3d mark 05 tests...

[croc]

Spent a wee bit of time testing Vista today under 3d mark 2005... Interesting results. Same platform, some slight differences in HD's... My XP HD is an old slow PATA ST312006a. My 64 bit vista is on a ST3320622AS sata ii with 16 mb cache, ncq, etc. My 32 bit is on a slightly older drive, a ST3320620AS.

So much for the minor variances. On to the results!

XP, 4977

Vista beta 2 x64, 3594

Vista beta 2 x32, 2999

No hardrives or MB's were harmed in the making or this post....

[Albuquerque]

Can you provide individual details on the three platforms you tested on? (or if its a single platform with drives swapping out, just give us the details on the rest). Here are the parts that would be pertinent:

Processor (make, model, current front side bus and processing speeds)

Ram (current operating speed and the timings that are being used)

Video card (make, model, current speeds, drivers you're using)

System board (make, model, BIOS revisions)

[croc]

Can you provide individual details on the three platforms you tested on? (or if its a single platform with drives swapping out, just give us the details on the rest). Here are the parts that would be pertinent:

Processor (make, model, current front side bus and processing speeds)

Ram (current operating speed and the timings that are being used)

Video card (make, model, current speeds, drivers you're using)

System board (make, model, BIOS revisions)

Processor, athlon 3700+

Memory is OCZ ddr 3200 running at a CAS of 2, RASD 2. Stock bios settings, really.

GPU's, 6800 ultra x 2

MB, DFI LP UT NF4 Expert.

Only difference between the three tests were the HD's. I just thought that the results were a bit interesting.

Another interesting bit, my x64 performance is a '3', but my x32 performance is only a '1'.

[nitroshift]

[...] but my x32 performance is only a '1'.

Interesting but build 5472 gave my system 3.4 as the lowest mark. Surprisingly it was the processor which is seen as running @ 1.5 GHz. Could that be because it's running in HT mode???

[smokeytl]

For the 3dmark 2005, Is it the same program used for xp? What other testing tools can you use with vista to test graphics. Thanks in advance

[croc]

For the 3dmark 2005, Is it the same program used for xp? What other testing tools can you use with vista to test graphics. Thanks in advance

Yes, same 3dmark05... Had to run it in 'compatability mode for XP' for the two Vista tests, that might explain some of the difference.

I'd like to see someone run the same set of tests in a good intel processor and see if the results are comparable

[Shindo_Hikaru]

Here is some other tests:

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2805

[Stead]

well i have a P4 2.8 dual core chip, and i noticed with vista 64 i get a overall rating of 4, and with the 32bit version i get a rating of 3, i don't have 3d mark, but apart from the hd all the ratings are considerably higher considering its the same machine on a dual boot

PD 2.8ghz

ATI X1600XT graphics

1.5gig ddr2

not sure waht the 32bit one is off hand as i wiped it off but currently i get

Processor 4.8

Memory 5.1

Primary Hard Disk (20gig free, was above 4 but its now 3 as i've installed quite a few things) 3.8

graphics 5.9

gaming graphics 5.1

its highly annoying as i'm almost tempted to upgrade the cpu and get a bigger drive to bump it upto 5

p.s. i'm running beta 2

on the 32bit one my processor was 3.x i can't remember off hand everything else and don't feel like installing it to check again, but i refreshed the system rating 3 times on each and before i filled up the drive 32bit was always 3 64bit always 4

[Albuquerque]

The 3.x versus 4.x might simply be the "additional featureset" of having 64 bit at hand. I'm guessing of course

I wonder how much of the difference is driver immaturity, OS immaturity, or "compatibility degredation". As the betas continue streaming out and drivers continue to improve, the interesting part will be to see if Vista can meet or even exceed XP's gaming performance.

In theory, there are a lot of reasons why Vista should perform better than XP in 3D and audio. Obviously that theory isn't being reflected in reality right now, but perhaps later? Dunno...