XP (x64) -vs- Vista (x64) Actual Benchmarks

[Joe Average]

errmmm...

Server 2008 and Vista SP1 are both Windows version NT 6.0.6001. One is the server version, the other the desktop/workstation version

Come on, you can do better than that. Install 2K8, then install Vista, and no matter what you do to Vista - no matter how much tweaking, gutting out with vLite (pre-install, of course), etc - it'll never be 2K8 or beat it performance-wise. We've been here before, and it still holds true: they may share build numbers and even some kernel code, but they aren't the same OS, not by a longshot, at least nowhere near as closely coupled as 2K3 x64 and XP Pro x64 are.

As one of the peeps that helped created vLite in the first place, believe me, I've made a few hundred attempts the past 2 years trying to get Vista to "be" or perform like 2K8 and I've never had any measurable success, sad to say.

I still call XP Pro x64 Windows Workstation 2003 x64, personally. Some people get it, some don't.

 

[Meow]

As one of the peeps that helped created vLite in the first place, believe me, I've made a few hundred attempts the past 2 years trying to get Vista to "be" or perform like 2K8 and I've never had any measurable success, sad to say.

I still call XP Pro x64 Windows Workstation 2003 x64, personally. Some people get it, some don't.

I've been really saddened by the EOL decisions that come from Microsoft on XP64, it's a really big mistake in my opinion. I'd wait a few years after Windows 7 to be really grown out of problems and bugs before announcing an optional end to XP64. Also, I never understood why MS did not release and advertise XP64 more than they did.

They really don't understand large groups of their audiences. Like you, I really just don't like Vista. I don't like how it wants to look, I don't like how it speaks to me, don't like how it 'protects the stupid users', since I'm not one of them. I don't use my PC to show off what it looks like to others, I use my PC for what it can do for me. Audio and Video editing and processing, encoding, decoding, text-editing, emailing, using the web, ssh, virtual engines etc. I also dislike the way Vista abuses the MBR on my boot-disk. I'd like to have more control. Always the first I do when forced to use Vista again is become the Administrator forever.
I have learned to deal with MS OS stupidity and security issues. Vista's UAC is a pain in the rear to me. Don't want that rookie-ass bullshit from any OS.

 

[jimmyb]

I also dislike the way Vista abuses the MBR on my boot-disk.

This is probably my biggest complaint with Vista. It annoys me to no end that it just overwrites my MBR without asking.

Other than that I am ok with it.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I don't like how it 'protects the stupid users', since I'm not one of them.

So you don't like every other major operating system? They all have something like UAC, and at least you can easily turn UAC off. UAC is a huge security feature that Microsoft should have introduced years ago.

As for how it looks, IMO Aero Glass is a huge improvement over the playschool Luna interface. You can always use the classic look.

 

[Joe Average]

UAC has never been an issue for me, ever, and I wrote two posts here about UAC and how Vista was different that turned into stickies because the advice I provided was apparently valued by enough members to warrant it. But for me, I've never once been irritated by a UAC popup in the times that I've run Vista (which is not as much as people might believe considering my support of it). Ok, let me offer a disclaimer there:

I support the OS in terms of what it is and what it does, what I don't support - and get into a lot of tussles over - are people that simply badmouth it because of how it works. As the poster above noted, other OSes have some sort of "handholding" going on and always have: running as root 24/7 on a UNIX/Linux box will do nothing but get you laughed at amongst peers. Even Linus himself admits he's goofed up big time when working with his own OS by doing so and making a booboo that brought the whole machine to a grinding halt.

In Windows 7, I've noted that the only time I see UAC prompts at all is when installing software for the first time, but as I wrote about in one of those stickies (The best Vista tip I can offer and one that is sorely needed), I always install software by the right-click "Run as admininistrator" option anyway so, I would have seen the prompt regardless.

Aside from that, in over a week of using Win7 for 14+ hours daily, I've only noted UAC prompts during software installs as I just noted. At the moment no AV software is installed on this box (the Celeron 430/2GB machine I've got it installed on), nothing but Win7 build 6956 installed clean from DVD on a 35GB system partition with some of my most common apps installed. It's not set up the way my primary workstation is (the Q6600 @ 3 GHz with 8GB of DDR2 800 3-3-3-9 on it) but, that's why this is a test box.

It leaves Vista SP1 in the dust, and while there's no benchmark that can prove that, in day to day operation so far everything is faster. As time goes by and SuperFetch tweaks itself, it just gets a bit faster each day. Everything works great, from Aero Shake to Aero Peek - and this Celeron 430 machine is GMA950-powered on the ECS mobo, so it's onboard graphics too using the default driver in the OS. I haven't bothered to update anything in terms of drivers with "newer" or direct manufacturer ones. The SB Audigy 2 ZS I have in this test box grabbed the driver from Windows Update, works fine without issues.

The sheer fact that I can play almost any video file now - including QuickTime - without needing to install any codecs is a huge HUGE benefit to me. It's awesome just doubleclicking on nearly any media file and it just plays - no additional codecs necessary because Win7 covers all that shit now. Love it love it love it...

I'll continue to use XP Pro x64 for years to come, seriously. I don't necessarily upgrade my hardware monthly, or even bi-annually. The Q6600 primary workstation has been running at 3 GHz for over 1.5 years now, 24/7, and hasn't been rebooted in 4 months which is a considerable length of time for me (normally if an OS installation lasts 2 weeks that's a big deal, honestly). It's rock solid, and with the 6GB RAMdisk it's quite possibly the fastest XP Pro x64 box you've ever seen if you could see it in actual operation.

I'm thinking about putting Win7 on it this weekend after imaging the current installation safely. Would be nice to see just how smokin' fast Win7 truly is, and I might even do some benchmarks. I've got people expecting me to put out "The RAMdisk Manifesto" at some point considering how strongly I support their application and use, so that's another project on the back burner as well.

If you think your machine is fast, I got news for you. It ain't nearly as fast as it could be... (to paraphrase Morpheus, somewhat...)

But I will say this:

Whenever I see a person - anyone - say something like "I'd like more control" all I can offer in reply is:

Go run Linux. Simple. I can appreciate the desire, as sometimes there are things about Windows I wish I could alter to suit my particular needs better, but I know from the gitgo that I can't, and trying to do so generally causes far more grief down the road than the so-called benefits do at the onset. So for those that truly want a bit more control over their OS, even godlike capabilities, Windows is not the OS for you, in any form or version. That's Linux in this day and age...

 

[Meow]

As the poster above noted, other OSes have some sort of "handholding" going on and always have: running as root 24/7 on a UNIX/Linux box will do nothing but get you laughed at amongst peers.

That's a load of horseshit. Not every type of computer use is the same. I've never been 'in danger' as root, and I happily login as one on several servers daily through ssh. The only danger is the point at which the root-password is typed in, and the irresponsable use of a system and its shielding from the outside. It's not the kitchen, it's the cook that causes the problem..

The OS-designs are generally pretty retarded if they require you to login twice to do tasks on the machine you're the only one sitting behind, ever. It's much better to shield the machine from the outside in other ways than having the OS build a user under a super-user state. It's annoying and not user-friendly.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

That's a load of horseshit. Not every type of computer use is the same. I've never been 'in danger' as root, and I happily login as one on several servers daily through ssh. The only danger is the point at which the root-password is typed in, and the irresponsable use of a system and its shielding from the outside.

The OS-designs are generally pretty retarded if they require you to login twice to do tasks on the machine you're the only one sitting behind, ever. It's much better to shield the machine from the outside in other ways than having the OS build a user under a super-user state. It's annoying and not user-friendly.

You sound like one of those people who doesn't run an antivirus because they've never gotten a virus.

Vista doesn't require you to put in your password at the UAC prompts if you're an admin, and you can turn it off. More importantly, its not just to protect users from themselves, its the last line of defense against new unpatched exploits.

 

[Joe Average]

So in other words, you completely missed the entire point of the mentioning of running as root. That doesn't bode well for ya... ugh.

Vista, Linux, and Unix, and even OSX have one goal as OSes: to take care of themselves and keep running. You, as the user, hold the power to completely fuck that up, so forgive the programmers and designers of the OSes for creating a product that tends to favor keeping itself in operation over allowing you to bring it down like a house of cards in a tornado.

Previous versions of Windows didn't work that way, and neither did the line of thinking that created them even with "Safe Mode" being the first semi-adequate step in the right direction compared to the "competition." UAC is no different in the long run than having to give proper credentials in UNIX, Linux, or even OSX to get a task done that has the capability of doing damage to the operating system itself even if that's not the end result.

You're looking at this - or you give the impression you are - that you've never made a mistake running your PC(s), which we all know is simply untrue whether you'd be up to admit it or not. Everybody makes mistakes, everybody. Nobody is perfect, and shit happens, even if you're not the direct cause of it.

Don't get all pissy about Microsoft trying to create a better version of Windows that favors keeping itself "alive" over past versions of the OS. Times change, things change, and so do OSes.

If you can do better, people will line up with cash in hand to buy it... but they're not gonna pay just to hear whining and moaning about how things should be done. I've been around for so long that it's by far the most common bitch there is whether people say it outright or not...

"I could do it better..." or "It shouldn't be like that, it should be like this..." or "Why can't they do this the way I want..."

It gets old, just like this discussion.

 

[grimreeferx09]

dx10.
nuff said

 

[Jon855]

UAC has never been an issue for me, ever, and I wrote two posts here about UAC and how Vista was different that turned into stickies because the advice I provided was apparently valued by enough members to warrant it.

Self-glorified masturbation....

So you don't like every other major operating system? They all have something like UAC, and at least you can easily turn UAC off. UAC is a huge security feature that Microsoft should have introduced years ago.

As for how it looks, IMO Aero Glass is a huge improvement over the playschool Luna interface. You can always use the classic look.

+1 and Vista 64 / 32 > * All Other Consumer Windows Versions

If you can do better, people will line up with cash in hand to buy it... but they're not gonna pay just to hear whining and moaning about how things should be done. I've been around for so long that it's by far the most common bitch there is whether people say it outright or not...

"I could do it better..." or "It shouldn't be like that, it should be like this..." or "Why can't they do this the way I want..."

It gets old, just like this discussion.

You need to apply that to yourself... Vista is better than Win XP64 by miles and you're getting old here.

 

[greyeyezz]

You're kidding, right?
Check the example tests above.
And I can give you huge listings of incredible shortcomings in Vista. Like the amazing wasteful use of its winsxs folders, its ridiculous non-stop harddisk-polling, its shameful wow64 looping in the registry by overlooking its own sym-links, its annoying way of limiting what a user is allowed to do etc. etc.

Sure, if you're a total idiot and newbie, and you have all the time in the world, Vista is good and reasonably safe for you, but it will not be a fast and smooth operating system, ever.

it won't be fast and smooth if your an idiot and newbie who doesn't know how to optimize your OS

 

[phatbx133]

Guys,

I have been using Vista 32/64 bit on my laptop over a year or so, recently I sold my laptop, I decide to buy new pc build and install x64 PRO SP2, I love it and it really much better than Vista 64.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Pro
----------------------------------------------------------------
snappier
support 4GB
plenty find 64 apps at www.start64.com
plenty of time EOL till next year 2009
wait for upgrade to Window 7
easy work with DOS environment
ActiveSync 4.5 quicker transfer files than Vista

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Con
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Vista 32 sucks
Vista 64 sucks
sluggish
lagging
UAC
Vista is nobody as ME II
I don't care about Vista anymore
Microsoft is dumping Vista as soon as Window 7 come out.

------------------------------------------------------------------
My own personal experiences

XP is still far superior than Vista for many reasons.

XP is much faster transfer my all videos to other location than Vista 64 (4GB and 28 processes) still sucks, much slower.

Everyone have different tastes with XP and Vista.

Just my 2 cents.

phatbx133

 

[SuperSubZero]

Con
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Vista 32 sucks
Vista 64 sucks
sluggish
lagging
UAC
Vista is nobody as ME II
I don't care about Vista anymore
Microsoft is dumping Vista as soon as Window 7 come out.

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

What powerful, convincing arguments. I especially love the last one.

 

[TheNuker]

What powerful, convincing arguments. I especially love the last one.

On par with all "pro Vista" comments posted so far.

 

[Meow]

it won't be fast and smooth if your an idiot and newbie who doesn't know how to optimize your OS

Which is exactly WHY using Vista is the biggest pain in the rear: The time it takes to get it to be as functional and smooth as XP64 is (from the get-go) is kind of disappointing. Sure, you can switch the GUI to 'Classic', but then it still has a shitload of timed tasks I don't want nor need to be run for me by the OS, it still runs way too much services I will never use. The only decent version of Vista I've seen was the TinyVista release by eXPerience. Pity that was only x86 32 bit.

And yeah, as soon as Windows 7 is out, Vista will be useless. It's a waste of time, mostly;
http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Microsoft_Windows_7_33901599.html

By the way, it's "you're an idiot" not "your an idiot". Learn how to write.

 

[Meow]

Vista is better than Win XP64 by miles and you're getting old here.

No it is not. If you're like me, you're using both (because you need to for your job). In which case you'll notice how much faster you'll get things done in Windows XP Pro 64 bit Edition. The tests prove why, by the way. Apparently you have never done REAL world testing, or you would not make that false claim.

 

[Meow]

dx10.
nuff said

http://www.brothersoft.com/blog/2008/12/10/easily-install-and-download-directx-10-for-windows-xp/

 

[bigdogchris]

No it is not. If you're like me, you're using both (because you need to for your job). In which case you'll notice how much faster you'll get things done in Windows XP Pro 64 bit Edition. The tests prove why, by the way. Apparently you have never done REAL world testing, or you would not make that false claim.

I've tried to do real world testing of XPx64 but neither of the 3 games that I tried to test would run.

 

[SuperSubZero]

I've tried to do real world testing of XPx64 but neither of the 3 games that I tried to test would run.

What games? I ran XP64 for over a year on a gaming rig with no issues at all. Everything I threw at it ran fine.

 

[bigdogchris]

What games? I ran XP64 for over a year on a gaming rig with no issues at all. Everything I threw at it ran fine.

Left 4 Dead would not run correctly. It kept stuttering and locking up during game play.

I also had issues with FC2 and Warhead.

I'm sure xp x64 is a good OS for some things.

 

[Conker]

lol i played left 4 dead and all the new games like gta4 and the rest on windows xp x64 and they are fine. I never really had any incompatible problems with any games unless your talking 16bit stuff. You could always get an emulator for that. Chances are something was set wrong or something on your windows.

 

[Jon55]

http://www.brothersoft.com/blog/2008/12/10/easily-install-and-download-directx-10-for-windows-xp/

Yeah that's totally worth it.

 

[Meow]

Yeah that's totally worth it.

What do you intend to say here? Direct-X 10, as pointed to in that link works perfectly fine for me in Win XP x64, so what's your problem? If I desire to do so I can easily switch to DX 9 (as you can see there are handy tools for that as well).

 

[DeathFromBelow]

lol i played left 4 dead and all the new games like gta4 and the rest on windows xp x64 and they are fine. I never really had any incompatible problems with any games unless your talking 16bit stuff. You could always get an emulator for that. Chances are something was set wrong or something on your windows.

I was trying to do some benches with XP64 this past weekend and had trouble with Far Cry 2, not to mention the trouble I went through to get my SCSI controller and TV tuner working.

Vista is far easier to set up and recognized my hardware right out of the box. 64-bit XP did seem to boot up and shut down quicker, but the performance differences pretty much end there. Once I get everything working and my finals are over I'll do a write up on it.

Besides the issues getting 64-bit XP running with my hardware, the lack of Media Center, the new version of Movie Maker, DVD Maker, and Aero Glass really turn me off. I'll be sticking with Vista.

 

[Meow]

64-bit XP did seem to boot up and shut down quicker, but the performance differences pretty much end there.

For you they did, for me it's MUCH more. Vista is a slow heavy demanding OS, with a nagging annoying finger-wagging insulting my intelligence bunch of dialogs.

Not to mention the ridiculous (and exponentially growing) footprint Vista throws on harddisk-space. http://social.technet.microsoft.com.../thread/9411dbaa-69ac-43a1-8915-749670cec8c3/
and don't tell me 40 Gigabytes for just the OS and Apps is "OK", because I assure you, storage space is expensive if you want it to be secure and fast. SSD in RAID for example.

 

[DeaconFrost]

because I assure you, storage space is expensive if you want it to be secure and fast. SSD in RAID for example.

Well, if you want to be on the bleeding edge of hardware, that's not even showing a consistent performance increase, it is going to be outrageously expensive, no matter what OS you are using. Furthermore, if you don't like UAC, turn it off. Vista isn't slow, by any means, either.

 

[criccio]

Vista is a slow heavy demanding OS, with a nagging annoying finger-wagging insulting my intelligence bunch of dialogs.

Not to mention the ridiculous (and exponentially growing) footprint Vista throws on harddisk-space. http://social.technet.microsoft.com.../thread/9411dbaa-69ac-43a1-8915-749670cec8c3/
and don't tell me 40 Gigabytes for just the OS and Apps is "OK", because I assure you, storage space is expensive if you want it to be secure and fast. SSD in RAID for example.

Every single thing you just said is blatantly, flat-out wrong. Vista x64 (on a proper system) is screamingly fast, and that is not subjective. UAC can be turned off, and restore points can be turned off. You where saying?

 

[DeathFromBelow]

For you they did, for me it's MUCH more. Vista is a slow heavy demanding OS, with a nagging annoying finger-wagging insulting my intelligence bunch of dialogs.

Not to mention the ridiculous (and exponentially growing) footprint Vista throws on harddisk-space. http://social.technet.microsoft.com.../thread/9411dbaa-69ac-43a1-8915-749670cec8c3/
and don't tell me 40 Gigabytes for just the OS and Apps is "OK", because I assure you, storage space is expensive if you want it to be secure and fast. SSD in RAID for example.

UAC is not a nagging, annoying, finger-wagging insult to your intelligence, and a similar feature can be found in every other major OS. Vista's is by far the least annoying and can be easily turned off while you initially setup the computer and then turned back on.

You don't need "SSD's in RAID" for "secure and fast storage," and disk space is cheap at about $0.10-.15 per gigabyte.

Go troll somewhere else. Everything you've had to say about Vista is bullshit.

 

[Conker]

I was trying to do some benches with XP64 this past weekend and had trouble with Far Cry 2, not to mention the trouble I went through to get my SCSI controller and TV tuner working.

Vista is far easier to set up and recognized my hardware right out of the box. 64-bit XP did seem to boot up and shut down quicker, but the performance differences pretty much end there. Once I get everything working and my finals are over I'll do a write up on it.

Besides the issues getting 64-bit XP running with my hardware, the lack of Media Center, the new version of Movie Maker, DVD Maker, and Aero Glass really turn me off. I'll be sticking with Vista.

I have far cry 2 also but haven't been playing it lately since it got repetitive. I use media player classic for media. Pretty much what you do in xp32 can be done in xp64. If theres drivers for vista64 then theres drivers 98% of the time for xp64.

 

[PGHammer]

That's exactly it: What is your average user? The average user I know does not share its machine with others (except when showing movies etc.) and wants to be root (admin) on it ALL THE TIME.

Besides, if you want to have true protection of your data, you're much better off using a TrueCrypt filecontainer and use that for all your sensitive stuff. I use my XP x64 that way, and it's the safest method, by far outweighing internal Vista 'encryption' and user-shielding schemes. I startup as root (Admin) on my XP x64 system so I can do what I want, when I want, the way I want to with everything in the system, and then mount my TrueCrypt drive if I need my shielded data (punch in a password or use a fingerprint reader for it), like my Mozilla profiles, email etc.

Vista 64 (Ultimate 64, to be precise) lets you do *all* of that, so that argument carries no water. The only account on my VU64 box is my own. All you are indicating is that you are comfortable with XP64 and have no desire to change, even if Vista were to actually prove itself.

 

[PGHammer]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say mobusta1, something isn't right on that computer. It may be minutely slower but it shouldn't be noticeably slower than XP. I have Vista x86 and XP x86 installed on my crappy laptop and there isn't much of a difference and this is with a Turion single core and 2GB of RAM on X200 graphics.

Datapoint: I have been running Vista Ultimate x64 on my current hardware since the swap this past Monday (from P4 2.6 overclocked to 2.8 to my *current* Celeron DC still clocked bone-stock at 1.6 GHz). Despite the 1 GHz clock deficit *and* the 1 GB RAM deficit, Vista Ultimate x64 boots quicker than Vista Ultimate x86 did on the *same boot drive* (I kept all the drives in the crossgrade). In fact, once I got the onboard graphics system-RAM usage adjusted, it does non-graphically-intensive tasks quicker as well. My Maxtor DiamondMax (first-generation SATA-150) hard drive is not the speediest of such drives, even of its generation.

Slower CPU, less RAM, downgrading to onboard (for now) graphics from AGP 8X, and moving from 32-bit to 64-bit; yet 64-bit wins.

 

[Joe Average]

Still haven't had much time to do the real XP Pro x64 vs Vista x64 benchmarks yet, but I do have a nice new Core 2 Quad Q8200 workstation to do it on courtesy of Fry's yesterday. Brand new Q8200 with an ECS G31 based mobo for $179.99... funny thing is that they were selling the OEM Q8200 (tray version, just the CPU, no box, no HSF) for - get this:

$199.99

hehe It's hilarious how they do that stuff sometimes. I got the retail boxed processor and a mobo to go with it (regular price for both items purchased separately would be $229.99 + $79.99 = $309.98) for less than the cost of the bare tray OEM CPU which they were trying to sell for $199.99.

Go figure...

But here's something you folks might find interesting right off the bat. I am sitting here typing on an E8500 at stock speeds, DDR2 800 running at 667 (to keep the RAM to FSB ratio 1:1) at 4-4-4-12, and I installed Vista Business x64 last night to see how it worked on this "new" configuration (this is different from the quad box I'll be constructing in a few hours). When I got it installed, got everything running, fully updated, I decided to do a simple but quick benchmark using WinRAR 3.80's built in benchmark tool. I let it run for 1 min and got this result on Vista Business x64:

Then I wiped this "new" configuration machine (not immediately but...) and put my beloved trusty rock solid fast as fuckin' hell XP Pro x64 on the exact same machine - I have not made any BIOS alterations of any kind whatsoever, the only thing that is different is the OS and the drivers, that's it. I just ran this benchmark again, on this XP Pro x64 box, and here's the 1 minute result:

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it...

Nothing changed but the OS and the drivers - the hardware platform being exactly the same, in this text, on a Core 2 Duo E8500 at 3.16 GHz (1333 FSB) with DDR2 800 running at 667 at 4-4-4-12 for that 1:1 ratio, and XP Pro x64 SP2 fully updated is...

(carry the 3, the 1 cancels out, minus the square root of someone that gives a shit...)

37% faster.

In this test, XP Pro x64 is 37% faster at the WinRAR 3.80 multithreaded benchmark than Vista Business x64 on the exact same hardware.

Wonder what this will say about all the benchmarks I'll be running...

And I chose Vista Business x64 because it is the closest overall comparison version of Vista to XP Pro x64 - Vista Business was supposed to the "XP Professional" SKU replacement anyway, just as Vista Home editions were supposed to be the "XP Home" SKU replacements.

Soooo... 37%... that's a huge HUGE HUGE HUGE difference.

Don't you agree?

Oh, and here's the kicker:

WinRAR 3.80 is a 32 bit application. Next time I'll do a 7Zip 64 bit comparsion... And yes I'll be doing this test with Windows 7 too as soon as I can get an x64 copy of Beta 1...

 

[firebane]

Left 4 Dead would not run correctly. It kept stuttering and locking up during game play.

I also had issues with FC2 and Warhead.

I'm sure xp x64 is a good OS for some things.

Left 4 Dead works perfectly fine; That stuttering is a nvidia issue and VERY easy to fix.

FC2 works like a charm and have absolutely no problems.

Warhead? Won't bother but Crysis ran fine.

 

[Meow]

I do have a nice new Core 2 Quad Q8200 workstation to do it on courtesy of Fry's yesterday. Brand new Q8200 with an ECS G31 based mobo for $179.99... funny thing is that they were selling the OEM Q8200 (tray version, just the CPU, no box, no HSF) for - get this:

$199.99

hehe It's hilarious how they do that stuff sometimes. I got the retail boxed processor and a mobo to go with it (regular price for both items purchased separately would be $229.99 + $79.99 = $309.98) for less than the cost of the bare tray OEM CPU which they were trying to sell for $199.99.

Go figure...

Have you checked their Stepping code? http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ParentRadio=All&ProcFam=2774&SearchKey=
Might very well be that the price difference is between M1 and R0. Most cases the expensive one is newer, uses less energy and stays cooler while giving the same processing-power, things like that..

 

[Joe Average]

The Q8200s are basically brand new in terms of quads, and no, I didn't check the difference just for stepping codes.

The point is Fry's sells the Q8200 tray processor for $199.99 daily; they sell the boxed Q8200 retail processor for $229.99 (at least those are the shelf prices here in Vegas). So when you see a Q8200 retail box processor + a mobo = $20 less than buying the bare processor itself, it's funny.

It's kinda like a situation where someone goes to a 7-11 and instead of paying $1.19 for a Big Gulp (32 oz of soda max), they'll go to the cooler case and grab a 20 oz bottle of soda for $1.69. Ok, I'm reaching with that analogy but I swear it made sense when I typed it.

 

[AbJ32]

What do you intend to say here? Direct-X 10, as pointed to in that link works perfectly fine for me in Win XP x64, so what's your problem? If I desire to do so I can easily switch to DX 9 (as you can see there are handy tools for that as well).

What I don't understand is why you'd want to use DirectX 10 on Windows XP. It's absolutely pointless since there's no DirectX 10 exclusive titles. If you ask me, putting DirectX 10 on Windows XP with no DirectX 10 only titles is an immense waste of time.

DirectX 10 is all about efficiency. It allows developers to do the same thing with much fewer system calls. It achieves this through many features of the Windows Vista Display Driver Model. There is no direct visual improvement using DirectX 10. The visual improvement comes from allowing developers to implement effects in ways that would cripple a DirectX 9 machine without slowing things down on a DirectX 10 machine. By using DirectX 10 on Windows XP you're taking away it's biggest benefit and being left with, essentially, DirectX 9. Were there any DirectX 10 exclusive games, it could possibly be used to run DirectX 10 exclusive games on Windows XP, but since there currently are none, that's a moot point.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Then I wiped this "new" configuration machine (not immediately but...) and put my beloved trusty rock solid fast as fuckin' hell XP Pro x64 on the exact same machine - I have not made any BIOS alterations of any kind whatsoever, the only thing that is different is the OS and the drivers, that's it. I just ran this benchmark again, on this XP Pro x64 box, and here's the 1 minute result:

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it...

I call bullshit:

This is a Socket 939 Athlon X2 4200(2.2 GHz). 64-Bit XP SP2 on the left, 64-Bit Vista Ultimate SP1 on the right. Both are clean installs and have all available updates and the latest drivers.

I'm working on a full comparison with a handful of synthetic, real-world, and gaming tests. I'll have the results up sometime today hopefully. I've finished the XP tests, wiped the drive/installed Vista, and now I'm doing the Vista benches.

 

[criccio]

I call bullshit:


This is a Socket 939 Athlon X2 4200(2.2 GHz). 64-Bit XP SP2 on the left, 64-Bit Vista Ultimate SP1 on the right. Both are clean installs and have all available updates and the latest drivers.

I'm working on a full comparison with a handful of synthetic, real-world, and gaming tests. I'll have the results up sometime today hopefully. I've finished the XP tests, wiped the drive/installed Vista, and now I'm doing the Vista benches.

Can't wait for Joe's response.

 

[Joe Average]

I dunno what to tell ya... I installed the OSes and ran the benchmark, snapped the pics, posted 'em, what am I supposed to do? Could have been a fluke, Vista could have been tuning with Superfetch, I don't know. I'm in Win7 at the moment, planning to build my quad box later today, eventually I'll be doing the tests again. Was tempted to say "behold the power of the E8500..." but somehow I think people will fail to get the joke.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I've posted a full set of benchmarks in a new thread:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1033545703#post1033545703

Vista did me proud.