people were predicting that Microsoft’s various operating systems were going to be usurped by these free Linux alternatives. In reality, this prediction was a little premature to say the least, especially because, at that time, the state of Linux distributions was less that impressive. Even installing them required a tricky combination of command line wizardry and driver alchemy. Linux has developed though. The experience is now a lot more streamlined and shouldn’t require any terminals or low-level understanding of how partitions are set up. Ubuntu 8.1, for example, was up
and running on this test rig in about half an hour and it was all handled by an attractive interface. More impressive still, you can try it out without even installing it on the machine. One of the most surprising things about this was that we were able to play games in Linux. No, we’re not talking about those penguin-themed rubbish things that come with the OS, we’re talking World of Warcraft and Half Life 2. This is all possible thanks to WINE and the work of the Crossover team – an organisation with the explicit goal of making Windows games work on Linux and OSX. The list of supported games is already impressive and it’s getting longer all the time, although certain
graphical features (such as shadows) will be disabled. It’s great that gaming on Linux is being addressed because this is one of the main reasons many of us haven’t been near a non-MS OS in years. Imagine if all games worked in WINE…
ation layer of WINE is the transl g Windows ttin ge for ice cho on Linux ng rki wo es gam
June 2009
PCF227.feature1 33
33
20/4/09 9:03:13 am
Vista vs XP vs Windows 7
PATCHING WINDOWS As operating systems get old, they don’t whither and die, they just get bigger and slower... Installing Windows Vista 32-bit on our test rig was a painful and long-winded affair. This is because we went all the way back to the original installation and didn’t think about what this would entail: the best part of a day of patching. The reason this took so long, apart from the long list of patches needed to bring the machine up to date, is that the patching process isn’t particularly intelligent; left to its own devices it will patch the living daylights out of Internet Explorer 6 and then eventually replace it completely with IE 7. The Windows Updater will do the same with all the patches to the base system, ignoring the fact that it will eventually get up to Service Pack 1, which includes the vast majority of those updates too. This would be fine if you could update the machine without sitting around waiting to
Boot times Windows OS
TIME IN SECONDS: QUICKER IS BETTER
67
WINDOWS XP VISTA 32-BIT
71
VISTA 64-BIT
76
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
68 63
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
20
Far Cry 2
40
60
80
100
TIME IN SECONDS: QUICKER IS BETTER
WINDOWS XP
12
VISTA 32-BIT
22
VISTA 64-BIT
24
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
22
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
17 5
GRID
10
15
20
25
TIME IN SECONDS: QUICKER IS BETTER
WINDOWS XP
17
VISTA 32-BIT
19
VISTA 64-BIT
14
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
16 14
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
5
34
PCF227.feature1 34
10
15
20
25
click various buttons, but there are numerous patches that require a system restart in order to continue. Thankfully we didn’t have such trouble with the Vista 64 installation because we’d cunningly created a DVD with the major patches on it already. We did the same for Windows XP as well, which was patched up to SP3. This was just as well because installing from the original release would have taken even longer than it did for Vista. We covered how to do this using nLite and vLite a couple of issues ago and, like backing up your machine, it’s something we should all do more often than we actually do. Windows 7 certainly has the upper hand here and, while it will undoubtedly have patches minutes
after release, they should hopefully be small and manageable. A new operating system isn’t going to be weighed down with patches and should be lean and toned, at least for a while.
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. The official Games for Windows site lists a total of nine games and some of those are rather suspect – Hellgate: London suffered an unfortunate early death, while Age of Conan’s DX10 implementation still isn’t live (there’s a cut-down client being tested right now, but many of the effects that were shown off nearly a year ago aren’t present). Crysis is still one of the platform’s best looking titles, although it’s hardly cutting-edge now. For many gamers, the lack of any real benefit to DX10 is still the problem – it just doesn’t do enough to warrant going out of your way to upgrade to. Sure, there are some nice effects, but clever shader programming can knock out incredible effects in DX9 too. Cast your eyes over GRID’s loveliness for simple proof of this. Game developers don’t want to limit themselves to a niche of the existing market just for the odd effect either – it’s simply not worth it. You only need look at the popularity of the likes of WoW to see that games don’t
Every OS ne eds to be ke pt up to date order to oper in ate smooth ly, but the ol it is, the long der er it takes to patch
need hi-tech visuals to be successful. You also shouldn’t forget that a fair chunk of games are console ports and that Xbox 360 doesn’t have a pile of DX10 cleverness hiding behind the red ring of death – it’s DX9 in nature (although admittedly with some clever DX10-like tricks up its wizard’s sleeve). So we’re not convinced about DX10 as a selling point for an OS although, to be fair, it’s a great way of showing off the capabilities of your graphics card. It’s telling that DirectX 11 isn’t going to have quite the same marketing push that its predecessor did (who can forget the ridiculous Flight Simulator images Microsoft pushed out to show how much better DX10 was than DX9). In other words don’t expect any DirectX 11 only games to appear any time soon.
POWERS OF TWO
A more pertinent question these days is whether to install a 32-bit or 64-bit OS. Windows XP started the ball rolling with x64, but in truth the driver support was too ropey to make this a serious consideration – indeed, we couldn’t get our test machine stable enough for testing in Windows XP x64. Vista and 7 are a different story though, and it’s the 64-bit versions that show the best performance in Far Cry 2. Part of the reason that the 64-bit versions do so well is because the operating system and game/ benchmark has access to the full
June 2009
20/4/09 9:03:39 am
Vista vs XP vs Windows 7 gamut of memory. Our test rig has 6GB of DDR3 and the difference this makes to the benchmarks is obvious. Memory is one of the main driving factors in a move to a 64-bit OS and as prices of RAM continue to drop, so that option becomes more and more appealing. In Far Cry 2, for instance, we saw an increase of two or three extra frames per second in-game, plus faster loading times for the actual games themselves, both for initial loading and for levels. Factor in much smoother alt-tabbing and it’s easy to see that the move to 64-bit brings many benefits and no obvious downsides. Speaking of loading times, our testing highlighted some interesting numbers and some confusing ones as well. Far Cry 2, for instance, may run relatively slowly in Windows XP, but it loads incredibly quickly in it – twice as quickly as it does in Vista 64. GRID loaded quickest on the 64-bit operating systems, which points to efficient use of memory once again. The best loading time for the OS goes to Windows 7 though, rolling in at just over a minute. Note that these times were recorded from the moment the power button was pressed, and so include the POST as well. The choice of which OS you should go for isn’t just about loading times or even frame rates. It’s also about usability. It’s about how comfortable you are with using it and it’s about compatibility. Windows 7 is commendable at this stage for just working with pretty much everything we threw at it (although for some reason on this machine it wouldn’t play ball with Fraps). Once again, this gives us high hopes for its future, particularly
when compared to the ill-tempered Vista launch. Only once you’ve used an operating system can you really know if it’s for you. Try as we might, we’re still not comfortable with Vista, while Windows 7 doesn’t irk us anywhere near is much. It’s a personal thing. Indeed, every time we mention that Windows Vista is less than perfect we get plenty of readers complaining about the fact. Maybe all our messing around with operating systems on a daily basis has spoiled us, but given the choice we’d still go for Windows XP for pure DX9 speed and Windows 7 64-bit for the good all-round experience.
CONCLUSIONS
Should you change your operating system just to get a few more frames out of your hardware? That really depends on what you use your machine for. If, for instance, you overclock your rig and are out to get the fastest frame rates around, then sticking with Vista when you could be getting more frames out of XP seems churlish. We’re not talking double figure differences here, but then again, your overclocking generally only amounts to a few extra frames as well. If, however, you want to run DX10 games, then Vista is in surprisingly good shape – it’s by far the fastest way to enjoy the likes of Far Cry 2 and there’s no question that your games will run. Ideally you’ll have 4GB of RAM or more and be able to run Vista 64 too. And what of Windows 7? It’s fast, particularly for number crunching, and can perform well with the latest games, but if you’re looking for speed alone it doesn’t quite beat Vista yet. ¤
“Sticking with Vista when you could be getting more frames out of XP seems churlish”
Industry standard 3D performance 3DMark06
INDEX: BIGGER IS BETTER
WINDOWS XP
13613
VISTA 32-BIT
13136
VISTA 64-BIT
12996
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
12914
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
12921 5,000 10,000 15,000 20.000 25,000
Industry standard performance (1 CPU) Cinebench R10
INDEX: BIGGER IS BETTER
WINDOWS XP
3226
VISTA 32-BIT
3171
VISTA 64-BIT
3918 3211
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
3928
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
1000
2000 3000 4000 5000
(Multi CPU) Cinebench R10
INDEX: BIGGER IS BETTER
WINDOWS XP
13125
VISTA 32-BIT
13228
VISTA 64-BIT
16072 13317
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
16347
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
5000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Open GL performance Cinebench R10
INDEX: BIGGER IS BETTER
WINDOWS XP
6572
VISTA 32-BIT
4852
VISTA 64-BIT
5773 5917
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
6047
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000
.¤
Industry standard system performance PCMark05
INDEX: BIGGER IS BETTER
WINDOWS XP
9427
VISTA 32-BIT
9586
VISTA 64-BIT
NA 10009
WINDOWS 7 32-BIT
NA
WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
June 2009
PCF227.feature1 35
35
20/4/09 9:04:3 am