Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Really that fast?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
April 8, 2002 7:49:05 PM

Hi you ppl out there, I have a question.

Lately I´ve been changing between three operating-systems, Win98_second edition, Windows 2000 and Windows XP. All in english versions.
I recently installed all of them, one at a time, and then benchmarked them with 3dmark 2001 Se. The result was that with 98 i got, lets say 1200points, with win2k i got arount 1300-1400points, and with Win XP, I got around 2400points.

So, the testing clearly says that winxp is the fastest for gaming. Now, the question begins to emerge... I've heard people say that win2k may not get the best results in benchmarking programs, but it's the fastest when you are actually playing. And some people say that benchmarking with progs like 3dmark, isn't telling the truth, not all of the truth actually.

So, that leds me to my question, or questions, depends on the point of view... :)  :

Is winxp really that fast in gaming and overall perfomance, when it seems to demand more from the hardware??

question 2:
Which operation system is really the best when it comes to perfomance and gaming... ??

I should say that gaming isn't all I'm using my computer for... :) 

My config:

Asus A7V133-C
AMD Thunderbird 1400MHz
256mb original Ram
Winfast Leadtek Geforce3 Ti200 64mb
Sb Live! Player 5.1
Seagate IV 80gb
3com 3c905b-TX
Creative DXR3 DVD-encoder

(My config when I benchmarked was the same, except for the graphics, instead of the gf3, I had a Matrox Millenium G400MAX Dualhead.)


/Christofer, 19-year old student from Gothenburg, Sweden.

More about : fast

April 8, 2002 9:16:29 PM

I would have to say your benchmarks are probably right, but i wouldn't count on that is being twice as fast as the others, just faster.

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>
April 9, 2002 4:58:02 AM

but how can it be faster when winxp requires that much of the hardware?
Related resources
April 9, 2002 5:28:44 AM

Where do you get that from?

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>
April 9, 2002 8:49:07 AM

Quote:
So, the testing clearly says that winxp is the fastest for gaming

not really, a lot of info missed here, drivers for example?

If they squeeze olives to get olive oil, how do they get baby oil?
April 9, 2002 11:20:56 AM

First of all, just look at it. And I know that you can turn all tha fancy stuff off to optimize for performance.. And compared to win2k winxp requires more out of the hardware, it may use it more effeciently (spelled how?) but anyways.. If you compare it to win98, it doesnt matter if its win nt, win2k or winxp your using, they are all more demanding than win98 due to that the are made for business-enviroments. And when i say winxp, i referring to the professional edition.... :) 
April 9, 2002 11:26:04 AM

ehm, for win2k and winxp i used the same drivers, the latest detonatorXP drivers from www.nvidia.com

and for 98 i used the latest specific for 98, its the same as to win2k and winxp, but for 98...
April 9, 2002 11:47:02 AM

interesting how it doubled, specially with the same drivers, I assume your chipset drivers etc were the latest also? seems odd thats all, maybe I'll throw xp on a spare hdd this week and try it out of interest.


If they squeeze olives to get olive oil, how do they get baby oil?
April 9, 2002 2:41:02 PM

XP Pro and XP Home are virtually identical... only a few extra features are thrown in with Pro. Hardware requirements are steeper for XP... but the same can be said with EVERY new OS Microsoft puts out... 95 needed more than 3.1, 98 needed more than 95, and so on and so on... (NT 4.0 was released after Win95). The business environment is irrelevant. The only requirement for business is stability... and that was provided with the NT kernal more so than with the 9x kernal.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
April 9, 2002 3:58:55 PM

jupp, I know. Thats my point, Windows XP is pretty demanding..

But which system is the best for gaming and performance...?
A bit of stability might also be good...
April 9, 2002 8:53:52 PM

XP, but whatever it does use of the hardware older OS's couldn't utilize. Kind of a waste of a PC to put DOS on your brand new machine just because it has lower overhead. Besides, you already said it makes efficient use of what it uses so it's not really and issue.

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>
April 9, 2002 8:55:55 PM

If i didn't reply before, I can say that I did use the same chipset-drivers.

I just now, installed winxp once again due to stability-problems in 98... And when everything was installed i benchmarked it again. To my surprise the result was almost the same as in 98, the difference between my benchmarks now and before (the ones with the big differences) is that before I used a older graphics-card, Matrox G400 MAX dualhead... And am now using a Winfast Leadtek Gf3 Ti200.

This is starting to confuse me...

=/
April 11, 2002 10:19:43 PM

To be frank, i dont give a damn about 1 or 2 fps. even tho i hate Bill Gates, XP is definitely a brilliant OS. Just coz i'm gaining a framepersec by using 2000 or watever wouldn't make me change.

"The answer to life's problems aren't at the bottom of a beer bottle, they're on TV."
April 12, 2002 5:36:33 AM

Put it this way. XP is more stable than 98. How many fps can your system run a BSOD? :smile:

If my baby don't love me, I know, I know, her sister will.
April 12, 2002 2:35:24 PM

I did think it was odd, but the thing is, now I have nothing to do this weekend as I was going to test it on my sys!!

If they squeeze olives to get olive oil, how do they get baby oil?
April 12, 2002 4:22:16 PM

hehe, sorry ;) 

But I still think that you should do it. The thing is, it DID happen, but with my old graphics-card. Now, the phenomena is gone. But still, TRY IT! :) 
April 16, 2002 11:12:31 PM

While WinXP does have higher overhead (minimum system requirements) it does perform faster than previous OS's. As long as you are above its needs with your specs you will get better performance. i.e. If Win98SE needs 32MB RAM and 100MHz proc for its processing, WinXP may need 64MB and 200MHz proc to satisfy it (hypothetically). It is with the remaining Memory and Proc that your system will function. After satisfing the OS, XP will be faster and more efficient as you add Mem and Proc.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
April 17, 2002 10:47:27 AM

I just read through a bunch of messages in one of the other forums here at tomshardware about benchmarking with 3dmark 2001, and I thought of something.

Is it possible that if you have a old card or a card that doesn't keep up with the rest of your computer, THEN winxp uses the old hardware better and really pushes it to its limit, which win2k and win98_se doesn't. Cause before, when i hade my old matrox g400MAX-card, the difference between the testresults with 3dmark 2001 in win98_se, win2k and winxp. But now, the results are the same, undependent of what os you are using. Might it be so easy that winxp pushes older hardware to its limit than win98_se and win2k does?
Anonymous
April 17, 2002 4:36:31 PM

lol


there are absolutely no absolutes
July 17, 2002 5:36:59 PM

From my experience in games, 98se will run most older games much faster...not that you might play them though. All three os'es will get similar fps in current games. 2k shouldn't get more than a few fps increase if it is indeed faster. Prolly drivers tho.
July 19, 2002 6:21:53 PM

Hi

Although the NT line (NT/2000/XP) have more overhead then Win9x, they run programs much more efficiently, this is why programs run on them are faster, they basically use the hardware better. In fact, I bet the NT line use the hardware much more to it's full potential compaired to Win9x. One example I had was that I had made a program that counted prime numbers in Delphi. The program was about 30-40% (as far as I can remember, I could run this test again of you want) faster running on Win2000 (this was before XP was arround) than Windows 98 SE!!!

Steven Graham

Windows XP Works on a K5 PR133 (100MHz) with 80MB RAM!!!!!!
July 22, 2002 1:54:39 AM

nt/2k/xp will use ur system resources more efficiently, esp for apps, but in terms of raw performance, it can't really be compared the same. Most olders games will run faster on 9x as they just weren't really optimized for the nt line, even if they were supported (very few consumers used nt at the time). Even with current games though, the performance is pretty much the same, varying between os' by an fps or two. There is a difference between using system resources more efficiently and getting the top performance out of 3d games. I also don't think its quite fair to base efficiency levels with just a simple math program...tho i do prefer 2k over 98
July 22, 2002 8:19:28 AM

I understand, but it is an example. BTW the few games that I do have run better on XP than on 98 (hehe often because 98 has just BSODed, hey Win98 even BSODed be in the middle on a cd burn!)

Steven Graham

Windows XP Works on a K5 PR133 (100MHz) with 80MB RAM!!!!!!
!