Yeah, I would like that, because the speed in the 81.95 went down a lot from previous drivers for me.
I could even test how each OS handles OCing the graphics card, gives me an excuse to play around with the 6800GT cause I'm getting a zalman for it on sunday, along with one for the ti4200. This could almost turn into another science fair project, although I still have to finish the one that's about how much performance increase you get from overclocking. Before I get too off topic, what would some good driver sets be to use, I haven't paid much attention to them as long as my games ran fine.
Yeah, that would be a cool idea, I think the 81.87 beta drivers were quite good, at least they are the best for my card, I'd use those, they seem to give the fairest results on Windows 2000 (just to make sure all the tests are fair )
Maybe we could get this on the front page of guru, would be pretty cool if it happened. I'm about to retest windows 2003 with 81.95. I made partitions this time around so installing windows 2000 wouldn't crash all the others. I'll grab the 81.87 drivers while I'm testing, Its such a great thing I can use my laptop for gaming while I'm doing this.
Well, I'm halfway done with Windows 2003 tests. Doing 2 trials of each benchmark is only slightly time consuming. I'm using the 81.95, 81.87, 82.04, and 77.72 drivers for testing. I'd do more drivers, but like I said before, its only slightly time consuming. Edit: I'm done with all the tests for 2003 server and xp professional, about halfway done with 2000 professional. 2000 is currently getting f'ed in the a compared to the other tests. If I have time I'll update 2000 completely so it might be better, cause I'm not sure that sp4 covered some of the stuff in the system.
81.95 Drivers Aquamark 3 3DMark03 3DMark05 Standard Clocks Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Windows 2003 Server Standard 62,983 62,913 11,786 11,742 5,007 5,003 Windows XP Professional 63,343 63,102 11,794 11,756 5,011 5,012 Windows 2000 Professional 52,381 52,258 10,893 10,900 4,869 4,869 81.87 Drivers Aquamark 3 3DMark03 3DMark05 Standard Clocks Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Windows 2003 Server Standard 62,852 62,546 11,769 11,716 4,968 4,985 Windows XP Professional 62,817 62,759 11,776 11,735 4,942 4,969 Windows 2000 Professional 52,233 52,078 10,903 10,855 4,851 4,836 82.04 Drivers Aquamark 3 3DMark03 3DMark05 Standard Clocks Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Windows 2003 Server Standard 62,523 62,452 11,751 11,693 4,967 4,966 Windows XP Professional 62,558 62,699 11,739 11,698 4,936 4,932 Windows 2000 Professional 52,397 52,888 10,870 10,829 4,834 4,854 77.72 Drivers Aquamark 3 3DMark03 3DMark05 Standard Clocks Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Windows 2003 Server Standard 62,394 62,336 11,595 11,556 4,940 4,996 Windows XP Professional 62,429 62,500 11,597 11,535 4,939 4,942 Windows 2000 Professional 51,666 51,826 10,814 10,797 4,850 4,843 These are all the results I got. Sorry about the way it looks, copying it from excel obviously wasn't a good idea. I have a feeling that the Windows 2000 performance being so low is that I need to install some updates other when I installed sp4. I'll edit this later to include the Vista Beta 1 if I get the benchmarks to somehow work on it. I didn't spend much time with it before cause I couldn't get a driver for the network. Sorry about double post
It might be that I only installed the service packs, graphics drivers, and the chipset drivers. I don't really want to do it again because whenever I install windows 2000, it corrupts all the other windows installs I've done previously, even when they are on seperate partitions. Besides, I'm happy now cause I can run xp on 13 processes and 82mb of ram.
I did all those tests myself and it was Windows XP > Windows 2003 > Windows 2000. I did install all Windows Update's rollup/fixes/anything from Windows Update site and everything for every OS. It does amaze me. I could never get the same results OldGuy932 got from first batch of tests. I wonder if a problem with his Windows XP in that time could explain those results?
Well, I am planning on doing my own test on XP in the near future to see if there's much decrease/increase in scores between Win2k and XP on my hardware.
Use Norton Ghost and create a backup of your current OS on DVD-ROMs. XP is troublesome, it takes a lot of time to fine tune it.
Yeah it does, but when I used XP I didn't bother to tweak it at all, and it ran a lot slower than untweaked win2k, so I scrapped XP, since win2k runs a lot faster without needing to be tweaked.
Perhaps that was true for that time. Installating all updates makes a lot of difference in both 2000 and XP.
Installing all the updates on XP made my scores down, even with me just running on 13 processes. And when I did my first batch of tests, they were on a ti4200 which was the bottleneck of the system. On the system I did this batch of tests on the cpu was the bottleneck.
for me...2003 was faster than xp and 2000 when all were fully tweaked using the same drivers and tweaks. 2000 sp4's load times were horrendous and the fps were slightly worse than xp's. xp is much faster than 2000 concerning load times and slightly faster in the fps department. 2003 was, as i said, the fastest for me...with marginally better fps and load times than xp. since i see no extra effort going into using 2003 over xp, i figured why not...free speed boost.
How can you say this without actually giving something to base it on? I'm sure that if I got a better agp card for the amd comp of mine I would still have xp pro still run better than x64. Besides, how many things actually have been optimized for x64 yet?
it just feels fasters in terms of start up and loading times. Has a faster feel to me. everything loads in a snap.
