Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OS *DOES* Matter in Benchmarks!

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
a b K Overclocking
January 15, 2010 11:22:49 PM

For all of you bench mark runners (esp. overshocked) take a look here: http://www.overclockers.com/windows-showdown-8-operatin...

So in short,

Quote:
Every single benchmark has a unique operating system that does best. Overall, the two most solid performers are Server 2008 32 and Vista 32. Both of these are at the top for the 3D benchmarks, and fare okay in the 2D benchmarks as well. Deserving of flak in every day usage or not, in benchmarks, Vista 32 performs very well. Contrary to popular belief, XP and 7’s supposed “lightness” does not really translate in benchmarks. In fact, the more CPU-centric a benchmark is, the worse 7 tends to do. The only thing XP remains good for are 2D benchmarks, falling far behind the pack in all things 3D. Once again, this article only sets out to show which the fastest operating systems are by the numbers. The fastest choice might not necessarily be the best one for you.


Enjoy!

More about : matter benchmarks

a b K Overclocking
January 15, 2010 11:25:33 PM

Woah!

Thanks alot man! Ive been looking for a side by side comparison like the one you have provided for months! All of them seem to be biased except this one.
a b K Overclocking
January 15, 2010 11:27:33 PM

Wow man, that was a quick reply.

Anyways, glad I could help.
Related resources
a b K Overclocking
January 15, 2010 11:35:01 PM

Shadow703793 said:
Wow man, that was a quick reply.


Heh , i try. [:lectrocrew:6]
a b K Overclocking
January 16, 2010 2:51:56 AM

The differences are pretty negligible IMO. And only interesting if you like synthetics.
a b K Overclocking
January 16, 2010 9:19:34 PM

^ Correct. However note, that there are no reliable benchmarks run on all Windows versions (XP and up) for things like 3D Mark, disk benchmarks,etc, so it could affect it.
a b K Overclocking
January 17, 2010 2:20:10 AM

surely this has much more to do with available drivers for those OSs rather than the OSs themselves?

i would imagine a driver on XP and a driver on W7 to have alot of differences that would effect performance much more than simply what the OS is doing?
I guess thats irrelevent as far as synthetics go, but its still the background processes and other OS bloat that would make the difference in real world tasks?
a b K Overclocking
January 17, 2010 1:46:56 PM

Quote:
but its still the background processes and other OS bloat that would make the difference in real world tasks?

Exactly! That's why the benches Gautam ran are quite a bit accurate because he kills most of the un needed services (ie Smart card, Blutooth,etc) before benching
a b K Overclocking
January 17, 2010 11:29:23 PM

ah i see.

was trying to figure it all out in my head. i was along the right lines.

i guess W7 isn't as awesome as we all thought. but its still noticeably faster, and less annoying, than vista. so im glad i went straight from XP to 7.
!