The current lack of support for next-generation features means that gaming performance between Windows 7 and its predecessors is relatively similar.
To test, we used the same rig as with our 2D benchmarks - albeit with a Radeon HD 4890 card rather than an HD 4550 - with Crysis and Call of Juarez, two of the stiffest tests for a modern graphics card. Windows XP was the fastest system in Crysis, managing 53fps in our high-quality benchmark compared to 48fps from both Vista and Windows 7.
But XP's lack of DirectX 10 support means that, even if its frame rates are quicker than its rivals, games just won't look their best on the ageing OS - Call of Juarez, for instance, won't even run without DirectX 10 support.
However, there was little to choose between Windows Vista and 7 when it came to gaming performance. They achieved identical scores of 48fps and 29fps in our high-quality and very-high quality Crysis benchmarks.
 |
| The Windows 7 Release Candidate and Vista achieved identical scores of 48fps and 29fps in our high-quality and very-high quality Crysis benchmark. |
And there was little between them in the Call of Juarez DirectX 10 benchmark: while Windows 7 was faster at low resolutions, running at 151fps in the low-quality test to Vista's 138fps, both operating systems scored similarly in more detailed tests, with Vista managing 47fps in the high-quality benchmark and Windows 7 running a frame slower.
Microsoft's decision to use the same core OS as Vista means that incompatible games seem to be few and far between. In short, gamers have nothing to lose from a Windows 7 upgrade - and potentially plenty to gain when support for DirectX 11 arrives.
Also in our series, Windows 7 the complete guide:
Part 4: playing DivX and XviD files
Part 3: will your PC actually boot any quicker?
Part 2: raw performance benchmarks
Part 1: good news for gamers?
Also see: The 30 Best Features of Windows 7