Ooof...Win 7 Gaming hit

I used my laptop to test Windows 7 because I didn't want to mess with my work/play desktop. That said, I've tried 3 different nvidia drivers for my 8600M GT in my lappy and have been horribly disappointed in at least my first of gaming benches. Granted, I'm using Aquamark3, but it's the fastest bench out there (<2min) and it shows the most performance gains from both CPU and GPU. Here are my scores under different OS's (rounded to nearest thousand):

XP: 91,000
Vista: 87,000
Win 7: 74,000 (ouch!)

Granted, I know everything's beta right now (or using vista drivers on win 7) but I'm not sure how people are claiming gaming performance gains over vista.

Anything I'm missing?

Yeah it doesn't seem to matter what driver I use. 74K is my ceiling. Bummer.

It doesn't come up for me as an option - not even in the optional updates section. I think it's because it's a laptop maybe?

Aquamark is a depricated old program that isn't even multithreaded in the slightest. Play some GAMES and then compare!

Download GPU-Z. Save to desktop. Double-Click GPU-Z icon.
What is the driver?

How does your game play? Who really cares about the benchmark if the game is good?

Wait......You can't keep installing drivers without removing the old ones
C O M P L E T L Y.
Start>Control Panel>add&remove programs.
Remove old drivers (unused or undesireable)
Run Driver Cleaner. http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=745
Install new driver.

or whatever driver cleaner program you have

185.20?

There is only one option left.


http://www.gallaghersmash.com/fans/032.jpg


Sorry, humor always hakes things better.

Did you go from a 1066FSB to 1333FSB chip? Aquamark loves high FSBs. Regardless, you should try something different, Aquamark works best on older OSs, especially XP. Run something like 3DMark 06, or better yet, something that is meaningful.

Yes, but some CPUs use a 1066MHz FSB, and some a 1333MHz FSB on the same mobo (provided it has support for the higher speed).

I'm willing to bet it's drivers causing at least some of the problem. But as I said earlier, and just like 3DMark 2001 SE, Aquamark works better on older OSs. Compare the same machine running XP and Vista in 3DMark 2001 and you'll see a huge difference. That doesn't mean Vista will be 30% slower in games, it's just that benchmark. Benchmarks can give an indication of relative gaming performance differences, but only the games themselves will tell the full story.

UPDATE!

Okay. It seems my fears were for nothing. I can see it all clearly now. It appears that Vista SP1 and the way Win7 are written, it abandons "old" programs, such as Aquamark. After running 3dmark06 in Vista SP1 and Win7, I feel better.

I found a review of the Dell Inspiron 1520 from back when it came out. It posted Aquamark scores as well as 3dmark06 scores - pre-SP1. The reviewer's Aquamark score reflected my original scores I had with Aqumark when I bought my Inspy 1520. But Vista SP1 and Win7 must do something wacky. Ah well...

My scores:
Aquamark3: 74K
3dmark06: 3422

Review scores (pre SP1):
Aquamark3: 87K
3dmark06: 3284

So it must be in the programming of the newer OS's that causes such a drop in an old bench like Aquamark.

So there ya go. False alarm! Weird

I didn't even think that could be a problem. I figured Win7 would have installed all versions of DirectX. Wouldn't it have to?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads [...] quirements



That is not true. 9c will run on vista and most games only support 9c.

I ran 3dmark06 on Vista SP1 x64 and Windows 7 x64 using the following setup:

Q6600@3.6Ghz
Gigabyte GA-P35DS3L v2 400x9
Corsair XMS2 4-4-4-9 V2.0 4x1GB 800Mhz 1:1
Geforce GTX 260OC 735/1100

Vista SP1 x64
SM 2.0 Score 7276
SM 3.0 Score 7635
CPU Score 4943
17318 3DMarks

Windows 7 Beta
SM 2.0 Score 7082
SM 3.0 Score 7655
CPU Score 5046
17231 3DMarks

I really believe there's absolutely no difference between the 2 operating systems as far as gaming peformance is concerned.
Windows 7 still manages to eat up 1GB of my 4GB while running only antivirus and iexplorer. As far as ditching Vista for Windows 7 is just another waste of 4 hours (OS + Program installation)

P.S. The insignificant drop in the 3dmark score could be due to beta video drivers. IMO

I don't want to sound condescending but I wasn't comparing XP to Windows 7 in my remark. I know Vista/7 use free memory in a different way than XP does. I was just making a point about Vista vs Windows 7 beta gaming performance.

If all they did is add some new features and updated the look of Vista but kept everything else (kernel, DRM garbage) what's the point of getting this new OS? Unless they can prove somehow that Windows 7 utilizes multicore cpus better than Vista or XP

Last point! I thought Vista was supposed to eliviate the need to restart computer to load drivers. Every time I install a driver in Vista or Windows 7, I still have to reboot. Why wouldn't a simple log off and log on work?

/agreed - Except to add that an awful lot of people have been making the same point regarding XP to Vista for some time now. If you have a system already running well on Vista, than there isn't a whole lot of reason to upgrade - UAC is much more unobtrusive, the management and (especially) troubleshooting tools are much nicer, and it definitely seems a bit snappier. Not a driving reason to rush out and buy a copy, but as a user of both, I do prefer 7 if for no other reason than it's a little more polished.


And I'm a little mystified about all the "DRM Garbage" stuff that's been going around for the last couple years. Seems to have taken on a life of it's own as some kind of weird mantra. The bottom line is it's in (both) OS's so they can play DRM protected content. If it wasn't your then movies and music wouldn't be playable and everyone would flame Microsoft for failing that, too.

I fully understand why people don't like/want it, but the RIAA and MPAA are the one's to blame for DRM.

Windows 7 - Vista Lite

They removed all the extra junk we don't want, hence it runs faster.