yes this my point... each systems act differently...It seems like now and again on the forums, we get some people that have similar specs to other people, but there performance is through the roof compared to other people, so I can understand how you can get these results, I mean a guy on here with a GTS clocks to 710/2.2 and an E6400 clocked to 3.6Ghz gets near GTX results and his performance is awsome yet people with comparable rigs to him have a lot lower results, it's like you find the occasional golden nougat
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Which would be better value?
- Thread starter muon
- Start date
Have you just installed Vista, then installed all of your apps you want and just left it like that? Or have you streamlined Vista and dont various things like disable services and other things etc..?
ive had vista installed for 5weeks since i last reinstalled vista.
i haven't streamlined Vista....
but theses results are from xp on the new drivers 7.9...
im not allowed to post the vista performance because i am a beta testing with ms....
Last edited:
Oh right, would you mind doing the same benchmarks in Vista?
ok ill do it on vista 64
They wont be much different from 32 right?
32bit is a different but i can't post anything about that...
Last edited:
The 512meg x1950pro wipes the floor with everything else in the sub £80 bracket.
You talk about 'bang for buck', well it may cost 50% more than a 2600xt but it is a lot faster and the last thing you want to do is buy a card and then find it can't handle games.
You talk about 'bang for buck', well it may cost 50% more than a 2600xt but it is a lot faster and the last thing you want to do is buy a card and then find it can't handle games.
