• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Which OS for 3DMark06?

warhammer

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
204 (0.06/day)
Likes
25
Processor Q6600@3.6
Motherboard Evga 680i
Cooling H20
Memory 2GB DDR2
Video Card(s) 8800GTS 512 SLI
Storage 4x320gig
Display(s) 21CRT
Case ARMOR
Audio Device(s) SB
Power Supply 750W
Software VISTA ULTIMATE
#26
I am just interested to see why people don’t like VISTA.

I must say some of argument put up by people remind me of the early days of when XP came out.

But hey I have a client of mine that is still running windows 95 within their office work that one out.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
5,970 (1.36/day)
Likes
835
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 7700K at 4800 mhz.. vcore 1.280 volts..
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z279F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Super Jetstream 1070 x 2..
Storage Three.. all solid state 128 Transend.. 1 T Sandisk.. 1 T Transend.. plus USB external..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and not really big enough for what is inside..
Audio Device(s) USB Sound blaster Roar 2 all in one unit with bluetooth
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores 3Dmark Firestrike Ultra 8542.. Timespy 10508.. everyday settings..
#27
I am just interested to see why people don’t like VISTA.

I must say some of argument put up by people remind me of the early days of when XP came out.

But hey I have a client of mine that is still running windows 95 within their office work that one out.
yes and the arguments were equally true back then as they are now.. :)

trog
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
1,003 (0.24/day)
Likes
156
System Name [Primary Workstation]
Processor Intel Core i7-920 Bloomfield @ 3.8GHz/4.55GHz [24-7/Bench]
Motherboard EVGA X58 E758-A1 [Tweaked right!]
Cooling Cooler Master V8 [stock fan + two 133CFM ULTRA KAZE fans]
Memory 12GB [Kingston HyperX]
Video Card(s) constantly upgrading/downgrading [prefer nVidia]
Storage constantly upgrading/downgrading [prefer Hitachi/Samsung]
Display(s) Triple LCD [40 inch primary + 32 & 28 inch auxiliary displays]
Case Cooler Master Cosmos 1000 [Mesh Mod, CFM Overload]
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar D1 + onboard Realtek ALC889A [Logitech Z-5300 Spk., Niko 650-HP 5.1 Hp., X-Bass Hp.]
Power Supply Corsair TX950W [aka Reactor]
Software This and that... [All software 100% legit and paid for, 0% pirated]
Benchmark Scores Ridiculously good scores!!!
#28
I must say some of argument put up by people remind me of the early days of when XP came out.
That XP was slower than Win98SE and even Win2k? That it was nothing but Win2k except with a hallucinogenic lego color theme and fisher price interface and dialogs for the inept? All those were true then and they are true today.

Like I said, for pure benchmarking purposes, depending on hardware in question I would recommend Win2k/XP, although in some benchmarks such as 3DMark 2003 and with select hardware Win2k is known to outperform XP by about 6%-7% or more. For really old hardware (KT400/nForce2 and earlier) Win98SE is a clear choice, since that's another easy 5% to 10% or so.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
2,403 (0.61/day)
Likes
472
Location
Oulu, Finland
System Name Enslaver :)
Processor Intel i5 3570K Ivy Bridge, 4GHz no voltage increase OC
Motherboard ASRock Z77 Extreme4
Cooling CPU: Noctua NH-D14, Case: mix of different fans
Memory 24GB DDR3 1866MHz- mix Samsung green 1600MHZ OC + Kingston Fury 1866MHz stock
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1080 A8G Strix + disbled Intel HD4000
Storage 500GB Samsung Evo 850 SSD, internal WD Red 4TB for storage
Display(s) LG 55SJ810V 4K IPS TV, HDR
Case Corsair 800D
Audio Device(s) Over HDMI
Power Supply Quite new Corsair RM850x
Mouse ROG Gladius
Keyboard QPAD MX-50 mechanical
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#29
Ok stay tuned i will release in several hours the result what is faster in 3DMark06 XP Pro 32Bit or XP Pro 64Bit.

I am just installing both on the same HDD on different partitions.

Every windows update as well as Netframe 2.0 and DX9.0c updates will be installed.
All drivers will be installed with the latest versions also both OS will be tuned for max performance and both partitions will be defragmented completly before running 3DMark06 1.1.0
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
2,403 (0.61/day)
Likes
472
Location
Oulu, Finland
System Name Enslaver :)
Processor Intel i5 3570K Ivy Bridge, 4GHz no voltage increase OC
Motherboard ASRock Z77 Extreme4
Cooling CPU: Noctua NH-D14, Case: mix of different fans
Memory 24GB DDR3 1866MHz- mix Samsung green 1600MHZ OC + Kingston Fury 1866MHz stock
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1080 A8G Strix + disbled Intel HD4000
Storage 500GB Samsung Evo 850 SSD, internal WD Red 4TB for storage
Display(s) LG 55SJ810V 4K IPS TV, HDR
Case Corsair 800D
Audio Device(s) Over HDMI
Power Supply Quite new Corsair RM850x
Mouse ROG Gladius
Keyboard QPAD MX-50 mechanical
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#30
So i have tested both OS and came to an avarage score of 11998 on WinXP x32 and an disappointing avarage score of 11732 for WinXp x64
 

Graogrim

New Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
308 (0.08/day)
Likes
31
Location
East Coast US
System Name Paradigm
Processor i5 3570k
Motherboard MSI Z77A-G43
Cooling OEM
Memory 8 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 2133
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce GTX 670 2 GB
Storage 128 MB Corsair M4 SSD + 1 TB WD Caviar Black
Display(s) Samsung 24"
Case Rosewill Challenger USB 3
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply Corsair GS 800
Software Windows 7 64 bit
#31
Remember that there is no 64 bit version of 3DMark. And that 64 bit drivers are less mature than their 32 bit counterparts.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
193 (0.05/day)
Likes
37
#32
A few weeks ago, I installed xp 32 bit on another harddrive and ran 3dMark05 on it to see what I would get. (About 13900) I have already ran it on my Vista install and I was getting about 14100 which is obviously faster.

The other thing, the xp install was clean with no other programs. My Vista install had no tweaks and was running antivirus and other stuff. :laugh::toast::nutkick: I noticed also that for the most part, it is the NVidia owners that end up with the lower Vista score.

(I am running an ATI 2900 Pro.) I ran these test at stock speeds. I went back to Vista, no point for me in going to XP again on my main machine.

Joe
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
2,403 (0.61/day)
Likes
472
Location
Oulu, Finland
System Name Enslaver :)
Processor Intel i5 3570K Ivy Bridge, 4GHz no voltage increase OC
Motherboard ASRock Z77 Extreme4
Cooling CPU: Noctua NH-D14, Case: mix of different fans
Memory 24GB DDR3 1866MHz- mix Samsung green 1600MHZ OC + Kingston Fury 1866MHz stock
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1080 A8G Strix + disbled Intel HD4000
Storage 500GB Samsung Evo 850 SSD, internal WD Red 4TB for storage
Display(s) LG 55SJ810V 4K IPS TV, HDR
Case Corsair 800D
Audio Device(s) Over HDMI
Power Supply Quite new Corsair RM850x
Mouse ROG Gladius
Keyboard QPAD MX-50 mechanical
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#33
A few weeks ago, I installed xp 32 bit on another harddrive and ran 3dMark05 on it to see what I would get. (About 13900) I have already ran it on my Vista install and I was getting about 14100 which is obviously faster.

The other thing, the xp install was clean with no other programs. My Vista install had no tweaks and was running antivirus and other stuff. :laugh::toast::nutkick: I noticed also that for the most part, it is the NVidia owners that end up with the lower Vista score.

(I am running an ATI 2900 Pro.) I ran these test at stock speeds. I went back to Vista, no point for me in going to XP again on my main machine.

Joe
I might test your theory about ati users having less lower scores then in XP on Vista with 3DMark06.. I have a x1300 laying around..
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
5,970 (1.36/day)
Likes
835
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 7700K at 4800 mhz.. vcore 1.280 volts..
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z279F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Super Jetstream 1070 x 2..
Storage Three.. all solid state 128 Transend.. 1 T Sandisk.. 1 T Transend.. plus USB external..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and not really big enough for what is inside..
Audio Device(s) USB Sound blaster Roar 2 all in one unit with bluetooth
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores 3Dmark Firestrike Ultra 8542.. Timespy 10508.. everyday settings..
#34
i think vista simply uses more system resources running itself than xp does.. which is the reason pretty much everything runs faster on xp..

okay chuck some new super hardware and vista runs okay.. the vista overhead gets absorbed.. but horse power for horse power xp will win..

vista is the future.. soon we will all be forced to use it like it or not.. not much point in arguing which is best.. but at present i see little point in me moving to vista so i stick with xp.. but i know as time moves on this will change..

trog
 

Nitro-Max

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
2,476 (0.60/day)
Likes
232
Location
Great Yarmouth, United Kingdom.{East Anglian Coast
System Name Hells Core.
Processor Q6600 Go @ 3.6ghz 24/7 1.360v stable.
Motherboard Asus Rampage Formula.
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro (lapped). 1x120mm Akasa fan 2x80mm akasa fans (variable speeds)
Memory OCZ Reaper HPC 4GB 2x2 gigs pc2-6400 latency 6-6-6-15 @1100mhz. D9,s
Video Card(s) 2 x HIS HD5870's Crossfire
Storage WD Caviar SE 160GB 7200RPM SATAII 8MB Cache / Samsung 7200RPM SATAII 16mb Cache.
Display(s) 22" Benq True LED/HD.
Case Inwin IronClad Gaming case
Audio Device(s) Sound Blaster X-Fi™ XtremeMusic EAX 5.0.2
Power Supply Hiper 880W Type-M Quad sli crossfire certified. 85% Efficiency Rated.
Software Windows 7 Home Premium
Benchmark Scores "3dmark06 23995" Q6600@4.3ghz 3870x2 GPU @900mhz MEM @1000mhz-OS XP. "The Current TPU Champ"
#35
i think vista simply uses more system resources running itself than xp does.. which is the reason pretty much everything runs faster on xp..

okay chuck some new super hardware and vista runs okay.. the vista overhead gets absorbed.. but horse power for horse power xp will win..

vista is the future.. soon we will all be forced to use it like it or not.. not much point in arguing which is best.. but at present i see little point in me moving to vista so i stick with xp.. but i know as time moves on this will change..

trog
100% agreed ^^^^^
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
193 (0.05/day)
Likes
37
#36
I might test your theory about ati users having less lower scores then in XP on Vista with 3DMark06.. I have a x1300 laying around..
Let us know what you end up with. My observation is totally unscientific though, I do not even own an NVidia card at this time to test it with myself.

Joe
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
2,403 (0.61/day)
Likes
472
Location
Oulu, Finland
System Name Enslaver :)
Processor Intel i5 3570K Ivy Bridge, 4GHz no voltage increase OC
Motherboard ASRock Z77 Extreme4
Cooling CPU: Noctua NH-D14, Case: mix of different fans
Memory 24GB DDR3 1866MHz- mix Samsung green 1600MHZ OC + Kingston Fury 1866MHz stock
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1080 A8G Strix + disbled Intel HD4000
Storage 500GB Samsung Evo 850 SSD, internal WD Red 4TB for storage
Display(s) LG 55SJ810V 4K IPS TV, HDR
Case Corsair 800D
Audio Device(s) Over HDMI
Power Supply Quite new Corsair RM850x
Mouse ROG Gladius
Keyboard QPAD MX-50 mechanical
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#37
Let us know what you end up with. My observation is totally unscientific though, I do not even own an NVidia card at this time to test it with myself.

Joe
I talked with a ATI card owner who has a 3870 and is having also 400pt lower scores in Vista then with XP so i dont want to install Vista again just to prove what i have heard already from a reliable source (sneekypeet).
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
193 (0.05/day)
Likes
37
#38
I talked with a ATI card owner who has a 3870 and is having also 400pt lower scores in Vista then with XP so i dont want to install Vista again just to prove what i have heard already from a reliable source (sneekypeet).
It must depend on the combination of hardware and drivers then. Ok, thanks for letting me know.

Joe
 

Graogrim

New Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
308 (0.08/day)
Likes
31
Location
East Coast US
System Name Paradigm
Processor i5 3570k
Motherboard MSI Z77A-G43
Cooling OEM
Memory 8 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 2133
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce GTX 670 2 GB
Storage 128 MB Corsair M4 SSD + 1 TB WD Caviar Black
Display(s) Samsung 24"
Case Rosewill Challenger USB 3
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply Corsair GS 800
Software Windows 7 64 bit
#39
I went back to Vista, no point for me in going to XP again on my main machine.
So, you're not running any applications other than 3DMark05?

Point being, if you're genuinely interested in getting the best performance possible with whatever you actually do with your system, you should benchmark that.

Now if you prefer Vista over XP sufficiently that performance differences aren't a concern, more power to you. But it is a little disingenuous to say there's "no point" in using XP.
 

CY:G

New Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
173 (0.04/day)
Likes
12
System Name CYGNUS X4
Processor Intel i7 2600k @ 3.6Ghz
Motherboard Asus p8p67Pro
Cooling ThermalRight Ultra 120 Extreme
Memory 2 * 4GB DDR 3 1600MHz = 8GB
Video Card(s) 2 * 6950 2GB In Crossfire and a 3870
Storage 2 * 640 GB WD AAKS in RAID 0
Display(s) 4 * 24" Dell LCDs
Case Cooler Master Cosmos
Power Supply Corsair HX650
#40
What if you have 4GB of ram, will XP 32Bit still outperform Xp 64bit or Vista 64, as win xp 32bit will only see 3GB of ram, dont even know if the amount of ram helps at all with 3DMark
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
2,403 (0.61/day)
Likes
472
Location
Oulu, Finland
System Name Enslaver :)
Processor Intel i5 3570K Ivy Bridge, 4GHz no voltage increase OC
Motherboard ASRock Z77 Extreme4
Cooling CPU: Noctua NH-D14, Case: mix of different fans
Memory 24GB DDR3 1866MHz- mix Samsung green 1600MHZ OC + Kingston Fury 1866MHz stock
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1080 A8G Strix + disbled Intel HD4000
Storage 500GB Samsung Evo 850 SSD, internal WD Red 4TB for storage
Display(s) LG 55SJ810V 4K IPS TV, HDR
Case Corsair 800D
Audio Device(s) Over HDMI
Power Supply Quite new Corsair RM850x
Mouse ROG Gladius
Keyboard QPAD MX-50 mechanical
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#41
What if you have 4GB of ram, will XP 32Bit still outperform Xp 64bit or Vista 64, as win xp 32bit will only see 3GB of ram, dont even know if the amount of ram helps at all with 3DMark
Good question! I have 4Gb ram and XP 32Bit is still faster in 3DMark06 then XP 64Bit must have to do with 64Bit OS having to load 2 Kernels one 32Bit and one 64Bit..
 

CY:G

New Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
173 (0.04/day)
Likes
12
System Name CYGNUS X4
Processor Intel i7 2600k @ 3.6Ghz
Motherboard Asus p8p67Pro
Cooling ThermalRight Ultra 120 Extreme
Memory 2 * 4GB DDR 3 1600MHz = 8GB
Video Card(s) 2 * 6950 2GB In Crossfire and a 3870
Storage 2 * 640 GB WD AAKS in RAID 0
Display(s) 4 * 24" Dell LCDs
Case Cooler Master Cosmos
Power Supply Corsair HX650
#42
Good question! I have 4Gb ram and XP 32Bit is still faster in 3DMark06 then XP 64Bit must have to do with 64Bit OS having to load 2 Kernels one 32Bit and one 64Bit..
Thanks for clearing that up, i know where im gonna be doing my benchmarks then haha

BTW, dont feel like opening a new topic, but do you guys know if having a WD Raptor HDD helps at all with 3DMark06? they are 10,000rpm vrs 7,400rpm of normal hard drives
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
2,403 (0.61/day)
Likes
472
Location
Oulu, Finland
System Name Enslaver :)
Processor Intel i5 3570K Ivy Bridge, 4GHz no voltage increase OC
Motherboard ASRock Z77 Extreme4
Cooling CPU: Noctua NH-D14, Case: mix of different fans
Memory 24GB DDR3 1866MHz- mix Samsung green 1600MHZ OC + Kingston Fury 1866MHz stock
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX 1080 A8G Strix + disbled Intel HD4000
Storage 500GB Samsung Evo 850 SSD, internal WD Red 4TB for storage
Display(s) LG 55SJ810V 4K IPS TV, HDR
Case Corsair 800D
Audio Device(s) Over HDMI
Power Supply Quite new Corsair RM850x
Mouse ROG Gladius
Keyboard QPAD MX-50 mechanical
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#43
Thanks for clearing that up, i know where im gonna be doing my benchmarks then haha

BTW, dont feel like opening a new topic, but do you guys know if having a WD Raptor HDD helps at all with 3DMark06? they are 10,000rpm vrs 7,400rpm of normal hard drives
I dont know about faster HDDs having impact on the scores - post the question in a new thread since it might not be anwered as fast here..
 

Graogrim

New Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
308 (0.08/day)
Likes
31
Location
East Coast US
System Name Paradigm
Processor i5 3570k
Motherboard MSI Z77A-G43
Cooling OEM
Memory 8 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 2133
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce GTX 670 2 GB
Storage 128 MB Corsair M4 SSD + 1 TB WD Caviar Black
Display(s) Samsung 24"
Case Rosewill Challenger USB 3
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply Corsair GS 800
Software Windows 7 64 bit
#44
Under normal operating conditions hard drive performance will not influence 3DMark results. And as long as you have enough RAM to prevent paging during the benchmark run, additional RAM will not provide any benefit either. 2 gigabytes should cover it in XP.

More might possibly benefit Vista but I don't have any firsthand experience to confirm or debunk that theory.
 

erocker

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
42,385 (10.16/day)
Likes
18,028
Processor Intel i7 8700k
Motherboard Gigabyte z370 AORUS Gaming 7
Cooling Water
Memory 16gb G.Skill 4000 MHz DDR4
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 1080
Storage 3 x Samsung Evo 850 500GB, 1 x 250GB, 2 x 2TB HDD
Display(s) Nixeus EDG27
Case Thermaltake X5
Power Supply Corsair HX1000i
Mouse Zowie EC1-B
Software Windows 10
#45
Here we go. XP SP2 VS. Vista SP1 Click ME!!!.
* It's not 3d06 or even video benchmarking... but you get the idea.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
193 (0.05/day)
Likes
37
#46
So, you're not running any applications other than 3DMark05?

Point being, if you're genuinely interested in getting the best performance possible with whatever you actually do with your system, you should benchmark that.

Now if you prefer Vista over XP sufficiently that performance differences aren't a concern, more power to you. But it is a little disingenuous to say there's "no point" in using XP.
Please do not misquote me, I said there is not point in "me" using xp on my main machine. (Oh, and Vista boots faster than XP for me on my main machine and my laptop.) And to the link above, what hardware did they use? Did they install all the day to day antivirus and antispyware applications that people use everyday in xp? Did they install any other day to day applications that people normally run in the background everyday?

The test is totally without merit, interesting, but without merit. /sarcasm on: It is almost a given that xp boots faster on initial install without any drivers or apps installed, should I just leave it that way? /sarcasm off. Let's have a real test on real day to day machines that people use and then see what happens.

Joe
 
Last edited:

Graogrim

New Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
308 (0.08/day)
Likes
31
Location
East Coast US
System Name Paradigm
Processor i5 3570k
Motherboard MSI Z77A-G43
Cooling OEM
Memory 8 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 2133
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce GTX 670 2 GB
Storage 128 MB Corsair M4 SSD + 1 TB WD Caviar Black
Display(s) Samsung 24"
Case Rosewill Challenger USB 3
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply Corsair GS 800
Software Windows 7 64 bit
#47
Please do not misquote me, I said there is not point in "me" using xp on my main machine.
I'm not misquoting you. Look at the context of whole post. I'm trying to help you get the best performance possible out of your system by drawing your attention to the fact that there's more to ideal performance than 3DMark.

It's great that you're getting better performance in certain areas, it really is. I'm truly pleased for you. But based on overwhelming evidence from just about everywhere else, I'm forced to suspect that even if it's unintentional, you're basing your decision on cherry-picked results that don't truly reflect overall performance. You see, lots of people can get Vista to boot faster. Lots of people can get apps to start more quickly under Vista than XP. But nobody can get Vista's general gaming performance (or for that matter the general performance of any really demanding app) up on par with XP.

Now I don't know about you, but my primary concern with regard to my system's performance has nothing to do with a few seconds at boot time, or time required to start an application. I'm much more interested in performance once I'm already up and runnning. What do I care if Crysis starts 15 or 20 seconds faster if I have to give up 5 or more fps once it's running? Is that a trade you're willing to make?

Like I said, maybe the eye candy and other whizbang features make it worth it to you so that you really don't care about giving up a little performance. But you ARE giving up a little performance, and in some cases a LOT of performance. And you should be aware of that.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
193 (0.05/day)
Likes
37
#48
I'm not misquoting you. Look at the context of whole post. I'm trying to help you get the best performance possible out of your system by drawing your attention to the fact that there's more to ideal performance than 3DMark.

It's great that you're getting better performance in certain areas, it really is. I'm truly pleased for you. But based on overwhelming evidence from just about everywhere else, I'm forced to suspect that even if it's unintentional, you're basing your decision on cherry-picked results that don't truly reflect overall performance. You see, lots of people can get Vista to boot faster. Lots of people can get apps to start more quickly under Vista than XP. But nobody can get Vista's general gaming performance (or for that matter the general performance of any really demanding app) up on par with XP.

Now I don't know about you, but my primary concern with regard to my system's performance has nothing to do with a few seconds at boot time, or time required to start an application. I'm much more interested in performance once I'm already up and runnning. What do I care if Crysis starts 15 or 20 seconds faster if I have to give up 5 or more fps once it's running? Is that a trade you're willing to make?

Like I said, maybe the eye candy and other whizbang features make it worth it to you so that you really don't care about giving up a little performance. But you ARE giving up a little performance, and in some cases a LOT of performance. And you should be aware of that.
Well, I do respect your opinion and thank you for your response. If this was early last year, I would have had to agree with you. However, I have not seen any loss in the games I play or the stuff I do under Vista using it now.

That is one of the reasons I installed XP on a different drive to see if I could see any difference. (I have a new build since the first of this year and I only had Vista on it, hence the reason for the testing.)

I even play Crysis and it plays real well. (Not perfect but that is a hardware limit more than anything else.)

Joe
 

Graogrim

New Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
308 (0.08/day)
Likes
31
Location
East Coast US
System Name Paradigm
Processor i5 3570k
Motherboard MSI Z77A-G43
Cooling OEM
Memory 8 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 2133
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce GTX 670 2 GB
Storage 128 MB Corsair M4 SSD + 1 TB WD Caviar Black
Display(s) Samsung 24"
Case Rosewill Challenger USB 3
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply Corsair GS 800
Software Windows 7 64 bit
#49
I'm glad it works well for you.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
5,970 (1.36/day)
Likes
835
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 7700K at 4800 mhz.. vcore 1.280 volts..
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z279F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Super Jetstream 1070 x 2..
Storage Three.. all solid state 128 Transend.. 1 T Sandisk.. 1 T Transend.. plus USB external..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and not really big enough for what is inside..
Audio Device(s) USB Sound blaster Roar 2 all in one unit with bluetooth
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores 3Dmark Firestrike Ultra 8542.. Timespy 10508.. everyday settings..
#50
vista by useing its cache more effectively will use spare memory to store oft used apps.. this is why vista needs more memory in the first place..

with XP it annoys me to see only 400 meg of memory in use when i have 4 gigs of the stuff.. try as i might i cant get XP to make effective use of spare memory.. i would like it to cache more than it does..

if vista has anything going for it.. its the fact its been designed to make effective use of spare memory.. XP was designed around never having any spare memory and to be mean with it.. he he

lets give vista credit where it deserves it.. so things pop up quicker but run slower.. he he he

the pop up quicker is more noticable than the running slower thow.. assuming decent hardware..

it still aint coming near my machine thow.. not yet anyways...:)

trog