Which is Faster for Gaming, Windows 10 or Windows 11?

[trgz]

My takeaway from this is not to even consider an upgrade to Win11 given all the negative aspects of the OS; maybe even consider trying Wine again on my dual boot Win10/Mint

 

[zulu53]

As stated at the end of the article there is not much difference at the Gaming level on your choice of 10 or 11 (as long as a "Security" sub-routine is disabled). But thats presisely the selling point that MS made about Win 11 - a more secure OS with at least the same performance as Win 10. Now on 2 fronts proven to be unture. Games only match if MS "Security", the selling point, is compromised by the user. In addition as CrowdStirke (taking over from CyberStrike) have proven a minor breach of MS OS walls can lead to BSOD. For Gamers a BSOD means a 0 fps, by the way, or in technical terms an infinite performance difference. Be interesting to see which OS version the BSOD computers were running. As far as I can tell the only computers not effected were running Linux in some version.

 

[zulu53]

Sorry but no. The fact that 5 games ran slightly faster on Win10 does not make Win11 a huge failure. Better does not always mean "faster" when it comes to software. And, if the software (games) were developed on a prior version of the OS, it could have some impact on gaming performance. Normally you wouldn't expect that from one release to another, but I don't know enough about what changes were made to Win11 to know if that's a factor here or not.

My experience with Win11 is good. I can't remember the last time the OS crashed. Apps crash, but I haven't had a BSOD or Windows crash in ages.

I don't see people calling Win11 a "huge" failure but only a "normal" MS failure. Remember this small difference in Gaming was only after Win 11 "Security" features were disabled - I.e. a modified Win 11 rather than an out-of-the box Win 11. That now is a failure - Win 11 should at least have been able to compete with Win 10 out-of-the box; especially now that a whitehat hacker (Crowdstrike) have shown that Windows OS "Security" is very flawed regardless.- now that's a "huge" even a "huge, huge, huge" failure; try playing games at 0 fps. Fantastic that no one plays games at work though; gamers were then completely cut of from the hack - Game security 101 - stay off the WAN/LAN.

 

[waclark]

I don't see people calling Win11 a "huge" failure but only a "normal" MS failure. Remember this small difference in Gaming was only after Win 11 "Security" features were disabled - I.e. a modified Win 11 rather than an out-of-the box Win 11. That now is a failure - Win 11 should at least have been able to compete with Win 10 out-of-the box; especially now that a whitehat hacker (Crowdstrike) have shown that Windows OS "Security" is very flawed regardless.- now that's a "huge" even a "huge, huge, huge" failure; try playing games at 0 fps. Fantastic that no one plays games at work though; gamers were then completely cut of from the hack - Game security 101 - stay off the WAN/LAN.

Actually, the post I responded to said, " pretty much makes the OS a huge failure if you ask me". Performance comparisons don't show that Win 10 is hands down better in every case. This is a 13-game summary. Let's see a top 50 game summary.

And my point was that speed is not always an essential measure of "better". If the system improves overall security at the cost of speed, that's usually a tradeoff most people/businesses would make. In this case it's not a "modified" Win 11. It's a toggle switch that the user can turn on or off as needed.

As you said, try playing games if your system has been compromised regardless of the OS. As for CrowdStrike that was a bad file in a third-party app. Granted Windows didn't handle it well, but it wasn't a security breach, and it wasn't something MS did.

Security in general is to stay disconnected and have physical control of any computer you want to protect. Unfortunately, for most people and especially including gamers, that's not a realistic recommendation. Most of us download titles from a service, eg Steam, GOG, Epic etc. and/or play online games.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

The question remains: If W10 is faster, why do you use W11 in your reviews?

 

[LimyG]

Too many exaggerations in this thread. Bottom line is that their overall, (more than the 5 games in the article) is not a huge differerence. Of course there will be stand out huge differences going both ways, but overall, it's not totally simple.

My point of view is that W10 is somewhat better in quite a few games. But I have highly optimized and debloated my W10. That makes a difference.

The level of tweaks, reg hacks, and turning off numerous crud so as to leave all hardware free to work on the game takes a while and experimentation on W10. Also easier with a local account.

These numerous tweaks and debloating cannot be done to the same extent on W11. It's really locked down how MS wants. Sure, a lot can be done, but not as much as on W10.

Out the box, with no tweaks. An MS account, Steam, and a large variety of games. Both systems on game mode. Both with default level of security as set by respective OSs.

That would be really interesting. The article. Seems to have used a level play field, but only five games. Needs to include the most demanding. Some AAA games from 4 - 6 years ago, and plenty of old retro games (which should run exactly the same - if say a 20 year old GOG classic didn't start up quick and run perfectly on either system - it would fail.) Despite CPU micro code not being compatable with some old games, the OS should be able to auto work around that.

Does anyone know, with facts, not opinion anything about that (retro games)?

Finally, I still give W10 a slight lead. The problems with W11 are that when I have intsalled it, I almost feel I am not in 100% control of my machine.

Pretty, but advert filled BLOAT. That's W11. I'll avoid it.

 

[LimyG]

Microsoft are on a terrible trajectory with Windows. A recent video with Wendell from Level1Tech described Windows11 as 'Adversarial Computing' which I thought sums up the OS now perfectly. It's a constant battle to keep it from doing things you really don't want and didn't ask for and that are purely for MS's benefit.

This!

The biggest problem of all. Win 11 does indeed force stuff. Shows the arrogance of MS and how they are not really focused on the end user as much as they should be.

 

[aatayyab]

The bottom line of this article and most of the comments suggest that Windows 10 is better. Windows 10 support is soon going to die like Windows 7. Windows 12 is the future and Windows 11 is the present by its maker. All of this Microsoft bashing is totally unnecessary since there are Linux and other OS's to switch. Dual-booting Windows 10 and Windows 11 is another alternate one can consider. I was happily surprised at Techspot offering Windows 11 Pro for less than 30 bucks when official Microsoft price goes above $100. Positive critique with helpful feedback to Microsoft technical team via official forum will definitely impact Windows development and usage. Learned a lot from this article and the honorable comments here even if I am not an avid Windows gamer. Thanks for your time.

 

[themastergoose]

Linux.

The answer is Linux is faster.
Linux is always the answer to which PC operating system is better for any given end user's purposes.

This article is about gaming performance. Let me take all the games I have installed in Steam right now (several are actually in this article), bench them under Windows 11, then format and clean install Ubuntu and re-test.

I'm fairly confident that for the games that will even run (because several won't), Linux isn't going to be faster in a single one of them. Linux also isn't going to be able to equal performance of Windows neither, even with the games that have native Linux versions.

Linux users will continue to always take an elitist view over those that use Windows, but the very second a game or program doesn't work on their OS they shout very loudly about it. They then complain about all the hoop jumping and workarounds just to get it at least a somewhat playable level with degraded performance.

Honestly, just dual boot Windows and use that for the things that need it. It's not going to kill you and save a heap of time.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

This article is about gaming performance. Let me take all the games I have installed in Steam right now (several are actually in this article), bench them under Windows 11, then format and clean install Ubuntu and re-test.

I'm fairly confident that for the games that will even run (because several won't), Linux isn't going to be faster in a single one of them. Linux also isn't going to be able to equal performance of Windows neither, even with the games that have native Linux versions.

Linux users will continue to always take an elitist view over those that use Windows, but the very second a game or program doesn't work on their OS they shout very loudly about it. They then complain about all the hoop jumping and workarounds just to get it at least a somewhat playable level with degraded performance.

Honestly, just dual boot Windows and use that for the things that need it. It's not going to kill you and save a heap of time.

Some games like GTA IV will be faster in the Vulkan translation layer than running natively in DX on Windows tbh

 

[nicoff]

I think you guys missed something here. You only tested 1080P because I assume that you assumed that the Windows version affects only the CPU side of the game. For a lot of the games tested, especially when running an RTX4090, they would be run at 1440p or 4k and potentially in one of the ultra-wide resolutions rather than 16:9. Therefore if we ran the tests in a way that was GPU limited rather than CPU limited we would get a better idea of a real-world scenario. I personally don't care which OS is better at 1080P.

 

[TooQik]

This article is about gaming performance. Let me take all the games I have installed in Steam right now (several are actually in this article), bench them under Windows 11, then format and clean install Ubuntu and re-test.

I'm fairly confident that for the games that will even run (because several won't), Linux isn't going to be faster in a single one of them. Linux also isn't going to be able to equal performance of Windows neither, even with the games that have native Linux versions.

Linux users will continue to always take an elitist view over those that use Windows, but the very second a game or program doesn't work on their OS they shout very loudly about it. They then complain about all the hoop jumping and workarounds just to get it at least a somewhat playable level with degraded performance.

Honestly, just dual boot Windows and use that for the things that need it. It's not going to kill you and save a heap of time.

I actually have my main PC setup with dual boot Ubuntu and Windows 10. Currently the only game I play which can't be run on Ubuntu is PUBG. Everything else I play on Ubuntu in Steam using varying Proton versions.

I have Hunt Showdown installed on both Windows and Ubuntu. The game play in Ubuntu is noticeably smoother in every aspect of the game. As to why this is, I can't answer, but it's noticeable. Do I get more FPS? I honestly haven't checked, but even if playing on Windows got me more frames, playing on Linux is more enjoyable for this particular game.

Without a doubt there are some games that run better on Windows than Linux, so making a blanket statement like "Games are better on Windows", or vice versa, is meaningless. Pick your game, pick your OS and enjoy.

 

[Shalimar]

Lacking w7 and Linux as viable alternatives

W7 still works better than either w10 or the pukefest of 11. And contrary to Mythbusters quite possible to have it upto date Securly patched. Just takesba small bit of work vs the foolsnrhat leave auro update on for anything M$ is pushing

And linux is not only viable but is steadily gaining esp due to valves support and the never ending stupidity of m$

 

[LimyG]

Just a thought. Windows 10 is an older and according to MS an OS everyone needs to upgrade (to 11)

They tout all the great things of W11. Consider this.

Gamers!
======

There should be NO contest at all. W11 should be much better in the vast majority of games. Not just 2% or even 7% better. But it's not. It's a close call.

Epic failure, epic bloat, and as usual MS disregarding their customers and doing whatever they want.

If W11 was clearly better for games, and faster overall, upgrading would be a no brainer. But it is none of those things. Like a Bloated Puffer fish (They are cute when scuba diving, but can barely move themselves - slowww)

Want a mess MS is.

 

[spottedme]

Windows 11 often shows slight improvements in performance and load times, especially with newer hardware and features like DirectStorage. However, Windows 10 still holds its own and can perform just as well in many cases. It really depends on your specific setup and the games you're playing.

 

[LimyG]

Windows 11 often shows slight improvements in performance and load times, especially with newer hardware and features like DirectStorage. However, Windows 10 still holds its own and can perform just as well in many cases. It really depends on your specific setup and the games you're playing.

Yeah, you are pretty spot on there.

That's why few people want to waste money on a new OS that may be slightly better than the current one (current as 60% use it) depending on ones hardware.

W11 is a sick puppy, a bloated fail fest, and MS expects people to be excited about upgrading.
MS are a disgrace.

They could start to improve by listening to customers, and giving them what they want.

What about a really fast properly programmed OS that has no bloat but interacts with hardware efficiently and seamlessly. Then, let us pick what software or apps (paid of course) that we want to have and will use.

The policy of forcing everything on everybody which bloats out their OS so it is not really an upgrade to W10 is arrogant beyond believe. And it's getting worse. 24H2 is the worst yet.

How is it possible that MS have screwed up so much and continue to do so at a seemingly accelerated rate.