My rig is a beast in x64

[Aleksander]

Originally Posted by ShiBDiB

havent we established the only reason its faster is because u switched to xp? has nothing to do with 32/64

No. The results i did in the bench of 3DMark 06 are from XP x64 to XP x32, but anyway windows 7 is worse than both for games, at least for the games i have tested with.

[mdsx1950]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Dishnica

No. The results i did in the bench of 3DMark 06 are from XP x64 to XP x32, but anyway windows 7 is worse than both for games, at least for the games i have tested with.

Thats because you got only 1GB Ram. If you had 2GB, you should be running a little better or equal. Windows 7 takes up your RAM more than XP because its running Aero and other stuff that takes up your RAM. Windows 7 takes atleast about 500MB Ram and XP takes only about 300MB max and well Vista takes more than Windows 7. When the game lacks RAM, the frames drop like shit. Even if your having a beast of a card like a GTX480 or something, your frames will go down. There will be a lot of lag. The person whos running a GTX 260 with 4GB RAM will be able to play a game like COD4 on Vista, lag free than person who is running a GTX480 on 1GB RAM on Vista.

[Aleksander]

Again Windows 7 is worse even if i have 24GB of ram. The windows aero is meant to take vram too.

[InnocentCriminal]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Dishnica

Again Windows 7 is worse even if i have 24GB of ram. The windows aero is meant to take vram too.

That's something I'd like to see, 64bit XP with 24GB vs 64bit 7 with 24GB.

[douglatins]

This thread is still going on WTF

[Aleksander]

This is a legendary thread, pls no dead soldiers welcomed :P

[mdsx1950]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Dishnica

Again Windows 7 is worse even if i have 24GB of ram. The windows aero is meant to take vram too.

Just a little. You can turn off Aero.

[Hockster]

Anyone else getting their daily dose of laughs from this thread? It's hilarious.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Dishnica

Again Windows 7 is worse even if i have 24GB of ram. The windows aero is meant to take vram too.

Well, if you are arguing along those lines, you are better off running windows 98.

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Well, if you are arguing along those lines, you are better off running windows 98.

Why not just go back to windows 3.1 I'm sure that has a very small footprint.

[Jstn7477]

Your system sucks to run Win7 because you have a very old computer with only 1GB of memory. Plain and simple.

I benched a single core Athlon 64 2.4GHz (Win7 32bit) and my Phenom II X4 955BE quad core @ 3.75GHz (Win7 64bit) with Linpack (LinX 0.6.4 specifically). Athlon 64 rig was running 2GB DDR400, and Phenom II X4 was running 4GB DDR3-1333.

Results:
Athlon 64 2.4GHz, 1 core: 2.3 GFLOPS
Phenom II 3.75GHz, 4 core: 48 GFLOPS (if you divide it by 4, you get 12 GFLOPS per core).

If my results are correct, one core of my processor just completely obliterated your entire processor. I also have 4x the RAM that you do. That's why Windows 7 runs great on my machine. End of story. Get a better computer.

Try running XP and Windows 7 on a Pentium 3 800MHz processor and 1GB SDRAM on a 440BX board. Obviously, Windows XP is going to run faster, hands down.

[Aleksander]

Anyone forgot MS-DOS???
@Jstn7477
What a news i didnt know about that!
I have a sempron which is worse than that athlon, so the results are even worse.

Thank you all for the pesimistic replies, cuz this thread was opened cuz i found smth which was tested in my computer. Why dont you test yours????
I mean not the differences of cpus, cuz you seem to show off that way and trying to offend my rig.
This thread will never stop as long as there are repliers which are not meant to reply about the thread, but about my rig.
I opened the thread to show that in x64 you can play games with better fps than in x86. (at least in my rig)

Why you people dont use, the calculating machine Pascal used for the first time, as an operating system cuz it takes half the foot of the print. A calculation machine with 24 GB of ram, can it ran Crysis???

[DrPepper]

We're skeptical of your results because 64 bit doesn not increase performance in 32bit applications.

Theoretically I suppose it could run it if people bothered to set it up. It would run very slowly and be utterly pointless.

[mdsx1950]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Dishnica

Anyone forgot MS-DOS???
@Jstn7477
What a news i didnt know about that!
I have a sempron which is worse than that athlon, so the results are even worse.

Thank you all for the pesimistic replies, cuz this thread was opened cuz i found smth which was tested in my computer. Why dont you test yours????
I mean not the differences of cpus, cuz you seem to show off that way and trying to offend my rig.
This thread will never stop as long as there are repliers which are not meant to reply about the thread, but about my rig.
I opened the thread to show that in x64 you can play games with better fps than in x86. (at least in my rig)

Why you people dont use, the calculating machine Pascal used for the first time, as an operating system cuz it takes half the foot of the print. A calculation machine with 24 GB of ram, can it ran Crysis???

Its obvious. But only for people having 4GB or more and having quad cores. I had a similar PC like yours which i tested on x64 and x86 XP. There was no difference on frames. I just had more compatibility issues.

[Aleksander]

How comes that you had no difference in frames with a PC similar as mine???
I had visible differences in games with FPSs

[claylomax]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Dishnica

Anyone forgot MS-DOS???
@Jstn7477
What a news i didnt know about that!
I have a sempron which is worse than that athlon, so the results are even worse.

Thank you all for the pesimistic replies, cuz this thread was opened cuz i found smth which was tested in my computer. Why dont you test yours????
I mean not the differences of cpus, cuz you seem to show off that way and trying to offend my rig.
This thread will never stop as long as there are repliers which are not meant to reply about the thread, but about my rig.
I opened the thread to show that in x64 you can play games with better fps than in x86. (at least in my rig)

Why you people dont use, the calculating machine Pascal used for the first time, as an operating system cuz it takes half the foot of the print. A calculation machine with 24 GB of ram, can it ran Crysis???

Indeed.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I do recall a few years ago there were articles showing intel takes a performance hit in 64 bit while amd doesn't, what I don't recall is if amd did better in 64 bit than 32.

[Aleksander]

Looks like amd did :P

[mdsx1950]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Dishnica

Looks like amd did :P

I dont know about that. But theres no way in hell you can run COD4 on very high with AA on a 7600GS when even a 7800GTX can't run it. It just makes no sense bro.

[Aleksander]

What technology was used in that 7800GTX???
Cuz i got better graphics than 7600GT and mine is 80nm, meaning better than the reference one.
One of my friends told me that this card is damn good for what it is supposed to give. He had 7600GT 512 and was worse than mine. At least so he said to me.
I bought it for 97$ (2007 august)
He bought 7600GT for 85$
And he bought it before me...
If the 7800GTX is one of the first released, than i should suppose that the version is worse than my 7600GS.
PLS give me the specs, i am really curious.
One last thing to add is that i could turn on antialiasing with no probs, only in x64, 64 - bit.
In 32 bit there was no way to run the game with good fps.

[DrPepper]

Nope the 7800GTX is still faster than your 7600GS regardless of the fabrication process used to make it.

[claylomax]

You can check your specs here, although I don't think they very accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...7xxx.29_series

[mdsx1950]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Dishnica

What technology was used in that 7800GTX???
Cuz i got better graphics than 7600GT and mine is 80nm, meaning better than the reference one.
One of my friends told me that this card is damn good for what it is supposed to give. He had 7600GT 512 and was worse than mine. At least so he said to me.
I bought it for 97$ (2007 august)
He bought 7600GT for 85$
And he bought it before me...
If the 7800GTX is one of the first released, than i should suppose that the version is worse than my 7600GS.
PLS give me the specs, i am really curious.
One last thing to add is that i could turn on antialiasing with no probs, only in x64, 64 - bit.
In 32 bit there was no way to run the game with good fps.

I cant remember... but my old ATi x1950GT which is head to head with a 7800GTX couldnt play COD4 on very high with AA at 1360x768 Resolution on 1GB DDR2 800Mhz Ram. I tested 64bit and 32bit versions of XP. Though i tried on a Intel E2200 processor which is a better processor than the Sempron 3000+ your using. Still no way was i able to get 30fps stable.

So no way is a your Sempron will perform better than the E2200 dual core. And no way a 7600 will beat a 7800GTX. and no way your DDR1 Ram is going to better than DDR2 Ram. So i see absolutely no way your rig can perform so well. Maybe your running the game at 640x480 Res or something. Because its impossible.

[Aleksander]

How is it possible? So said my friend too, cuz at that time he had 2 GB of ram, 4400+ athlon and the 7600gt 512. Still he said STALKER was running better in my PC :S
That is a real enigma for my rig. At least did you overclock the 7800GTX???
What is more, my card is not even listed in wikipedia :P

[mdsx1950]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Dishnica

How is it possible? So said my friend too, cuz at that time he had 2 GB of ram, 4400+ athlon and the 7600gt 512. Still he said STALKER was running better in my PC :S
That is a real enigma for my rig. At least did you overclock the 7800GTX???
What is more, my card is not even listed in wikipedia :P

Maybe your having a different card in your rig which looks like a 7600GS imitation. Because its impossible. I didnt own the 7800GTX. It was a friends'. I had a X1950GT.