How do I benchmarked games?

I just recently bought a 7600GT (I feel like a dick for not buying a 7900GS; I want some newnew shit for once) and I also have set up Windows XP/Vista dual boot.  Now I had previously been using Vista as my only OS, but after deciding to start gaming, I figured XP would be faster.  But is it really?  If so, to what extent?  I've read older benchmarks that say XP is the winner, but now that Vista has gone gold and nVidia keeps updating their drivers, I want to see for myself.  I actually prefer to use Vista over XP for a few reasons, but don't want to lose 10FPS on that shit.  If it turns out Vista is just as good, better, or not all that much worse, then I will go back to using it all the time.  If not, I guess I will stick to XP until hardware/software makes it irrelevant.

So far I've only played FEAR on either OS.  I don't visually see that much of a difference, but my eyes could be fooling me.  Anyway, I have no idea how to benchmark stuff.  I googled and couldn't find shit.  So can someone help me out?

In before "Vista sucks".

visually you wouldn't notice anyting unless on XP you have the setting on high and Vista is set to use medium (or high without all the same effects on).  your FPS will be the only thing to differ as more resources will be used for Vista in the background than XP.  try 3dMark2006 (www.futuremark.com) to do some benchmarks, but easiest way to gain a bit of performance is kill some extra processes

Does 3DMark benchmark specific games?  It was my understanding that it just ran its own tests.  The reason why I care is because I also read elsewhere that NVidia and ATI both optimize their drivers for the best results in 3DMark; which obviously skews the results when I'm trying to find out about actual gaming.

just turn on fps report in your favorite game. this is different per game, but most likely involves some simple command in console. google it. then, play through the same area, noting your average frame rate. then do the same this on the other OS. there you go, ghetto, unreliable data!

>>1
How can Vista be any faster with all that bloat, retard?

Hi, I have a car model X. Then I add a Christmas tree, chrome, a glass wheel cause it's transparent and transparent is better cause it looks kewl and I read it in a magazine, and useless devices, and name it car model Vista. Will Vista be faster than X?

>>1
As of now, it WILL be slower with Vista. Not because it eats more resources but because there are next to no Vista optimized drivers available right now. If you want performance in video games, it's not the right time to update.

>>5
It's already been seen that certain software _is_ faster on Vista than it is on XP, due to parts of Vista being optimized.  Example being Photoshop.  Also, cars are not operating systems, so your analogy fails.  Regardless, as I said previously, it was not a question of whether it was faster or slower but TO WHAT DEGREE.  Asshole.

Step 1: Get FRAPs
Step 2:???
Step 3: PROFIT!

Anyway, I have just run some tests.  I was unaware that FEAR had a benchmarking thingy built into it, so I ran that in XP and then in Vista.  The results were surprising.

My computadore: Pentium D 820 (2.8GHz)/1024MB RAM/GeForce 7600GT
On both XP and Vista i have the latest Nvidia drivers.  I made sure to have no background processes on; I even turned my anti-virus off.  I have not made any type of optimizations on either machine, such as disabling services or UI interfaces.

FEAR - 1024x768 - Maximum settings - vsync off - XP
minimum FPS: 20
average FPS: 42
maximum FPS: 108
under 25FPS: 16%; between 25 and 40FPS: 46%; above 40FPS: 38%

FEAR - 1024x768 - Maximum settings - vsync off - Vista
minimum FPS: 21
average FPS: 42
maximum FPS: 101
under 25FPS: 11%; between 25 and 40FPS; 49%; above 40FPS: 40%

So basically, the performance is practically the same.  Except that when I use FEAR's auto-detect feature and it selects the graphics/performance settings by itself, Vista apparently outperforms XP...  Not joking here.  I'm not precisely sure what settings were give to me by FEAR's auto-detect.  I will go back and verify and then post them here, but until then, these are my results:

FEAR - 1024x768 - Auto-detected settings - vsync off - XP
minimum FPS: 22
average FPS: 44
maximum FPS: 109
under 25FPS: 12%; between 25 and 40FPS; 42%; above 40FPS: 46%

FEAR - 1024x768 - Auto-detected settings - vsync off - Vista
minimum FPS: 22
average FPS: 64
maximum FPS: 170 <-- ? what?
under 25FPS: 7%; between 25 and 40FPS; 21%; above 40FPS: 72%

What's disturbing is how often it is above 40FPS, and how the max FPS is so high...  It must be some kind of mistake.  I have no idea.  It could be that FEAR detected my hardware incorrectly on Vista and set things lower than it did on XP.  I can't say for sure until I double-check, but I don't remember seeing this.

BBL.

>>7
Enjoy your DRM, retard.

>>10
That's like saying, "enjoy having to type in a serial number, retard".

Everything is cracked.  No one cares about security measures.

>>11
Until part of the security is done in hardware.

>>11
Serial number? Windows DRM has DRM. In the kernel, and as a hidden process. Can't be easily cracked, and it can't be turned off by the user or noticed in any way, other than messing with what files you copy and how. This is an unacceptable violation of personal rights.

zomg hax the kernel lulz

You see, it's attitudes like that which give birth to trolls.

Just a warning on this next paragraph, DON'T YOU DARE CALL ME A TROLL BECAUSE YOU STARTED IT!

4chan is pretty much 99% crass hypocrites.  It's one thing to tell someone to screw off, but it's another thing to tell someone to screw off when you are the one screwing yourself off.  It's one thing to be a hypocrite, but it is much better to be a hypocrite and admit it (like me).  I try to take the high road and I get slapped.  Thanks for nothing, Anonymous.

Now, is someone going to help me, or is everyone tried of slapping me, so I should expect a kick in the balls next?