Windows benchmarking

[RJARRRPCGP]

Windows 98 SE appeared to have won for the majority.

My benchmark.

Hardware:

Motherboard: Asus A7V8X-X

Chipset: Via KT400

Processor: Athlon XP T-bred 2400+ AIUHB with the FSB increased, at 166x12.0 instead of 133x15.0.

RAM: 256 MB of Infineon DDR SDRAM that's rated at PC3200, but only been rated for loose timings, at 3.0-3-3-8. Thus may be just rebadged PC2700! I never tried to use 200 mhz for it at lower latencies, and to do that, my nForce2 one is required.

HDD: Samsung SP0802N (80 GB and 7,200 RPM)

Video card: GeForce 4 Ti 4200 with 128 MB of VRAM at stock.

---------------------------------------------------------

Chipset drivers:

Hyperion 4 in 1 4.53

-----------------------

Video card drivers:

Detonator 43.45

----------------------

Benchmark software:

3D Mark 2001 SE: Windows 98 SE: 10,461 Windows ME: 10,450

Super Pi 1MB: Windows 98 SE: 1 min. 9 sec. Windows ME: 1 min. 9 sec. A tie.

Prime95 benchmark: (this time, not the torture test!) Windows 98 SE: 34.344 ms Windows ME: 34.298 ms

Windows 98 SE lost!

MetaBench: Windows 98 SE won. Windows 98 had the higher values for most of MetaBench's tests.

But this was with stock Windows installations.

Things may change when Windows 98 SE has 98SE2ME.

Edited August 31, 2006 by RJARRRPCGP

[Acheron]

Windows 98 SE appeared to have won for the majority.

My benchmark.

Hardware:

Motherboard: Asus A7V8X-X

Chipset: Via KT400

Processor: Athlon XP T-bred 2400+ AIUHB with the FSB increased, at 166x12.0 instead of 133x15.0.

RAM: 256 MB of Infineon DDR SDRAM that's rated at PC3200, but only been rated for loose timings, at 3.0-3-3-8. Thus may be just rebadged PC2700! I never tried to use 200 mhz for it at lower latencies, and to do that, my nForce2 one is required.

HDD: Samsung SP0802N (80 GB and 7,200 RPM)

Video card: GeForce 4 Ti 4200 with 128 MB of VRAM at stock.

---------------------------------------------------------

Chipset drivers:

Hyperion 4 in 1 4.53

-----------------------

Video card drivers:

Detonator 43.45

----------------------

Benchmark software:

3D Mark 2001 SE: Windows 98 SE: 10,461 Windows ME: 10,450

Super Pi 1MB: Windows 98 SE: 1 min. 9 sec. Windows ME: 1 min. 9 sec. A tie.

Prime95 benchmark: (this time, not the torture test!) Windows 98 SE: 34.344 ms Windows ME: 34.298 ms

Windows 98 SE lost!

MetaBench: Windows 98 SE won. Windows 98 had the higher values for most of MetaBench's tests.

But this was with stock Windows installations.

Things may change when Windows 98 SE has 98SEtoME.

There is no reason to test Windows 98SE againt ME. ME is just some shell replacement for 98SE. There were no major changes under the hood made to ME. The only difference you would see is caused by the difference in Memory usage from both systems.

[Andromeda43]

MS borrowed a few things from W2k or NT when they made ME.

That restore thing was a huge mistake.

The little program, "ME Restore Remover" takes care of that.

One thing I did like was the revised Defrag program. It looks just like the 98 defrag but it's about 50 bytes smaller and runs about ten times faster. I give it to all my 98 customers. It really takes the drudgery out of defragging a 98 machine.

I just took a HP Pavillion in on trade with ME on it. It was really screwed up.

I did a factory restore with the disks from HP and then applied my ME tweaks and cleanup.

Now, it's running like a champ.

ME is like a one-legged old lady trying to cross a busy street. She just needs a little help.

With just a little TLC, windows ME can be made to run just fine.

Cheers!

Andromeda43

[noguru]

The differences that you give in your post are to small to call Win98se the winner! Just 11 points with 3DMark and 46ms with Prime is nothing. How big are the actual differences with this Metabench?