Core Confusion!!! Any help please?

[TX-EcoDragon]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

That's good news.... If there is a difference it could be related to drivers changing.

Did you see my post? I might be misunderstanding you, but once again:

I've compared identical hardware (dual boot of the same machine), with identical software as much as possible for a 32 to 64 bit OS, and Win 7 clearly does perform MUCH better than XP! The raw data shows that, but from a user experience it's even more obvious. In Win 7 the sim never slows down, doesn’t stutter, even with hundreds of objects moving near you (my benchmark fps are much lower than usual in game fps).

Maybe pasting my other post here was just too long, so here's an example of the benchmark data from stock cpu/vga clocks:

Windows XP Avg 33.803 - Min: 5 - Max: 61 (capped)

Windows 7 Avg: 45.236 - Min: 23 - Max: 62 (capped)

So min fps are 4.6 times better in Win 7 vs XP, and average fps increase by 11.4 fps - turn off vSynch and of course the gains become even more obvious. I wanted to see more real world fps gains and since I usually enable vSynch to play (and since it lowers not only avg but min fps)most of my benchmark data was with it on. The avg fps gain is nice, but it's the huge minimum fps increase that really improves the experience on Win 7 vs XP.

[Feuerfalke]

Waste of time, E.D.

Even with the hardest evidence you can fix what months of bad publicity based on faulty benchmarks have damaged.


I must agree with JG27CaptStubing in one point, though:

Vista failed from the start.

But it did not by failing as an OS, but by providing the user with options most users cannot make sense of. Look at how many people get the Ultimate Edition to play games on it! That's like trying to race a stripped out racing-pickup against a fully loaded working-truck.

But that does not mean Vista is bad. It just means the standard user is not capable of deactivating features he does not need, like real-time-security, shadow-copies, advanced taskmanaging and networking features, aero-desktop and serivce- features loaded, etc. If you know what you are doing, you can run any game at least as fast as with XP.


Same is true for comparing the stripped Win7 Beta to Vista Ultimate or even standard edition. The main difference between Vista and Win7 is Vista installed all features of the selected version, Win7 installs the sceletton and adds features as need.
The real bugs that are present in Vista and nobody can deny, though, like the memory bug for example, that crashes your display-driver when overclocking or using 8GB+, is 100% present in Win7, too.

Just the publicity and marketing for Win7 is better, not the OS.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by TX-EcoDragon

Did you see my post? I might be misunderstanding you, but once again:

I've compared identical hardware (dual boot of the same machine), with identical software as much as possible for a 32 to 64 bit OS, and Win 7 clearly does perform MUCH better than XP! The raw data shows that, but from a user experience it's even more obvious. In Win 7 the sim never slows down, doesn’t stutter, even with hundreds of objects moving near you (my benchmark fps are much lower than usual in game fps).

Maybe pasting my other post here was just too long, so here's an example of the benchmark data from stock cpu/vga clocks:

Windows XP Avg 33.803 - Min: 5 - Max: 61 (capped)

Windows 7 Avg: 45.236 - Min: 23 - Max: 62 (capped)

So min fps are 4.6 times better in Win 7 vs XP, and average fps increase by 11.4 fps - turn off vSynch and of course the gains become even more obvious. I wanted to see more real world fps gains and since I usually enable vSynch to play (and since it lowers not only avg but min fps)most of my benchmark data was with it on. The avg fps gain is nice, but it's the huge minimum fps increase that really improves the experience on Win 7 vs XP.

As I stated it could be related to drivers being made for the new OS and Windows 7 is now surpassing Win XP. Did you read that part?

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

Waste of time, E.D.

Even with the hardest evidence you can fix what months of bad publicity based on faulty benchmarks have damaged.


I must agree with JG27CaptStubing in one point, though:

Vista failed from the start.

But it did not by failing as an OS, but by providing the user with options most users cannot make sense of. Look at how many people get the Ultimate Edition to play games on it! That's like trying to race a stripped out racing-pickup against a fully loaded working-truck.

But that does not mean Vista is bad. It just means the standard user is not capable of deactivating features he does not need, like real-time-security, shadow-copies, advanced taskmanaging and networking features, aero-desktop and serivce- features loaded, etc. If you know what you are doing, you can run any game at least as fast as with XP.


Same is true for comparing the stripped Win7 Beta to Vista Ultimate or even standard edition. The main difference between Vista and Win7 is Vista installed all features of the selected version, Win7 installs the sceletton and adds features as need.
The real bugs that are present in Vista and nobody can deny, though, like the memory bug for example, that crashes your display-driver when overclocking or using 8GB+, is 100% present in Win7, too.

Just the publicity and marketing for Win7 is better, not the OS.

For over a year Vista couldn't hold a candle to Win XP for pure performance. Only until SP1 did things start to change. Here we are almost 2 years past Vistas appearence are we seeing a new OS (Windows 7) which is just a refined version of Vista start to challenge Windows XP. Only about 6 months ago was it worth making the move to Vista 64. Prior to that Vista 64 had teething problems.

So I am agreeing with you I'm just illustrating that it's taken time. There was no compelling reason to move to the new OS until now.

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

Technically speaking, you won't benefit from a multicore-CPU or a multiprocessor-board, as long as you use XP.

true, but only for IL2..in fact you can use all 4 cores in XP if sim supports all 4 cores...last tests from Neoqb showed quad is 30-40%% faster than c2duo in ROF at 1680x1050
...