VISTA comparing 2 PCs = silly differences

FatRakoon

FatRakoon

FatRakoon

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,508
Location
Behind you... Naked!
Ok, here is the simple thing...

I have Got Vista Ultimate onto one PC.

MSI Neo2
X2-3800 @ 2.5
BFG 6600GT
4x512MB Corsair XMS 4400
2xWD250SATA

And a few days ago, I threw Vista Business onto another one to do a few comparisons of them... This PC is:-

MSI Neo4
Opty 144 @ 2.48
Gigabyte 6600GT
4 x 512MB Samsung
1xSeagate 400GB

Now, there is one massive thing that I simply cannot fail but notice...

The Neo4 PC is absolutely killing the Neo2 one stone dead for performance!

Ok, I thought... Why could this be so?

HD Speed? - Sure enough, according to HD Tach, the 400GB Seagate is about 15MB/s Faster than the WD250's but that cannot possibly jusify the fact that the Neo2 PC is seriously lagging in every way... Moving windows is slower, the mouse lags badly and when you DC on an Item, sometimes it can take quite a while for anything to look like its going to actually startup? - I mean, even as basic as opening a folder can take 5 to 10 seconds.

The Neo2 PC has been installed for a short while now, and the Neo4 only a couple of days and yet the Neo4 was already got a score and the Neo2 is still undetermined. Could it be that the Neo2 setup is just messed up?

The Neo2 also has a Dual core 3800 in it, and the Neo4 only a single, but its an Opty, so does that make such a difference?

Anyone care to offer any clues to this?
 
I was under the impression myself that ULTIMATE has everything that PREM and BIZ has, plus more!

Themes / Skins.
Funnily enough, Im one of those people who moaned about 2K looking boring so went to XP cos it looks great, and then set the theme to Classic. I have been no different with Vista. They are both using the Classic Theme although with Vista, its pretty near to impossible to pretend to be anything else.

So, I doubt the theme will be causing such a difference in performance?


ChipSet Drivers?
The NEO2 is NF3 and the NEO4 is NF4
Apart from the AGP / PCIE differences, plus the SATA controlers, they are pretty much the very same Mobo, and the same Chipset drivers will, or rather should work with the other. I would not have thought that this could be the problem, however, its something that I cannot dismiss... Ill look deeper at this later on.

BENCHMARKS
Funny one this... Might be linked, might not, but...

3DMark03: - I run this the other day on the Neo2 PC and it went all the way through and gave me a score... Forget what it was now, but its not important.

I ran it on the Neo4 and it did the first plane test and then failed???

This, I am assuming is simply down to the drivers????

Now, I have gone back to the Neo2 and I have since installed the latest forceware drivers and that too, will not get past the first test.

So, in terms of drivers for all the hardware, I have now made sure that they are both running the very same versions of the very same drivers.... Only difference is the Audio... The Neo4 is using OnBoard stuff ( Perfectly adequate as I am not gaming on that system ) and the Neo2 is using an Audigy.

What else?

Well, I know I could just use the Neo4 guts in this PC instead of the Neo2 and yes, its a newer, more superior board etc, and is PCIE instead of AGP and all that, but, like a swine that I am, I cant be bothered to swap them round, and normally the Neo2 is a great performer, plus Im not entirely convinced that I will be keeping Vista on that PC anyway, so for now, its staying as-is.
 
[Darkend]Viper said:
I got told that vista business is faster than ultimate due to the bitlocker security. Even if you disable it it's still checking the hdd.
Click to expand...

Thats a good point, having to encrypt every file is going to delay almost everything you do.
 
I got Business first.

I was having a few issues with silly stuff and I was put off it... To be honest though, I am loathe to move over even now, and was really only up for an excuse to not bother with it, but my mummy bought me Ultimate to sort of stop me whining every time I went over there!

Now there are some differences... Kind of in the way XP Home and Pro were different "PRE-SP2" butr I would not have thought that the whole running of the thing would slow down as much as it is doing due to some encryption routines? - Maybe perhaps if I was tryign to use it on some slow years old PC sure maybe, but come on... These days, PCs should be able to encrypt / decrypt any data on the fly off any HD with no slowdown at all, or at least not enough to notice.

Certainly not as much as to slow the system down as much as it is doing?
 
My athlon 3500+ is slowed down by encrpyting files just to 256-bit aes, when transferring files to an encrypted partition it's slower than transferring files to a standard partition.

Try running the latest versions of 3dmark and pcmark and compare the results.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
My athlon 3500+ is slowed down by encrpyting files just to 256-bit aes, when transferring files to an encrypted partition it's slower than transferring files to a standard partition.
Click to expand...

Seriously though, I recon that yeah, you will get some slow-down, but surely not enough to notice????


Energize said:
Try running the latest versions of 3dmark and pcmark and compare the results.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Im trying that shortly.

The Vista PCs are in the LAN room. when the kids are down, its the only time me and the boss get to have time to ourselves ( When she hasnt got Corrie, Emmerdale, Holby etc etc etc recorded that is ) so I have not had the chance to play much.

Im installing a load of Benchies on them now, not sure if Ill get the time to run em tonight, but who knows? - dont need to get up till 10:15 tomorrow so I might have a late night tonight.

Plus Im a little fizzed up with Olde English and Stella and not in the mood for a kip just yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom