Which OS for 3DMark06?

[Laurijan]

Hi!

I wanna know which OS gives me the best results in 3DMark06.
I heard that Vista is about 400 points slower than XP.
And does running a 64bit OS make any difference in 3DMark06?

Lauri

[ShadowFold]

Windows XP Home, I dont think its 64bit so it will just run slower.

[asb2106]

any version of XP runs perfect, including 32 and 64 bit

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

XP x64 is only Pro.

[asb2106]

Originally Posted by CrAsHnBuRnXp

XP x64 is only Pro.

cool

[gOJDO]

xp pro 32bit

[erocker]

XP Professional 32-bit properly tweaked. Learn to tweak it here.

[happita]

Originally Posted by erocker

XP Professional 32-bit properly tweaked. Learn to tweak it here.

VERY useful site. I thank you

[ntdouglas]

Originally Posted by erocker

XP Professional 32-bit properly tweaked. Learn to tweak it here.

Excellent post erocker, I couldn't agree more.
@Laurijan. Read up man, that kind of stuff is all over the internet. Its all about turning shit off in windows sp2. About 3dmark. Why is the total score so important?

To me, vista sucks. I've been on several vista machines lately and they are SLOW.

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Originally Posted by ntdouglas

Excellent post erocker, I couldn't agree more.
@Laurijan. Read up man, that kind of stuff is all over the internet. Its all about turning shit off in windows sp2. About 3dmark. Why is the total score so important?

To me, vista sucks. I've been on several vista machines lately and they are SLOW.

What were the system specs of the machines you used? If they are client machines, then I bet its clogged up with BS anyway because the average user doesnt know how to maintain a proper system.

[erocker]

I'll skim through the tweak guide and post important parts to read... one sec.

[erocker]

Okay class. Take home your textbooks (tweakguide) and read the following important pages, though you can read it all if you want, I'm just highlightin the key readings:

Pages:
30-44
55-64
88-110
115-119
171

If you come in tomorrow with a melted processor you will get an F! Good day!!

[niko084]

XP x64 will be the fastest when properly setup, its slightly more efficient then Xp x86, and on top of that you pick up the slight 64bit increase alone.

Fresh Xp Pro 3dmark06 - 11076
Fresh Xp Pro x64 3dmark07 - 11494
*Average of 10 runs, High Xp Pro x86 -11113, High Xp x64 - 11632*

Same clocks, so not a lot but an amount that does make an obvious difference when benchmarking, I also see a very slightly better frame rate average in games in x64, like I said it is very little, but is there, so if you are looking for benchmarking its the way to go.

[AddSub]

I heard that Vista is about 400 points slower than XP.

From my experience, there isn't a specific amount of points, more like there is a 10% penalty in 3DMark06, and up to 15% in 3DMark03, in 3DMark01 it can be much more, depending on the GPU. (vs. 2k/xp 32bit) OpenGL benchmarking apps also suffer in varying degrees.

As for 3DMark06 specifically? Depending on your GPU/CPU, I can only recommend a tweaked Win2k or WinXP 32bit install. No other alternatives really, if you are serious about squeezing every bit of performance out your machine for benchmarking purposes.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by niko084

XP x64 will be the fastest when properly setup, its slightly more efficient then Xp x86, and on top of that you pick up the slight 64bit increase alone.

Fresh Xp Pro 3dmark06 - 11076
Fresh Xp Pro x64 3dmark07 - 11494
*Average of 10 runs, High Xp Pro x86 -11113, High Xp x64 - 11632*

Same clocks, so not a lot but an amount that does make an obvious difference when benchmarking, I also see a very slightly better frame rate average in games in x64, like I said it is very little, but is there, so if you are looking for benchmarking its the way to go.

Huh? If I decided to pick up 2 more gb's of ram, with x64 it would show 4gb's? Plus is there any OC disadvantages with x64 and/or 4 sticks of ram?

[warhammer]

Originally Posted by ntdouglas

Excellent post erocker, I couldn't agree more.
@Laurijan. Read up man, that kind of stuff is all over the internet. Its all about turning shit off in windows sp2. About 3dmark. Why is the total score so important?

To me, vista sucks. I've been on several vista machines lately and they are SLOW.

Please explain how Vista SUCKS.?

So lets put it to the test your 3dmarks score is ?

[btarunr]

There are two primary reasons people use 3DMark:

1. To test and evaluate several pieces of hardware on a common testbed (as in reviews).

2. To evaluate the performance of their own video-card in the environment it works in.

Let 3DMark not decide for you which OS you should be using, use a supported OS of your choice, the OS that you use for everything other than 3DMark, the OS that is the base of your everyday computing and on that OS you install 3DMark and test your hardware. Don't use an older OS just to get better results, use it in the OS of your taste/choice (that's supported by 3DMark '06) and get a fair result.

But if you're into competition, overclocking and craving for every single HWBoint, 3D mark then choose Windows XP with SP1.

[trog100]

its hard choosing xp with sp1.. just too many things wont install on it.. they demand sp2.. i hung with it till forced to install sp2.. i will hang with xp sp2 in pretty much the same manner till forced to install vista.. he he

i never move till i have to..

trog

[niko084]

Originally Posted by erocker

Huh? If I decided to pick up 2 more gb's of ram, with x64 it would show 4gb's? Plus is there any OC disadvantages with x64 and/or 4 sticks of ram?

Yes it would, and it would use it.

No OC disadvantages with x64, but it can be a bit rougher to overclock your ram simply because you have more sticks and any single one can limit you... Buy good ram or staying at or under the rated speed, your good to go.

[Graogrim]

Originally Posted by warhammer

Please explain how Vista SUCKS.?

Come on, it's pretty plain. While I wouldn't personally say that Vista sucks, it does embody a set of principles that have proven less compatible with gaming than those embodied by XP.

XP has a proven track record for gaming performance and compatibility that Vista can't match. It just can't. At best it comes close in select cases. If you tweak and disable and pare down Vista to its barest functionality, you can still achieve better in XP and you only have a stripped down OS that's lost many of its advantages to show for it.

A lot of people just don't care about a largely theoretical security improvement when it visibly costs performance and gets in their way. Now if Vista were out and out immune to attack the story might be different.

But it isn't.

Although its architectural improvements are undeniable, they don't achieve enough to make a practical difference to end users. So what if Vista has needed fewer security patches in its first year or so? Its users still need to exercise caution when browsing and they can still get hit with viruses and keyloggers and trojans and other malware. From a usability standpoint that makes it all academic. Throw in a helping of added inconvenience from some of Vista's own features and it's no wonder adoption is lukewarm.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by warhammer

Please explain how Vista SUCKS.?

So lets put it to the test your 3dmarks score is ?

Um.. it's a known FACT that there is a point hit with Vista.

[Laurijan]

Originally Posted by erocker

Um.. it's a known FACT that there is a point hit with Vista.

I agree with it - i just installed a fresh xp and the 3DMark06 score is about 450pt higher than in Vista.. I will test win xp x64 later but i suspect it to have another 400-500pt advantage..

[niko084]

Originally Posted by Laurijan

I agree with it - i just installed a fresh xp and the 3DMark06 score is about 450pt higher than in Vista.. I will test win xp x64 later but i suspect it to have another 400-500pt advantage..

Indeed VISTA you WILL get a HIT, no matter WHAT you do...
*saying you are also comparing to a equally clean XP install*

64bit I have noticed gives a very slight boost in points, but nothing too much.

There is a reason NOBODY uses Vista for benchmarking competition.

[trog100]

MS has never produced an operating system that performs better than its predecessor.. they do some extra things.. they look prettier.. thye take up extra space.. but they all go slower or need extra horsepower to go the same.. vista is no different than all the others that came before it..

which is why i never move up till i am forced to..

trog

[niko084]

Originally Posted by trog100

MS has never produced an operating system that performs better than its predecessor.. they do some extra things.. they look prettier.. thye take up extra space.. but they all go slower or need extra horsepower to go the same.. vista is no different than all the others that came before it..

which is why i never move up till i am forced to..

trog

Eh true... Except 2000 Pro SP4 - Xp... Kinda*

SP4 for 2000 Pro deliberately destroyed its performance on boot and shut down. I believe there were other finds that damaged the performance of it but I cannot say for certain.