Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No
Ads
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Graphics & Displays > Graphics Cards > (MY) WIN7 RC Performance review

(MY) WIN7 RC Performance review

Forum Graphics & Displays : Graphics Cards (MY) WIN7 RC Performance review

Word :    Username :           
 
- 0 +

Hey all hope u are fine :)

Well i downloaded WIN 7 RC x64 and i decided to post my idea and benchmarks for it,but as some of you may know,when i first installed it,it gave me a horrible performance in gaming and here is the link that how much problems i had with it but i decided to do a clean install and deleted the files that i thought they were the reason for this bad performance and now all i can say is WOW :)

Before i post the benchmarks let me talk about the OS itself.

First of all the installation was pretty easy and faster than both XP and VISTA 64 SP1.
Also the boot surprised me alot,it booted faster than both VISTA and XP which is great.

So lets get to the benchmarks :)

PC Specs:
Intel Core2Quad Q6600@ 3.4
Sapphire HD 4870X2
OCZ 4GB DDR2 800 RAM with 4-4-4-15 timings
ASUS MAXIMUS FORMULA X38 Motherboard
SEAGATE 500GB 7200 RPM HDD(With 32MB cache)
LG W2452V Monitor with 1920x1200 resolution
Catalyst version : 9.5(For WIN 7 RC X64) and 9.4(For VISTA ULTIMATE SP1 X64)

"ALL OF THIS PICTURES ARE TAKEN WHEN PLAYING IN WINDOWS 7"


3D MARK 06 (1280x1024 resolution)
Windows XP 32: 19500
Windows 7 RC X64: 19240
VISTA ULTIMATE SP1 X64: 18900


Crysis

Note: I use 2 great configs for Crysis and Crysis warhead which are CCC 2.1 (For crysis) and CCC 3.0(For warhead) which gives the game a more realistic look and will increase your FPS too :)

W7 RC x64 settings:
I used the latest Patch (1.2.1) for this game+ I ran it in 32bit mode.
Game settings used:CCC Level 5 + 0xAA
Resolution: 1920x1080
Map tested: "Island"

VISTA Ultimate SP1 X64 settings:
I used the Patch 1.2 for this game but i ran it in 64bit mode.
Game settings ued: CCC Level 5 + 0xAA
Resolution:1920x1080
Map tested: "Island"

All i can say is WOW really,i never played Crysis as smooth as i played it on Win7 i got about 2-8 more FPS than VISTA (depending on the scene) and it was really awesome,i enjoyed playing it :)

http://xs839.xs.to/xs839/09213/crysis_2009-05-20_18-42-43-91916.jpg.xs.jpg

http://xs139.xs.to/xs139/09213/crysis_2009-05-20_18-43-40-13689.jpg.xs.jpg


Crysis Warhead

Windows 7 RC x64 settings:
No patches used
Game settings:CCC Level4+ (Warhead doesnt have Level 5 )
Resolution:1920x1080
Map tested: "Ambush"



Windows VISTA Ultimate SP1 X64 settings:
No patches used.
Game settings:CCC Level 4+
Resolution: 1920x1080
Map tested: "Ambush"

Like Crysis i got about 2-8 FPS more in Windows 7,i've chosen a scene in this level and i always test it when i want to see how much my FPS has improved(Its exactly from the second game save to where some jets come and drop bombs)
As an example,my minimum FPS in this scen was 21 with Windows VISTA but it was 29 with Windows 7,pretty much like Crysis this game ran smoother and i enjoyed playing this one too :)

http://xs839.xs.to/xs839/09213/crysis_2009-05-20_20-16-41-59506.jpg.xs.jpg

http://xs839.xs.to/xs839/09213/crysis_2009-05-20_20-17-12-63896.jpg.xs.jpg

STALKER CLEAR SKY

Settings used in both OS:
I used the 1.5.0.7 patch for testing
Render:Full enhanced dynamic lightning (DX 10)
Quality:Maximum
0xAA
DX10.1
I used 2 great mods for thie game too: One is "Better depth of field" and the other one is "God rays"

http://xs839.xs.to/xs839/09213/xrengine_2009-05-20_17-35-18-79535.jpg.xs.jpg

My FPS was nearly the same in both OS,i got about 2 FPS more in Windows 7 RC.

FarCry2:
I didn't play the game i just ran the benchmark tool with this settings(Same for both OS)
Resolution: 1920x1200
Ultra high quality
DX10

Now this one is a little different compared to other games tested,i "LOST" exactly 2 FPS in Windows 7 compared to VISTA,but as i said its just the benchmark tool i didn't test the game play.

Windows 7 RC X64:
Average:59.98
Maximum:92.46
Minimum:39.91

Windows VISTA Ultimate SP1 X64:
Average: 61.71 FPS
Maximum:94.77 FPS
Minimum:41.36 FPS

Conclusion:
In the games that i tested(With the exception of FarCry 2 which i only used the bechmark tool)i was really happy with the way it performed,my main FPS increase was in "Minimum FPS" which is great and allows to have a better and smoother gameplay.
Overall i am pretty happy with this OS,and i will buy the final version defenitely.

So i hoped you guys/girls liked this review:)

Reply to Maziar
Register or log in to remove.
- 0 +

Wow, that is awesome news. Thanks for the review.

------------------------------ 4 x AMD 6172 > Tyan S8812 > 32GB > X-1050 | i7 970 > P6X58D-E > 7970 3GB > 24GB | i7 3770k > P8Z77-V Pro > Classified 580 3GB > 16GB

http://piro.pirocast.net/badge/none/fah02/800/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/255/255/255/557101.png
Reply to EXT64
- 0 +

No problem :) glad u liked it :)

Reply to Maziar

On the system information page, how much RAM does it say is available to use?

Reply to Mousemonkey

Good job Maziar. Nice review, and its what we should all be looking towards, with DX11 to top it all off.
@ mmonkey, good question. Is the Gddr being used , or being used twice, like the older system, great question. I havnt tried W7 yet

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

JAYDEEJOHN wrote :

Good job Maziar. Nice review, and its what we should all be looking towards, with DX11 to top it all off.
@ mmonkey, good question. Is the Gddr being used , or being used twice, like the older system, great question. I havnt tried W7 yet


I too have the pukka RC from MS, not the dodgy botnet infected one from the P2P, and on the system info page it states 4.0 RAM and in brackets 3.20 available and no matter what I couldn't get the system to use any more, but with Vista 64 it states 4.0 RAM and I can get the RAM usage to 3.6 - 3.7 fairly easily. So why won't W7 64 let me do the same. [:mousemonkey:2]

Reply to Mousemonkey

Ive heard about this before. If I refind it, Ill post back. Not sure there was a solution tho, as I think it was mentioned in a different thread concerning a different topic altogether, hope I find it, and theres a solution

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

That would be cool, cheers mate.

Reply to Mousemonkey

Thanks for the review Maziar. It looks like i'll be getting Windows7 as long as they're not charging too much for it, some of the pricing rumors have me a bit worried.

Reply to dirtmountain
- 0 +

No problem guys glad u liked it :)

mousemonkey,u mean this page ?
http://xs139.xs.to/xs139/09214/mem771.jpg.xs.jpg

It says total physical memory available is 2.98GB so it wont use the whole 4GB?

Reply to Maziar

Unless those are 32 bit apps, where itll limit it under 4gigs, like xp

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN
- 0 +

Oh i see :) thanks:)

Reply to Maziar

Maziar wrote :

No problem guys glad u liked it :)

mousemonkey,u mean this page ?
http://xs139.xs.to/xs139/09214/mem771.jpg.xs.jpg

It says total physical memory available is 2.98GB so it wont use the whole 4GB?


Sorry it's taken me a bit to respond, been away doing stuff. I cannot seem to get your piccy link to work, it just takes me to the XS. home page. When I get a chance later I'll fire up the W7 HDD and take a screenie.

Reply to Mousemonkey
- 0 +

it opens for me but the image is too small dont know why,but i uploaded is here,look if it shows the image or not:
http://f.imagehost.org/t/0100/Untitled_10.jpg

Reply to Maziar
- 0 +

Good news indeed. ATI driver is working on Windows 7

Reply to tomm09

Maziar wrote :

it opens for me but the image is too small dont know why,but i uploaded is here,look if it shows the image or not:
http://f.imagehost.org/t/0100/Untitled_10.jpg


That one works, cheers. And you seem to have a similar issue as in 4GB of RAM installed but only 2.90 being used, what do you have showing on the W7 control -> system page?
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8052/ramy.th.jpg this is my Vista version I know but in W7 it looks pretty much the same except the Memory RAM shows as 4.00 GB with 3.20 available in brackets.

Reply to Mousemonkey
- 0 +

In control panel system page it shows 4GB

Reply to Maziar

My W7 HDD got wiped so I'm going to do a reinstall later after which I shall (hopefully) be able to post a screenie showing the issue that makes me want a refund. :lol:

Reply to Mousemonkey
- 0 +

Does this memory issue bring you any performance hit ?

Reply to Maziar

It doesn't appear to, it's just narking me off that a 64 bit OS seems to have the memory limitations of a 32 bit OS.

Reply to Mousemonkey

[:mousemonkey:2] http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2456/w7ram.th.jpgThis is the page that makes me want to ask for my money back.

Reply to Mousemonkey
- 0 +

Mousemonkey wrote :

[:mousemonkey:2] http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2456/w7ram.th.jpgThis is the page that makes me want to ask for my money back.



He'll never get over what that 'copyright' thing cost him. Add in the 18 billion loss He took last year and you can understand why he feels compelled to give you a dissappointing non cumlative score. Deal with the low point :lol:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/778/billgatesinjail29709.jpg

Reply to badge

Lovely pic, if only it were real. :lol:

Reply to Mousemonkey
- 0 +

guys plz dont uploade the pics that u want to give me in imageshack :( its filtered here

Reply to Maziar

lol.... BG...

Reply to witcherx

Maziar wrote :

guys plz dont uploade the pics that u want to give me in imageshack :( its filtered here


http://f.imagehost.org/t/0717/w7_RAM.jpgIs this one working for you mate?

Reply to Mousemonkey
- 0 +

Yeah it works now thanks ;)
Thats strange for me it shows 4GB and doesnt say 3.2GB usable,hmm

Reply to Maziar

Mousemonkey wrote :

[:mousemonkey:2] http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2456/w7ram.th.jpgThis is the page that makes me want to ask for my money back.


hey,man no offence,but,why your windows score is low,you should get higher comparing it to my piece of crap.:http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1559/sysproperties.jpg
how's that?

Reply to damian86

damian86 wrote :

hey,man no offence,but,why your windows score is low,you should get higher comparing it to my piece of crap.:http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1559/sysproperties.jpg
how's that?


It was due to the awesomeness of the 8400GS that I was using at the time. :lol:

------------------------------ http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/3995/bl11.gif
Reply to Mousemonkey

ahhhhhhhhhhh

Reply to damian86
Register or log in to remove.
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Graphics & Displays > Graphics Cards > (MY) WIN7 RC Performance review
Go to:

There are 1835 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Ads
Latest best answer
Help appreciated
By 2fast4thetown_down, 4 hours ago:

If you have a 400 or more psu you should be fine it seems to be compatable just look at...

Best offers
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
Top experts