260.99 vs. 266.68 drivers benchmark

That it is, Lost Planet2 and Stalker are part of my benchmarking comparisons with drivers, and they are both very long, and boring once you saw it once.

 

LOL! :givebeer:

 

A good benchmark comparison would be 266.58 WHQL vs 265.90q vs 266.35.

For sure, based on my findings, 266.58 vs 265.90q have a slightly performance hit in Dirt 2 and 3dMark06, while in LP2 and Mafia 2 they are about the same.

Still 265.90q performs far better under XP, while 266.58 performs better than 266.35b under Win 7 x64.

COD BO actually is the same performance under XP with 265.90q compared to 266.58 (maybe a fw fps less, but nothing more) under Win 7 x64.

These benchmark i made are with my xps m1730 (9800m GTX sli, 2gb, g92b core).

 

I'm using windows xp because I prefer it to window 7, 4GB is plenty for what I use my computer for and I'm not CPU bottlenecked.

I don't really know why you posted that.

 

He meant you dont use full 4gb, only 3.2gb because of 32bit..

But i can tell you this cpu is faster at certain tasks in winxp, cpu has less overhaul as its only 32bit., really read L2 cache is 1gb/s faster same goes for write and copy around 500mb/s..and latency is 4.3ns vs 4.7ns at same cpu freq., but yea that's because @64bit it uses full L2 pipeline and this takes a small hit, in both cases data execution prevention (DEP) disabled - well this takes a hit too in both 32, 64bit.. lol:nerd: i never experienced any issues with off when it comes to security.c1:


Now if i compare these 266.58 to any 260.xx, 263.xx, 265.90 my pick would be 266.58 because they fixed what they broke in the first place; Dirt2 3d cam glitch and MafiaII stutter if you look around on the corners.

 

32Bit OS 4GB Memory??? You really don't know the answer to this?

460 GTX and 3.4GHz Core 2??? You again really don't know the answer to this?

 

I thought everyone knew.

And a Q9650 and a GTX 460 are actually pretty well balanced. At 1920x1080 I can see using evga precession and task manager that the CPU is working at about 75% and the GPU is 100% which is what you want really.

 

Don't all CPUs have that problem as none of them are truly 64 bit yet?

So your saying I should disable DEP?

 

32bit OS will only recognize 3GB memory especially XP, this has been tweaked in both Vista and 7 which will use more. But in reallity it only uses a max of around 2.5GB. This is debateable but it is said this is also shared with Video Memory, so you have a total of 5GB available but you are lucky if Windows uses half that.

With new line video cards starting with the 5850 from AMD and the 460 from Nvidia and up Core 2 Quad should be running around 3.8GHz to release the CPU bottleneck and show the potential of the video card. SLI is recommended 4GHz and TRI/Quad SLI and Crossfire is recommended 4.4GHz. Core i7 the CPU bottleneck is 3.6GHz with a single card solution.

You need to update your system, ditch XP, go grab a nice 64bit version of Windows 7. 1FPS difference in one 5 year old title is nothing, thats margin of error and you need to factor in min/max FPS aswell as DX10/11 availability to increase IQ and keep current speed.

Your system is seriously bottlenecked by your setup.

 

FOR GODS SAKE HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT, I KNOW!!!!!!!!!


And I don't know where you heard that because even at 3GHz my processor is not being bottlenecked. It's just not, I would know, I’m the one who owns the system.


I don't like windows 7, its personal preference. I like the simplicity of windows XP. If I wanted windows 7 I would have it by now.

Besides I didn't do this benchmark for people who have all of the latest hardware like you. I did it for all of us who still have a 32bit operating system and core 2 duos and quads ect.

 

they're 64bit alright, its just at 32bit they can act a little faster exectuing 32bit apps (certain not all), but its not so efficient as 64bit when you have a 64bit aware program.

for example in cinebench11.5
32bit OS: 4.19
64bit OS: 4.43
And thats allot in this program around 600-700mhz cpu oc, well that's if i would run it under 64bit :nerd:


well its up to you, I would. I have it disabled even in bios..

for example; in 32bit Os when its enabled, it also enables 36bit mem address and this takes a small hit on L2 cache - it acts the same as in 64bit OS.. well its the same in 64bit there its enabled by default 32, 36?, 64bit..

 

I reckon Sir Galahad has done pretty well coping with the abuse!

I'm sure he has learnt to include more quantity and relevant games to the test bench in future.

As for WinXP, it's hard to comment, because of being a Vista user for 18 months before moving to Win7, I was on such dated hardware really at the time of XP, ddr2-800, radeon 3650 and a x2 6000+, I'm almost curious how his rig performs on xp to be honest! My only doubt is with his ram speed.

To be fair and even though I agree in principal with XP simplicity, Win7 is nicer to use day to day and performs mundane tasks more elegantly.

That's my bit anyways lol

 

I remember how of us in some forums somewhere were raving about Windows XP when it first came out but these 2 guys in the computer shop were not enthused at all and they loved the simplicity of Windows 2000 and wanted to keep using it rather than switch to the new-fangled Windows XP. True story. Well at least people are not trying to run the current batch of multiplayer shooter games on a Commodore 64 computer.

 

You know mate youre perfectlt right...but there are different scenarios to take in account.
As an example my laptop have a g92b card in sli (9800m gtx,should be like the old 8800gtx,256bit/112 cores) and while on single card in xp vs 7 theres a small 2 fps loss, in sli its another story.

I well documented the fact along with other 8800gt desktop users and its a known fact that the performance hit is around 10-20fps.

This taking in account that both systems used 4gb of ram (usable 3,5gb) and a core duo highly oced (3,8ghz).

I use both honestly. Win 7 for dx10 games (my cards are compliant only to it) and XP for dx9 games.

This never failed once. With latest drivers the distance shortened a bit, from 20fps to 10 (3dmark06-dirt 2-mafia 2) but still thw difference is there.
Since theres no reason to have such an hit under 7 x64 while running a dx9 games, i run them "natively" under xp.

So as i said there are different scenarios. With newer cards the power is so much that games runs flawlessy,no matter the os. Its like a brute force.

But if you want to experience the real difference try an older card, same setup,same drivers,same game/bench.

You will see what im talking about.

 

Yeah ME/2000 was a good operating system. I never had it myself but I worked with it for a while. I went straight from Windows 98 to windows XP and hated it at first and in fact I still use the classic style toolbars and start menu. But I've come to like it over the years. At the moment apart from DirectX 10 and 11 I don't see much reason to upgrade to windows 7.

It's not worth the hassle of backing up all my files, spending 3 days installing software and updates only to find out that some of my old programs don't work then spending a month trying to get them to work. Not to mention getting the layout of the desktop just how I like it, that normally takes at least an hour.

 

Uhh... ME was horrible OS. It was basically repacked & renamed 98SE and completely unstable. Constant BSOD's drive me mad. Windows 2000 was different and rock stable, ME and 2000 have basically nothing in common since 2000 was the first mainstream Windows that was NT based.

 

Good point. But they were very similar in appearance and even had the same start up tune. I don't remember having any problems with ME back in the day. But I didn’t use it very often.

 

xp vs win7x64 often gives u that ~1% difference on games

just tested latencies win2000 vs win7x64, was surpriced that win7 was about 1ns faster and on wprime 1M 1sec faster

win7 is even faster on safemode, wish i could get that on normal mode

 

ME was the worst Windows after Vista, 2000 was good and very stable.

 

1 or 2% difference is moot and not to be used in any kind of performance statement whatsoever! When the scores are that close it is par my friend, par for the course...