# Which OS for 3DMark06?



## Laurijan (Feb 12, 2008)

Hi!

I wanna know which OS gives me the best results in 3DMark06. 
I heard that Vista is about 400 points slower than XP. 
And does running a 64bit OS make any difference in 3DMark06?

Lauri


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 12, 2008)

Windows XP Home, I dont think its 64bit so it will just run slower.


----------



## asb2106 (Feb 12, 2008)

any version of XP runs perfect, including 32 and 64 bit


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Feb 12, 2008)

XP x64 is only Pro.


----------



## asb2106 (Feb 12, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> XP x64 is only Pro.



cool


----------



## gOJDO (Feb 13, 2008)

xp pro 32bit


----------



## erocker (Feb 13, 2008)

XP Professional 32-bit properly tweaked.  Learn to tweak it here.


----------



## happita (Feb 13, 2008)

erocker said:


> XP Professional 32-bit properly tweaked.  Learn to tweak it here.



VERY useful site. I thank you


----------



## ntdouglas (Feb 13, 2008)

erocker said:


> XP Professional 32-bit properly tweaked.  Learn to tweak it here.



Excellent post erocker, I couldn't agree more. 
@Laurijan. Read up man, that kind of stuff is all over the internet. Its all about turning shit off in windows sp2. About 3dmark. Why is the total score so important? 

To me, vista sucks. I've been on several vista machines lately and they are SLOW.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Feb 13, 2008)

ntdouglas said:


> Excellent post erocker, I couldn't agree more.
> @Laurijan. Read up man, that kind of stuff is all over the internet. Its all about turning shit off in windows sp2. About 3dmark. Why is the total score so important?
> 
> To me, vista sucks. I've been on several vista machines lately and they are SLOW.



What were the system specs of the machines you used? If they are client machines, then I bet its clogged up with BS anyway because the average user doesnt know how to maintain a proper system.


----------



## erocker (Feb 13, 2008)

I'll skim through the tweak guide and post important parts to read... one sec.


----------



## erocker (Feb 13, 2008)

Okay class.  Take home your textbooks (tweakguide) and read the following important pages, though you can read it all if you want, I'm just highlightin the key readings:

Pages:
30-44
55-64
88-110
115-119
171

If you come in tomorrow with a melted processor you will get an F!  Good day!!


----------



## niko084 (Feb 13, 2008)

XP x64 will be the fastest when properly setup, its slightly more efficient then Xp x86, and on top of that you pick up the slight 64bit increase alone.

Fresh Xp Pro 3dmark06 - 11076
Fresh Xp Pro x64 3dmark07 - 11494
*Average of 10 runs, High Xp Pro x86 -11113, High Xp x64 - 11632*

Same clocks, so not a lot but an amount that does make an obvious difference when benchmarking, I also see a very slightly better frame rate average in games in x64, like I said it is very little, but is there, so if you are looking for benchmarking its the way to go.


----------



## AddSub (Feb 13, 2008)

> I heard that Vista is about 400 points slower than XP.



From my experience, there isn't a specific amount of points, more like there is a 10% penalty in 3DMark06, and up to 15% in 3DMark03, in 3DMark01 it can be much more, depending on the GPU. (vs. 2k/xp 32bit) OpenGL benchmarking apps also suffer in varying degrees.

As for 3DMark06 specifically? Depending on your GPU/CPU, I can only recommend a tweaked Win2k or WinXP 32bit install. No other alternatives really, if you are serious about squeezing every bit of performance out your machine for benchmarking purposes.


----------



## erocker (Feb 13, 2008)

niko084 said:


> XP x64 will be the fastest when properly setup, its slightly more efficient then Xp x86, and on top of that you pick up the slight 64bit increase alone.
> 
> Fresh Xp Pro 3dmark06 - 11076
> Fresh Xp Pro x64 3dmark07 - 11494
> ...



Huh?  If I decided to pick up 2 more gb's of ram, with x64 it would show 4gb's?  Plus is there any OC disadvantages with x64 and/or 4 sticks of ram?


----------



## warhammer (Feb 13, 2008)

ntdouglas said:


> Excellent post erocker, I couldn't agree more.
> @Laurijan. Read up man, that kind of stuff is all over the internet. Its all about turning shit off in windows sp2. About 3dmark. Why is the total score so important?
> 
> To me, vista sucks. I've been on several vista machines lately and they are SLOW.



Please explain how Vista SUCKS.?

So lets put it to the test your 3dmarks score is ?


----------



## btarunr (Feb 13, 2008)

There are two primary reasons people use 3DMark:

1. To test and evaluate several pieces of hardware on a common testbed (as in reviews).

2. To evaluate the performance of their own video-card in the environment it works in. 

Let 3DMark not decide for you which OS you should be using, use a supported OS of your choice, the OS that you use for everything other than 3DMark, the OS that is the base of your everyday computing and on that OS you install 3DMark and test your hardware. Don't use an older OS just to get better results, use it in the OS of your taste/choice (that's supported by 3DMark '06) and get a fair result. 

But if you're into competition, overclocking and craving for every single HWBoint, 3D mark then choose Windows XP with SP1.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 13, 2008)

its hard choosing xp with sp1.. just too many things wont install on it.. they demand sp2.. i hung with it till forced to install sp2.. i will hang with xp sp2 in pretty much the same manner till forced to install vista.. he he

i never move till i have to.. 

trog


----------



## niko084 (Feb 13, 2008)

erocker said:


> Huh?  If I decided to pick up 2 more gb's of ram, with x64 it would show 4gb's?  Plus is there any OC disadvantages with x64 and/or 4 sticks of ram?



Yes it would, and it would use it.

No OC disadvantages with x64, but it can be a bit rougher to overclock your ram simply because you have more sticks and any single one can limit you... Buy good ram or staying at or under the rated speed, your good to go.


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 13, 2008)

warhammer said:


> Please explain how Vista SUCKS.?


Come on, it's pretty plain. While I wouldn't personally say that Vista sucks, it does embody a set of principles that have proven less compatible with gaming than those embodied by XP.

XP has a proven track record for gaming performance and compatibility that Vista can't match. It just can't. At best it comes close in select cases. If you tweak and disable and pare down Vista to its barest functionality, you can still achieve better in XP and you only have a stripped down OS that's lost many of its advantages to show for it.

A lot of people just don't care about a largely theoretical security improvement when it visibly costs performance and gets in their way. Now if Vista were out and out immune to attack the story might be different.

But it isn't.

Although its architectural improvements are undeniable, they don't achieve enough to make a practical difference to end users. So what if Vista has needed fewer security patches in its first year or so? Its users still need to exercise caution when browsing and they can still get hit with viruses and keyloggers and trojans and other malware. From a usability standpoint that makes it all academic. Throw in a helping of added inconvenience from some of Vista's own features and it's no wonder adoption is lukewarm.


----------



## erocker (Feb 13, 2008)

warhammer said:


> Please explain how Vista SUCKS.?
> 
> So lets put it to the test your 3dmarks score is ?



Um.. it's a known *FACT* that there is a point hit with Vista.


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 13, 2008)

erocker said:


> Um.. it's a known *FACT* that there is a point hit with Vista.



I agree with it - i just installed a fresh xp and the 3DMark06 score is about 450pt higher than in Vista.. I will test win xp x64 later but i suspect it to have another 400-500pt advantage..


----------



## niko084 (Feb 13, 2008)

Laurijan said:


> I agree with it - i just installed a fresh xp and the 3DMark06 score is about 450pt higher than in Vista.. I will test win xp x64 later but i suspect it to have another 400-500pt advantage..



Indeed VISTA you WILL get a HIT, no matter WHAT you do... 
*saying you are also comparing to a equally clean XP install*

64bit I have noticed gives a very slight boost in points, but nothing too much.

There is a reason NOBODY uses Vista for benchmarking competition.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 13, 2008)

MS has never produced an operating system that performs better than its predecessor.. they do some extra things.. they look prettier.. thye take up extra space.. but they all go slower or need extra horsepower to go the same.. vista is no different than all the others that came before it..

which is why i never move up till i am forced to.. 

trog


----------



## niko084 (Feb 14, 2008)

trog100 said:


> MS has never produced an operating system that performs better than its predecessor.. they do some extra things.. they look prettier.. thye take up extra space.. but they all go slower or need extra horsepower to go the same.. vista is no different than all the others that came before it..
> 
> which is why i never move up till i am forced to..
> 
> trog



Eh true... Except 2000 Pro SP4 - Xp... Kinda*

SP4 for 2000 Pro deliberately destroyed its performance on boot and shut down. I believe there were other finds that damaged the performance of it but I cannot say for certain.


----------



## warhammer (Feb 14, 2008)

I am just interested to see why people don’t like VISTA.

I must say some of argument put up by people remind me of the early days of when XP came out.

But hey I have a client of mine that is still running windows 95 within their office work that one out.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 14, 2008)

warhammer said:


> I am just interested to see why people don’t like VISTA.
> 
> I must say some of argument put up by people remind me of the early days of when XP came out.
> 
> But hey I have a client of mine that is still running windows 95 within their office work that one out.



yes and the arguments were equally true back then as they are now.. 

trog


----------



## AddSub (Feb 14, 2008)

> I must say some of argument put up by people remind me of the early days of when XP came out.



That XP was slower than Win98SE and even Win2k? That it was nothing but Win2k except with a hallucinogenic lego color theme and fisher price interface and dialogs for the inept? All those were true then and they are true today.

Like I said, for pure benchmarking purposes, depending on hardware in question I would recommend Win2k/XP, although in some benchmarks such as 3DMark 2003 and with select hardware Win2k is known to outperform XP by about 6%-7% or more. For really old hardware (KT400/nForce2 and earlier) Win98SE is a clear choice, since that's another easy 5% to 10% or so.


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 14, 2008)

Ok stay tuned i will release in several hours the result what is faster in 3DMark06 XP Pro 32Bit or XP Pro 64Bit.

I am just installing both on the same HDD on different partitions.

Every windows update as well as Netframe 2.0 and DX9.0c updates will be installed.
All drivers will be installed with the latest versions also both OS will be tuned for max performance and both partitions will be defragmented completly before running 3DMark06 1.1.0


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 14, 2008)

So i have tested both OS and came to an avarage score of 11998 on WinXP x32 and an disappointing avarage score of 11732 for WinXp x64


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 15, 2008)

Remember that there is no 64 bit version of 3DMark. And that 64 bit drivers are less mature than their 32 bit counterparts.


----------



## ManofGod (Feb 15, 2008)

A few weeks ago, I installed xp 32 bit on another harddrive and ran 3dMark05 on it to see what I would get. (About 13900) I have already ran it on my Vista install and I was getting about 14100 which is obviously faster.

The other thing, the xp install was clean with no other programs. My Vista install had no tweaks and was running antivirus and other stuff.  I noticed also that for the most part, it is the NVidia owners that end up with the lower Vista score.

(I am running an ATI 2900 Pro.) I ran these test at stock speeds. I went back to Vista, no point for me in going to XP again on my main machine.

Joe


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 15, 2008)

ManofGod said:


> A few weeks ago, I installed xp 32 bit on another harddrive and ran 3dMark05 on it to see what I would get. (About 13900) I have already ran it on my Vista install and I was getting about 14100 which is obviously faster.
> 
> The other thing, the xp install was clean with no other programs. My Vista install had no tweaks and was running antivirus and other stuff.  I noticed also that for the most part, it is the NVidia owners that end up with the lower Vista score.
> 
> ...



I might test your theory about ati users having less lower scores then in XP on Vista with 3DMark06.. I have a x1300 laying around..


----------



## trog100 (Feb 15, 2008)

i think vista simply uses more system resources running itself than xp does.. which is the reason pretty much everything runs faster on xp..

okay chuck some new super hardware and vista runs okay.. the vista overhead gets absorbed.. but horse power for horse power xp will win..

vista is the future.. soon we will all be forced to use it like it or not.. not much point in arguing which is best.. but at present i see little point in me moving to vista so i stick with xp.. but i know as time moves on this will change.. 

trog


----------



## Nitro-Max (Feb 15, 2008)

trog100 said:


> i think vista simply uses more system resources running itself than xp does.. which is the reason pretty much everything runs faster on xp..
> 
> okay chuck some new super hardware and vista runs okay.. the vista overhead gets absorbed.. but horse power for horse power xp will win..
> 
> ...



100% agreed ^^^^^


----------



## ManofGod (Feb 15, 2008)

Laurijan said:


> I might test your theory about ati users having less lower scores then in XP on Vista with 3DMark06.. I have a x1300 laying around..



Let us know what you end up with. My observation is totally unscientific though, I do not even own an NVidia card at this time to test it with myself.

Joe


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 15, 2008)

ManofGod said:


> Let us know what you end up with. My observation is totally unscientific though, I do not even own an NVidia card at this time to test it with myself.
> 
> Joe



I talked with a ATI card owner who has a 3870 and is having also 400pt lower scores in Vista then with XP so i dont want to install Vista again just to prove what i have heard already from a reliable source (sneekypeet).


----------



## ManofGod (Feb 15, 2008)

Laurijan said:


> I talked with a ATI card owner who has a 3870 and is having also 400pt lower scores in Vista then with XP so i dont want to install Vista again just to prove what i have heard already from a reliable source (sneekypeet).



It must depend on the combination of hardware and drivers then. Ok, thanks for letting me know.

Joe


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 15, 2008)

ManofGod said:


> I went back to Vista, no point for me in going to XP again on my main machine.


So, you're not running any applications other than 3DMark05?

Point being, if you're genuinely interested in getting the best performance possible with whatever you actually do with your system, you should benchmark that.

Now if you prefer Vista over XP sufficiently that performance differences aren't a concern, more power to you. But it is a little disingenuous to say there's "no point" in using XP.


----------



## CY:G (Feb 15, 2008)

What if you have 4GB of ram, will XP 32Bit still outperform Xp 64bit or Vista 64, as win xp 32bit will only see 3GB of ram, dont even know if the amount of ram helps at all with 3DMark


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 15, 2008)

CY:G said:


> What if you have 4GB of ram, will XP 32Bit still outperform Xp 64bit or Vista 64, as win xp 32bit will only see 3GB of ram, dont even know if the amount of ram helps at all with 3DMark



Good question! I have 4Gb ram and XP 32Bit is still faster in 3DMark06 then XP 64Bit must have to do with 64Bit OS having to load 2 Kernels one 32Bit and one 64Bit..


----------



## CY:G (Feb 15, 2008)

Laurijan said:


> Good question! I have 4Gb ram and XP 32Bit is still faster in 3DMark06 then XP 64Bit must have to do with 64Bit OS having to load 2 Kernels one 32Bit and one 64Bit..



Thanks for clearing that up, i know where im gonna be doing my benchmarks then haha

BTW, dont feel like opening a new topic, but do you guys know if having a WD Raptor HDD helps at all with 3DMark06? they are 10,000rpm vrs 7,400rpm of normal hard drives


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 15, 2008)

CY:G said:


> Thanks for clearing that up, i know where im gonna be doing my benchmarks then haha
> 
> BTW, dont feel like opening a new topic, but do you guys know if having a WD Raptor HDD helps at all with 3DMark06? they are 10,000rpm vrs 7,400rpm of normal hard drives



I dont know about faster HDDs having impact on the scores - post the question in a new thread since it might not be anwered as fast here..


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 15, 2008)

Under normal operating conditions hard drive performance will not influence 3DMark results. And as long as you have enough RAM to prevent paging during the benchmark run, additional RAM will not provide any benefit either. 2 gigabytes should cover it in XP.

More might possibly benefit Vista but I don't have any firsthand experience to confirm or debunk that theory.


----------



## erocker (Feb 16, 2008)

Here we go.  XP SP2 VS. Vista SP1 Click ME!!!.
* It's not 3d06 or even video benchmarking... but you get the idea.


----------



## ManofGod (Feb 16, 2008)

Graogrim said:


> So, you're not running any applications other than 3DMark05?
> 
> Point being, if you're genuinely interested in getting the best performance possible with whatever you actually do with your system, you should benchmark that.
> 
> Now if you prefer Vista over XP sufficiently that performance differences aren't a concern, more power to you. But it is a little disingenuous to say there's "no point" in using XP.



Please do not misquote me, I said there is not point in "me" using xp on my main machine. (Oh, and Vista boots faster than XP for me on my main machine and my laptop.) And to the link above, what hardware did they use? Did they install all the day to day antivirus and antispyware applications that people use everyday in xp? Did they install any other day to day applications that people normally run in the background everyday?

The test is totally without merit, interesting, but without merit. /sarcasm on: It is almost a given that xp boots faster on initial install without any drivers or apps installed, should I just leave it that way? /sarcasm off. Let's have a real test on real day to day machines that people use and then see what happens.

Joe


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 16, 2008)

> Please do not misquote me, I said there is not point in "me" using xp on my main machine.


I'm not misquoting you. Look at the context of whole post. I'm trying to help *you* get the best performance possible out of your system by drawing your attention to the fact that there's more to ideal performance than 3DMark.

It's great that you're getting better performance in certain areas, it really is. I'm truly pleased for you. But based on overwhelming evidence from just about everywhere else, I'm forced to suspect that even if it's unintentional, you're basing your decision on cherry-picked results that don't truly reflect overall performance. You see, lots of people can get Vista to boot faster. Lots of people can get apps to start more quickly under Vista than XP. But nobody can get Vista's general gaming performance (or for that matter the general performance of any really demanding app) up on par with XP.

Now I don't know about you, but my primary concern with regard to my system's performance has nothing to do with a few seconds at boot time, or time required to start an application. I'm much more interested in performance once I'm already up and runnning. What do I care if Crysis starts 15 or 20 seconds faster if I have to give up 5 or more fps once it's running? Is that a trade you're willing to make?

Like I said, maybe the eye candy and other whizbang features make it worth it to you so that you really don't care about giving up a little performance. But you ARE giving up a little performance, and in some cases a LOT of performance. And you should be aware of that.


----------



## ManofGod (Feb 16, 2008)

Graogrim said:


> I'm not misquoting you. Look at the context of whole post. I'm trying to help *you* get the best performance possible out of your system by drawing your attention to the fact that there's more to ideal performance than 3DMark.
> 
> It's great that you're getting better performance in certain areas, it really is. I'm truly pleased for you. But based on overwhelming evidence from just about everywhere else, I'm forced to suspect that even if it's unintentional, you're basing your decision on cherry-picked results that don't truly reflect overall performance. You see, lots of people can get Vista to boot faster. Lots of people can get apps to start more quickly under Vista than XP. But nobody can get Vista's general gaming performance (or for that matter the general performance of any really demanding app) up on par with XP.
> 
> ...



Well, I do respect your opinion and thank you for your response. If this was early last year, I would have had to agree with you. However, I have not seen any loss in the games I play or the stuff I do under Vista using it now.

That is one of the reasons I installed XP on a different drive to see if I could see any difference. (I have a new build since the first of this year and I only had Vista on it, hence the reason for the testing.)

I even play Crysis and it plays real well. (Not perfect but that is a hardware limit more than anything else.)

Joe


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 16, 2008)

I'm glad it works well for you.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 16, 2008)

vista by useing its cache more effectively will use spare memory to store oft used apps.. this is why vista needs more memory in the first place.. 

with XP it annoys me to see only 400 meg of memory in use when i have 4 gigs of the stuff.. try as i might i cant get XP to make effective use of spare memory.. i would like it to cache more than it does..

if vista has anything going for it.. its the fact its been designed to make effective use of spare memory.. XP was designed around never having any spare memory and to be mean with it.. he he

lets give vista credit where it deserves it.. so things pop up quicker but run slower.. he he he

the pop up quicker is more noticable than the running slower thow.. assuming decent hardware.. 

it still aint coming near my machine thow.. not yet anyways...

trog


----------



## vega22 (Feb 16, 2008)

i dual boot xp and vista 64bit and xp is miles faster, for everything. having said that i do like vista  its just not as fast as xp but it is a nicer looking desktop with some real good features that xp just cant do.

i lose around 500 in 3dmark06 but in games its alot more. in cod4 i can get about 150/160 fps in vista but with xp i will get 300+ crysis i will get 60/70 fps on high but switch back to xp and we are talking 100+.

i think part of this is down to the dx9 emulation of vista/dx10.


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 16, 2008)

> XP was designed around never having any spare memory and to be mean with it.. he he


I wouldn't go THAT far. 

Seriously, have you tried adjusting your computer's memory usage to favor the system cache over applications? If you've got gobs of RAM to spare the more aggressive caching might prove beneficial. XP's system cache works a lot like SuperFetch in Vista, with the main difference being that it's not proactive. If you load a large app in XP, close it, and then reopen it, you'll notice that it restarts very quickly. That's your system cache in action. Another really neat thing is that once program code is in the system cache, it doesn't have to be moved to another part of RAM to run it--it can actually be executed directly from the cache. One of the more powerful implications of this is that you can have multiple instances of a program running simultaneously, and though they'll each need to allocate their own workspace they all run from the same place, thus avoiding redundancy.


----------



## ManofGod (Feb 17, 2008)

marsey99 said:


> i dual boot xp and vista 64bit and xp is miles faster, for everything. having said that i do like vista  its just not as fast as xp but it is a nicer looking desktop with some real good features that xp just cant do.
> 
> i lose around 500 in 3dmark06 but in games its alot more. in cod4 i can get about 150/160 fps in vista but with xp i will get 300+ crysis i will get 60/70 fps on high but switch back to xp and we are talking 100+.
> 
> i think part of this is down to the dx9 emulation of vista/dx10.



What resolution are you running those games at, 1024 x 768 or less?

Joe


----------



## trog100 (Feb 17, 2008)

Graogrim said:


> I wouldn't go THAT far.
> 
> Seriously, have you tried adjusting your computer's memory usage to favor the system cache over applications? If you've got gobs of RAM to spare the more aggressive caching might prove beneficial. XP's system cache works a lot like SuperFetch in Vista, with the main difference being that it's not proactive. If you load a large app in XP, close it, and then reopen it, you'll notice that it restarts very quickly. That's your system cache in action. Another really neat thing is that once program code is in the system cache, it doesn't have to be moved to another part of RAM to run it--it can actually be executed directly from the cache. One of the more powerful implications of this is that you can have multiple instances of a program running simultaneously, and though they'll each need to allocate their own workspace they all run from the same place, thus avoiding redundancy.



well yes after years of doing the opposite i did just that.. what it dosnt do is keep it there.. i have given the cache priority over programes.. it dosnt make a deal of difference.. most of my 4 gigs sits doing nothing.. just like most of my 2 gigs used to do..

this is my normality.. and thats after just shutting down  a memory hungry game and the system as been up for twelve hours.. .. 







after a few hours running i would like to see at least a gig of my memory used.. i dont and still have to wait for oft used apps to load from the hardrive.. XP is tooo mean with spare memory.. it clears its cache way to quickly and when it dosnt have too.. this used to be good now it isnt.. it slows things down..

trog

ps.. and just for a laff i have tried loading five games at once into memory and playing the last one.. i really do have lots of spare memory.. i just wish XP made better used of it.. he he


----------



## trog100 (Feb 17, 2008)

the power of XP.. only joking.. 






four biggy games loaded at once.. 

fear..

crysis..

gears of war..

conflict denied opps..

the one running is conflict denied opps showing 58 fsp..  the other three are alt/tabbed into the background.. 3.3 gigs of ram in use.. 

the cpu usage is whatever is needed to keep all four games running in the background.. any more and it would run at of ram and have to start swap filing..

just to make the point as regards what i have sat there doing nothing most of the time..  it might make the other odd point.. buggered if i know what thow.. he he he

trog

ps.. the four games are still sat there and i can browse about and not notice.. praps it proves i have way more computing power and memory than i need.. dunno..


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 17, 2008)

In your first screenshot I see you have a total of about 3.5 gigs of RAM available under XP. I see about 2.8 gigs listed as available, and about 2.5 used for the system cache. The fact that those numbers don't add up is significant. It's important to note that memory that's "available" isn't necessarily going unused. It's just that it can be freed on the fly to provide memory to programs.

So don't sweat it. Right there you've got most of your "available" RAM holding information for the cache. It's all good.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 17, 2008)

window uses virtual memory which is a mix of ram and hardive.. for some silly reason the more ram u have the bigger the swopfile is that gets created.. 

XP seems to decide on one to one.. so with 4 gigs of ram it sets aside 4 gigs of hardrive space.. it then refers to this as available memory.. 8 gigs..

my swopfile now called pagefile.sys is set to default at 2 gig.. when task manager say memory available it includes this 2 gig hardrive file..

techically windows 64 bit has virtual memory limited by the hardive space..  sadly the hardrive part of its virtual memory is that slow its no longer really valid..

now if it was done sensibly.. it would use its spare ram instead of its prefetch.. simply leave (or preload) oft used apps in memory ready for instant use.. waiting for the hardrive should rarely happen..

i think one of the vista advantages.. praps the only real one.. is that it does use its spare memory (ram) to do this..  XP just just leaves spare ram standing idle.. which is my only gripe with it.. 

hence all my blatherings.. he he

trog


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 17, 2008)

trog100 said:


> window uses virtual memory which is a mix of ram and hardive


The information on your pagefile usage is reflected in the "commit charge" section, which shows your total allocated memory, both physical and paged.



> .. for some silly reason the more ram u have the bigger the swopfile is that gets created..
> 
> XP seems to decide on one to one.. so with 4 gigs of ram it sets aside 4 gigs of hardrive space.. it then refers to this as available memory.. 8 gigs..


You can easily control the behavior of your swapfile, and set whatever limits on it that you please, both minimum and maximum. You can even disable it completely if you so wish, though I don't really recommend it.



> my swopfile now called pagefile.sys is set to default at 2 gig.. when task manager say memory available it includes this 2 gig hardrive file


Not exactly. I'm referring to the "Physical Memory" section, which doesn't include pagefile usage. To get the complete picture you have to look at both the Physical Memory section and at your Commit Charge, which reflects virtual memory (your physical memory combined with your pagefile(s)). To help with the picture I'll use the current numbers from my own Task Manager:

*Commit Charge (K)*
*Total:* 973344 (this is the current total of allocated virtual memory(pagefile+physical))
*Limit:* 4034876 (this is the total amount of virtual memory (pagefile+physical))
*Peak:* 994400 (this is the highest amount of virtual memory that has been allocated this session)

*Physical Memory (K)*
*Total:* 2096492 (total usable physical RAM. pretty straightforward)
*Available:* 1024272 (physical RAM currently available, can include some of the space in the system cache, this is not necessarily fallow memory)
*System Cache:* 407488 (this is the amount of physical RAM currently used by the system cache)

I have two gigabytes of RAM installed, this is reflected in the total under Physical Memory. My pagefile is currently configured to occupy between a minimum of 2046 MB and a maximum 4092 MB. At the time these numbers were polled it was sitting at the bottom end of that range. The sum of my pagefile and my physical memory (less some nonpageable areas) is shown under Limit in the Commit Charge section. Since the pagefile can grow up to nearly four gigabytes if needed, the Limit is subject to change.



> simply leave (or preload) oft used apps in memory ready for instant use.. waiting for the hardrive should rarely happen..


This describes Vista's SuperFetch feature. But here's the catch. TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). It's true in thermodynamics and it's definitely true in computing. One way or another, you WILL be waiting for the hard drive to load that data. It's just a matter of timing. A SuperFetch enabled system will have more disk activity at startup, and that's where the loading cost is paid. You can interrupt that process of course, but then the benefit offered by SuperFetch is offset.



> XP just just leaves spare ram standing idle.. which is my only gripe with it..


Except that it doesn't really. Although XP doesn't proactively load the cache (except for standard read-ahead), it won't purge the cache needlessly, either.

So relax. You may not have SuperFetch, but your system cache is doing you some good.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 17, 2008)

i aint gonna argue dude.. bin there done that before concerning windows and its memory use.. u might think XP makes good use of spare ram.. i dont think it does.. i think its best we leave it at that..

i do agree about the free lunch but only to a point.. one load into memory is essential.. repeated loads isnt and to a large extent could be avoided with more efficient memory management.. XP just dosnt have it.. its outdated priority is based on conserving it..

Vista and its poor sales has done us one big favour thow.. plenty of cheap DDR 2 for XP even if it dont make good use of it.. he he

trog


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 17, 2008)

It's cool, I'm not arguing either. But you have just tried to educate me with at least two factual inaccuracies. 

I take a lot of pleasure in learning about the technical side of computing, and helping other people learn. I might throw out walls of information, but I only do it because I enjoy the discussion. If you really don't want to talk about it though, I won't push. I can only urge you to research the topic further on your own. Heck, DON'T take my word for it. I'm just some random schmuck on a forum. Read up from a real authority like Microsoft's own technical references.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 17, 2008)

Graogrim said:


> It's cool, I'm not arguing either. But you have just tried to educate me with at least two factual inaccuracies.
> 
> I take a lot of pleasure in learning about the technical side of computing, and helping other people learn. I might throw out walls of information, but I only do it because I enjoy the discussion. If you really don't want to talk about it though, I won't push. I can only urge you to research the topic further on your own. Heck, DON'T take my word for it. I'm just some random schmuck on a forum. Read up from a real authority like Microsoft's own technical references.



i have researched the subject extensively over the years.. most of whats written is years out of date and the fact the results of my conclusions and personal tests and observations happen to differ from yours proves nothing..

why on earth do u think i would take anybodies word for it never mind yours.. he he

plus when any guy starts debating with the use of "selective" quotes i stop.. 

the last time i did this memory and how windows uses it debate stuff was with a dude called alec star.. or something like that..

it went on for page after page.. its no doubt still there in the archives.. 

he claimed windows had to have a pagefile.. i disabled mine to prove otherwise.. he claimed windows created another one.. i said where.. he said it was a"hidden" one.. i said hmmm..

the real problem i had with this particular debate was a simple one.. he had the jargon and the references to back up his argument.. i simply had what i saw or could reproduce.. ..

he quoted "experts".. google around and its all there.. it can all be pointed at.. 

all i have is simple practical tests i conduct myself..

i believe in my simple practical tests..  if i cant reproduce what the "experts" say should happen i doubt the "experts"..

when half a dozen "experts" disagree i dont wonder which one is right.. i assume none of them are..

my name is thomas and i am a doubter.. 

live well and prosper..

trog

ps.. mind u i am curious about the two factual errors.. i thought we had more than that.. he he he


----------



## Graogrim (Feb 17, 2008)

I'm sorry if you take exception to my "point for point" posting style. I'll try to remember that in any future dealings with you. Personally, I find that it makes for a clearer exchange of ideas, but if you find it threatening then I'll avoid it.

At this point I'm inclined to say that you were right. We're done. When one party of a discussion becomes convinced that an argument is taking place, it becomes a sort of self-fulfilling conclusion. You've as much as told me that nothing I say and no references I provide will help, and you're unwilling to go looking for more on your own. That's religion, and there's no getting past that.

My name is Matthew. I'm not a doubter, but I am a skeptic. I'm pleased to meet you Thomas. I'm sorry we couldn't make a profitable discussion of this.


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 17, 2008)

Try to stick to the topic - whats faster in 3DMark06.
My tests says XP 32Bit is faster then XP 64Bit or Vista - XP 32Bit has a about 400pt faster scores in 3DMark then both later ones.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 17, 2008)

Laurijan said:


> Try to stick to the topic - whats faster in 3DMark06.
> My tests says XP 32Bit is faster then XP 64Bit or Vista - XP 32Bit has a about 400pt faster scores in 3DMark then both later ones.



somewhere back in the thread most folks have agreed with your findings..

XP 32 bit is faster in 3dmarks..

trog


----------



## FatForester (Feb 17, 2008)

trog100, for the love of everything holy please use complete sentences. I literally stopped reading the thread because of it.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 19, 2008)

FatForester said:


> trog100, for the love of everything holy please use complete sentences. I literally stopped reading the thread because of it.



my habits are far too ingrained for me to change em.. 

But out of curiosity, do you stop reading because you fail to understand the things I write; or simply cos u hate bad grammar and forum speak.. ????

trog


----------



## warhammer (Feb 20, 2008)

I thought this may be of intrest on the VISTA and XP argument.



> Another take on Vista vs. XP benchmarks
> 
> My experience is the same. In fact, it appears that Vista’s designers have made a conscious choice to favor smooth, consistent performance over raw speed. The latter makes for more satisfying benchmarks, but it can also result in annoying performance glitches in day-to-day use.



http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=369


----------



## asb2106 (Feb 20, 2008)

warhammer said:


> I thought this may be of intrest on the VISTA and XP argument.
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=369





> Is file copying really a critical performance benchmark? If it takes me 10 seconds more or less to copy a group of files, I truly don’t care. For mainstream business use, there’s no practical difference between a job that takes 5:52 and one that takes 6:18, especially when the copy operation takes place in the background while I busy myself with other work.



I really agree with this line here, 

There are more background operations that use disk resources, but in a real life senario what difference does 10 seconds really make.  I could care less!  And as was mentioned in the article, vista has gone for more of a streamlined approach instead of raw speed, and I can appreciate that.


----------

