3DMark05 lower scores in Vista than Windows XP, SMP?

TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
edited November 2008 in Hardware
I have an HP Pavilion DV6405US laptop. It's got the 1.7 Ghz TK-53 Dual Core CPU, 2 GB of RAM, 250 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm hard drive. And the Geforce Go 7200 graphics card.

I had run it on 3DMark05 when the computer had Vista Home Premium on it. With 2 GB of RAM, it scored 1347 3DMarks and 7820 CPU Marks. Several tests has somewhat varied scores but this is the average score more or less.

I installed the new 7200 rpm hard drive and loaded it up with XP Home SP3. Got all the drivers installed to get the computer fully functional.

With 2 GB of RAM, the 3DMark05 was showing me scores of 1476 & 1502 3DMarks in 2 tests, and CPU scores of 4186 & 5088. A wide range in score, and much lower than before on the CPU test.:confused:

I expected to see the 3DMark scores rise a bit once Vista was gone, but why did the CPU scores drop so much?

Could it be because I installed XP Home which doesn't support twin CPUs?

I could install XP Pro (supports SMP) if that might help any. Would it?

Comments

  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    Could the differing scores have something to do with memory management, in which Vista may be superior? Additionally, it may be that (probably is) that Vista also manages CPU resources better.

    "Could it be because I installed XP Home which doesn't support twin CPUs?" I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. The processor you are using is dual core, which is supported in WinXP Home as two processors. WinXP Home will show a quad core CPU as four distinct processors.
  • RyderRyder Kalamazoo, Mi Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    Yes, Vista is slower at 2-3 of the benchmarks compared to Vista.. nothing new there, just the way it is.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    RyderOCZ wrote:
    Yes, Vista is slower at 2-3 of the benchmarks compared to Vista.. nothing new there, just the way it is.

    lolwut
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    Yes, Vista is slower at 2-3 of the benchmarks compared to Vista.. nothing new there, just the way it is.
    No, Tim said the XP benchmark was the slower.
  • RyderRyder Kalamazoo, Mi Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    No he didn't. He got a lower CPU score.. but he got a higher 3D Mark score.

    Vista: 1347 3DMarks and 7820 CPU Marks.

    XP: 1476 & 1502 3DMarks and 4186 & 5088 CPU Marks.

    XP got a higher 3DMark score which is the only score that matters.. the XP system would get higher FPS than Vista in a game based on those numbers, regardless of CPU score.
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    Sounds like Vista is a trade-off. There are definitely some enhancements in the much-derided Vista, even if overall 3D performance is down. For instance, GPU folding uses less CPU overhead because of... extra gnomes. I don't know why.
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    I did the final stage of my laptop upgrade today. I swapped out the 1.7 Ghz TK-53 CPU (AMD Athlon / Turion 64 X2) for a TL-60 2.0 Ghz version.

    I saw on eBay that there were also TL-62 (2.1 Ghz), TL-64 (2.2 Ghz), and TL-66 (2.3 Ghz) CPUs, but they were more expensive. I paid $55.80 with shipping for this TL-60.

    I ran 3DMark05 4 times in a row to get scores.

    3DMarks were: 1606 1625 1651 1633
    CPU Scores were: 5006 5163 5270 5202

    In addition to being higher, this set of scores was also much more consistent.

    When I first got this laptop, with Vista, the TK-53, 1 GB of RAM, and the original motherboard with Geforce Go 6150 graphics, it was showing 439 3DMarks and 5956 CPU scores.

    Quite an inprovement!

    Total upgrade costs : $120 for 2 GB of RAM and a 7200 Seagate 250 GB hard drive.

    $55.80 for the TL-60 CPU.

    Not bad!

    And in addition, it plays WoW at good frame rates with moderate video settings too. The original setup sucked even on minimal settings.
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    Nice job! Quite an improvement in 3Dmarks. But did your CPU scores decrease from 5956 to ~5100?
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    Yes, the CPU scores dropped some when switching from Vista to XP. Not sure why, others have mentioned possible memory or CPU management differences in the operating systems. The graphics scores went way up.
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited November 2008
    I forgot about the Vista issue, but you just upgraded the CPU. I would have expected the CPU score to increase a bit more.
Sign In or Register to comment.