Vista 64bit beats WIN7 64bit

killadoob said:
Yea i said it runs flawlessly for me, never mentioned anything about multithreading being perfect i do not even know that is, i thought it was something intel cpu's had :D
Click to expand...

I meant managing cores not multi-threading should have rephrased myself. :p
 
Well, just to clarify, the load isn't spread among my cores, it's just reduced to less than a third :eek:
 
Answer me this though guys, why is it my old e8400 @ 4.0ghz booted slower than my q6600 stock standard in vista?

I had to wait for my pc to be ready with the dual core but with the quadcore once the desktop loaded it was good to go.
 
killadoob said:
Answer me this though guys, why is it my old e8400 @ 4.0ghz booted slower than my q6600 stock standard in vista?

I had to wait for my pc to be ready with the dual core but with the quadcore once the desktop loaded it was good to go.
Click to expand...

It is because the start-up process is not multi-core related.
 
Aqua_lung said:
If they can post benchmarks to back up their statements then I'll trust their judgment, I've tested 7 myself on an older PC and it does not fair better than Vista SP1 because the screen jerks in frames and there are no display drivers for the videocard.
Click to expand...

*shakes head*

Aqua, do you think it's possible those two underlined sentences could be linked, possibly?

maybe, just maybe :p
 
Keeper said:
*shakes head*

Aqua, do you think it's possible those two underlined sentences could be linked, possibly?

maybe, just maybe :p
Click to expand...

That's my point... it works with a low resolution and the stock generic windows driver but my LCD is a 20 inch and on vista or 7 the card can't run the screen, on XP even with the generic driver it drives my 20" display without problems.
 
I have never heard of someone running a vga card with no drivers, it defies all logic.

Your moaning about something that can be fixed by installing a driver.
 
killadoob said:
So then if that is the case the e8400 @ 4.0ghz should load things faster than a q6600 @ 2.4ghz if it nos multi-core related right?
Click to expand...

Yep, but you might have to check if things have changed with the way 7's apps operates as my previous answer was pointing to the multi-core myth found with Vista.
 
killadoob said:
I have never heard of someone running a vga card with no drivers, it defies all logic.

Your moaning about something that can be fixed by installing a driver.
Click to expand...

There are no drivers for it, it runs the Windows generic display drivers, my point is that ATI said they will not support the card beyond XP, it's not powerful enough for Vista or 7 but it runs perfectly with XP over DVI and was shocked too see it stutter with Vista/7.

So more proof that 7 and Vista require new more powerful hardware and are only faster on new hardware.
 
Aqua_lung said:
There are no drivers for it, it runs the Windows generic display drivers, my point is that ATI said they will not support the card beyond XP, it's not powerful enough for Vista or 7 but it runs perfectly with XP over DVI and was shocked too see it stutter with Vista/7.

So more proof that 7 and Vista require new more powerful hardware and are only faster on new hardware.
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing you were able to install Vista/7 or weren't you able to get to the install screen?
That's why it's called the present. Get an upgrade on the graphics device or downgrade to Windows 98, you will see your performance skyrocket.
 
DJNgoma said:
So I'm guessing you were able to install Vista/7 or weren't you able to get to the install screen?
That's why it's called the present. Get an upgrade on the graphics device or downgrade to Windows 98, you will see your performance skyrocket.
Click to expand...

Yes it installed because the card works at low resolution like 800x600, installation is done at low resolution, when I set it to the 20' resolution it jerks.

I have upgraded, this is my HTPC that still runs fine with XP.

I have a quadcore and 9600GT but use a real OS... linux not that toy "7" OS :rolleyes:
:p
 
blogbytes said:
Vista 64bit beats WIN7 64bit in overall performance test from PC Format.



SOurce Pc format July 09


Who has read the article, and what are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Must have been a Mac/Linux fanboi doing the honours? Anyway PCformat is not a mag I will take at all seriously. The fact that they even compared a beta/RC release with a "established" system is point and case and shows their lack of common sense and mentality very clearly.

The key reason Windows 7 isn't topping the benchmarks is due to the state of Nvidia's drivers. This isn't a dig at the GPU giant, merely a statement of fact – after all, the OS hasn't been released yet. Cast your mind back to the release of Vista and the shaky start that had and we'd hazard a guess that Nvidia will be pushing up the framerates as the launch date nears.
Click to expand...

http://www.techradar.com/news/softw...s-windows-vista-vs-windows-7-604178?artc_pg=2
 
Last edited:
Aqua_lung said:
Yes it installed because the card works at low resolution like 800x600, installation is done at low resolution, when I set it to the 20' resolution it jerks.

I have upgraded, this is my HTPC that still runs fine with XP.

I have a quadcore and 9600GT but use a real OS... linux not that toy "7" OS :rolleyes:
:p
Click to expand...

Now what are you complaining about if you did upgrade the rig?
A tweak here & there could have sorted the problem out and essentially you expect one to i.e. experience HD(16:9/720p) content on a typical CRT TV screen(4:3/480p) whilst not seeing problems.
 
Last edited:
DJNgoma said:
Now what are you complain about if you did upgrade?
A tweak here & there could have sorted the problem out and essentially you expect one i.e. to experience HD(16:9/720p) content on a typical CRT TV screen(4:3/480p) whilst not see problems .
Click to expand...

WTF? :confused:
Were you even following what I was saying?

Anyway my point is yes 7 may be faster than Vista in some cases but not by much they are still basically the same and drivers are proof to this.
 
No windows 7 is faster as whole OS, things like benchmarks may be the same but there is a big increase in perform over vista.

What vga card is this just out interest? Would that not be ati's fault for not supporting though? Maybe it would run fine if it had drivers?
 
@killadoob, I was also thinking the same thing about ati not willing to support it further.

/WTF? Why is the article Tech Radar exactly the same as the one in the latest PCF?
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
What vga card is this just out interest? Would that not be ati's fault for not supporting though? Maybe it would run fine if it had drivers?
Click to expand...
RADEON™ 9250 Series Chipset Features
• Operation System Support: Windows® XP / 2000
Click to expand...
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=RX9250-T128&class=vga

look at those resolutions, and LCD only needs 60hz so it can scale quite high.

Like I said, no vista drivers hence no 7 drivers it's only DX8 so what do you expect.

Edit: and this card was bought around 2005
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X