Deputy Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) 454.2 with End It All. Can't wait till my new video card arrives Just did a test on the same comp with a new nVidia 9600 GT video card with 2 GIG of RAM on the card and 4 GIG system RAM. Score was 645.5 with everything running' date=' 647.8 with End It All. Not a bad increase from the previous 454.2 with End It All and the crappy Matrox 2D video card I had. [/quote'] Well this is weird. I just installed Win XP Pro 32 bit and did a test and it came out 490.8. A major drop from using the previous 64 bit system. Bummer. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyKnight Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Why is that weird Deputy? You should expect a performance hit going from a x64 OS to a x32 OS with tests like these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Why is that weird Deputy? You should expect a performance hit going from a x64 OS to a x32 OS with tests like these. I don't see your logic in that. First off the only change I did was from 64 bit to 32 bit. No hardware changes were made. The tests are OS specific...there is one for 64 bit and one for 32 bit. The test isn't testing the operating system' date=' it's a hardware test. So the test should, in theory, be identical or very close as far as results in both operating systems. Since my motherboard is a 32 bit motherboard that uses an Intel 925 Express chipset, it can run under 64 bit, but I don't get the memory benefits of a full 64 bit chipset motherboard like my Xeon has (it doesn't use the full 4 GIG of RAM like a 64 bit system does). So there [b']shouldn't[/b] be a benefit from using 64 bit on this computer. The only possibility I can think of is the drivers for the 64 bit system are more efficient/effective than the 32 bit system. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2. Administrators Jabo Posted January 28, 2009 Author 2. Administrators Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Not sure this is correct, but would you not be using only half the bus width under 32 bit? ~S~ Jabo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Not sure this is correct, but would you not be using only half the bus width under 32 bit? ~S~ Jabo I dunno. I don't think so. Have to ask Roger. I think I would have the same bus speed under either OS, since that is a hardware limitation. According to HP, the main benefit to running 64 bit on the xw4200 is that the system is able to take advantage of larger virtual memory and process sizes. That would only affect the actual operation of programs, not hardware specs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1. DDz Quorum B16Enk Posted January 28, 2009 1. DDz Quorum Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Quite correct Deputy. Main difference between XP32 and 64, and why you see a performance difference, is because they are two different OSs. XP 32 is well XP, whilst XP64 is actually a modified version of Server 2003! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) Thanks Roger. I knew you'd know the answer Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trout Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Haven't done one of these since i got my new comp.... I got 1153.8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) Haven't done one of these since i got my new comp.... I got 1153.8 Holy smokes!!!! Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snacko Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) Here is my old score on my 4 year old Dell 8250: Quazi suggested some parts to look at for my new rig. And I finished putting it together a few days ago, but had a problem where it only recognized 2 gig of my 4 gig of memory. I was running on XP Pro 32bit and got a score of 1109.6. But when I fixed is so it saw all 4gig of memory, and installed XP Pro 64bit I got this score: I am really surprised at the increase with only those two changes. And I was running the 64bit version of PerformanceTest on this one. Still have a lot of learning to do, but this makes IL2 and other games just fantastic! Snack Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trout Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) Jeez Snack!! Did that new rig come with a Ferrari too or what? Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1. DDz Quorum B16Enk Posted February 9, 2009 1. DDz Quorum Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Wow. That is a mighty fast rig M8. My bloody AMD bag of shite barely scrapes past 800 odd, disgusting considering it's a 6000+ with 4Gb RAM. AMD are losing the plot, although I suspect a Phenom (larger cache) would fare better, but would still not be in the same league as those new Intel i7 monsters.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Brando Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) Yeah ~ 821 is the highest I've recorded with my x2 6000+ and 4 Gbs RAM It looks great for IL-2, so I'm happy to stick with it for a while, but I'll be taking a first-time, serious look at Intel when the new games arrive. Congrats Snacko, that's mind-bogglingly quick. B Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eraser Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I just finished building this new rig last week........ AMD Phenom II X4 940 Asus Motherboard 4 gigs Corsair Gaming Memory BFG nvidia 9800 GTX+ video card Raptor hard drives 10,000 rpms I have 4 items running in the background.....Nortons Antivirus...usb computer phone.....skype....trackir I managed to score nicely on this Windows XP Pro 32 bit.....I'm very happy with this score..... http://dangerdogz.com/forums.old.old/download/file.php?id=4161&t=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HH_RitterCuda Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Let see 437.1 with the laptop and 1265.6 with the new machine does this mean I will fly three time as good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blairgowrie Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) Just updated my results after overclocking CPU to 3.5 GHZ from 3.1. Earlier results were around 1,054. http://dangerdogz.com/forums.old.old/download/file.php?id=5131&t=1 Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing attachment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooly Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Dont know how to upload the results screen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gec Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 (edited) i really do think that in our IL2 world only thing that counts is frame rates from the Black death video. so guys if u want to brag, show us the real stuff not the manufactured ones Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonar Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 (edited) How about these apples I endured for 3 long years Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulky Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 i got 1562, which aint bad i suppose, i think its my hard drives that let me down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyKnight Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 What you got now Tonar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweper Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 (edited) 974 point something. Went to my local pc-store and boght two more 1gb mem sticks, defraged pc, runned another test, but same result. The pc-store-guy said a better harddrive may make a better performance. I now own a 7,200 revs and he recommended a new 10,000 revs. Well, I´m happy anyway Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blairgowrie Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 (edited) i really do think that in our IL2 world only thing that counts is frame rates from the Black death video. so guys if u want to brag' date=' show us the real stuff not the manufactured ones [/quote'] I think you are right about playability from an individual standpoint Gec but from a hosting prospective, I think a faster computer may be better. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gec Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 (edited) true, but IL2 knows how to use only one processor or one core. so the practical benefit of dual or quad core processor in IL2 is minimal. (you can improve performance by giving one core to IL2 and all other tasks to second core) You can have some benefit from OC processor but i hate the situation when something is wrong and i need to ask my self is it the OC or something else. These 1 or 2 % speed increase just does not cover the concern of eventual problems. (i'm not sure if that was understandable) in other hand Passmark knows how to use all the capabilities of the dual and quad processors. so people with more cores have much better results. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadTrooper Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) I've tested my new rig for the first time today and it gave me: 1359.9 I guess its good. I'm planning to install win7 64 bit soon so it should score higher again I hope. Edited October 21, 2010 by gec missing post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.