My friend says win xp sucks and that win 2k is faster. Some of you were wondering why your scores were low, the answer is upgrade to win 2k. You may get another hdd for that :) Low scores are evident in the poor performance of car chase high details
Printable View
My friend says win xp sucks and that win 2k is faster. Some of you were wondering why your scores were low, the answer is upgrade to win 2k. You may get another hdd for that :) Low scores are evident in the poor performance of car chase high details
Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
My friend says win xp sucks and that win 2k is faster. Some of you were wondering why your scores were low, the answer is upgrade to win 2k. You may get another hdd for that :) Low scores are evident in the poor performance of car chase high details
how old are you?
Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
My friend says win xp sucks and that win 2k is faster. Some of you were wondering why your scores were low, the answer is upgrade to win 2k. You may get another hdd for that :) Low scores are evident in the poor performance of car chase high details
That only applies to AMD-based machines... if you'll check the ORB... the top guys are using Intel machines.. and are all running Windows XP. [sarcasm] Wow... Tbird you are such a smart guy!!! If only Macci and those guys would listen to you and get 2k! They'd be at like 30K marks by now! THose fools :(. [/sarcasm]
..............
I use an AMD machine and 2K, and my scores are in line with others for similar configs; Intel or otherwise.Quote:
Originally posted by lostlilchild6
That only applies to AMD-based machines... if you'll check the ORB... the top guys are using Intel machines.. and are all running Windows XP. Wow... Tbird you are such a smart guy!!! If only Macci and those guys would listen to you and get 2k! They'd be at like 30K marks by now! THose fools :(.
..............
More than anything I think it depends on setup and making sure no unnecessary services are running.
T-Bird do you listen to all of what your friends tell you? If they'll tell you to jump from a bridge will you do that?? :confused:
He claims he's 21... :eek:Quote:
Originally posted by Intimidator
how old are you?
I made this post after my friend Jeff scored low on windows XP with a radeon9800 pro, he scores what 9700 pros should. actually his nature test is consistant of a 9800 but car chase high details is like 15fps below normal
Quote:
Originally posted by Un4given
I use an AMD machine and 2K, and my scores are in line with others for similar configs; Intel or otherwise.
More than anything I think it depends on setup and making sure no unnecessary services are running.
I editted my post... :).
Back when I tweaked out both Windows 2000 and Windows XP the 3DMark difference on my Athlon machine (Back when I used a 1.4GHz Athlon XP w/GF3 Ti200) was like 60 3DMarks with Win2k being faster. That's nothing.
I boosted 300 points from win2k pro. Thats with all the admin tools tweaking and everything. my old score was 8700 something, now i'm at 9033, one point behind speedstream.
Well I tried 2000, and I score lower than XP....so thats not it big guy. Where are you getting this "Car chase high details must be this high with this and this and this" crap? Its like, you look at two different systems, and even though there are major differences, you say....OMG, your system is screwed because the guy with 300 more mhz than you gets 5 more fps! :confused:Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
I made this post after my friend Jeff scored low on windows XP with a radeon9800 pro, he scores what 9700 pros should. actually his nature test is consistant of a 9800 but car chase high details is like 15fps below normal
I know this is OT.. but
I just wanted to let you know that I have a NF7-S + 2500+ on order to play around with in a SLK-900 and a prommie!
So I am going to see what I can do with that!
a stock 9800 pro and xp2100 at stock should get more than 12950 marks, I get nearly the same score as you on a slightly overclocked cpu and a ti4200 overclocked below ti4400 performance. You should easily break 15k. Your score is 2k too low :(
edit: my mistake :( I checked the database, your only 600-700 marks low and that guy probably had dual channel with lower latency ram than you. Still in my *opinion* no one should run stock and let that card be bottlenecked so badly. I felt the same pinch at 8300 marks when I had a 1GHz tbird, ti200s were eating that score with faster cpus :(
edit again: those with ti4200s are very close to your score with the same cpu clock speeds but fsbs around 200MHz. fsb helps like you wouldnt believe when it comes to 3dmark, that benchmark lives for fsb man :)
You need to understand that with 2001 the video card does not come into play as much as you think, especially a 9800 pro. When I run it with everything at stock, the 9800 isn't even breathing hard. That score is purely because of CPU/FSB speeds, not the card.
In this case, a radeon9700 non pro would have been 95% as fast in 3dmark and gammes for half the price :eek:
For some strange reason he's right.
My system scores 1.5k 3dmarks lower in winxp than in winme(not 2k)
Can anyone give any explanation?
Both you and your (more than likely imaginary) friend Jeff are wrong, and probably do not know how to properly tweak out a XP rig.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
I made this post after my friend Jeff scored low on windows XP with a radeon9800 pro, he scores what 9700 pros should. actually his nature test is consistant of a 9800 but car chase high details is like 15fps below normal
Yep, I have no clue how to tweak XP even though my score is exactly where it should be an Tbird is delusional. https://www.sharkyforums.com/
Like loslilchild6 said, you will only see a performance improvement with an AMD machine. Intels are faster with XP. If you have an intel, and see a performance increase with 2K, it is probably because your XP was not optimized or loaded with programs, or had some problem, etc...
AMDs give the highest scores with Win2k SP2
Intels give the highest scores with XP without SP1.
Like it or not, Tbird is PARTIALLY correct on this one.:)
Does it hurt your head to constantly try to remember every little thing about everyones 3DMark score, gpu, fsb, cpu? You do realise that there is more to life than 3DMark? Buy a fast car, get a girlfriend and live some life. I took a month off Sharky's, came back and your posts are the same as when I left.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
a stock 9800 pro and xp2100 at stock should get more than 12950 marks, I get nearly the same score as you on a slightly overclocked cpu and a ti4200 overclocked below ti4400 performance. You should easily break 15k. Your score is 2k too low :(
edit: my mistake :( I checked the database, your only 600-700 marks low and that guy probably had dual channel with lower latency ram than you. Still in my *opinion* no one should run stock and let that card be bottlenecked so badly. I felt the same pinch at 8300 marks when I had a 1GHz tbird, ti200s were eating that score with faster cpus :(
edit again: those with ti4200s are very close to your score with the same cpu clock speeds but fsbs around 200MHz. fsb helps like you wouldnt believe when it comes to 3dmark, that benchmark lives for fsb man :)
Stunning.
Tbird you know you shouldn't register under multiple usernames just so it would look like you have friends...Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff7477
Yep, I have no clue how to tweak XP even though my score is exactly where it should be an Tbird is delusional. http://www.tag-board.com/smilies/uhh.gif
uh, ok
I get the highest score with XP SP1, and the lowest with 2K SP3. On an AMD no less.Quote:
Originally posted by vertices
AMDs give the highest scores with Win2k SP2
Intels give the highest scores with XP without SP1.
Then something else is wrong. Countless Page 1 overclockers have said the same thing I'm saying.Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff7477
I get the highest score with XP SP1, and the lowest with 2K SP3. On an AMD no less.
The fact that you get a higher score with XP SP1 than without SP1 tells me you are doing something wrong. SP1 slows XP down a tad.
no, im not saying XP SP1 is faster than plain XP. I've never even used a non-SP1 install because my install cd has SP1 slipstreamed....so I was just refering to the difference between XPSP1 and 2kSP3 which was 200 marks.