gaming performance drop in win7 64

[rozzyroz]

my wifes pc bit the dust about a month ago, so she inherited some of my componants. I upgraded to an asus p6t vanilla, 6gb of ocz ram, and an i7 920. i am reusing my 2 7900gto's until the dx11 cards show me what they have.

my problem is that when i had windows xp 32bit installed with this new setup, i scored around 60k in 3dmark2001 and 49k in 3dmark2003 (not overclocked). after installing windows7 64bit i score about 42k in 2001 and 37k in 2003.. less if i disable sli so i think sli is actually working, but the overall performance hit is still too much. this is with the cpu running at 170 x 21.

could there be anything in this setup besides drivers (using the 190.62's for win7) that would cause such a loss in performance?

[Hamilton]

I've noticed something as well. I used to run a QX9770 at 4.51GHz with 2GB Corsair DDR-2 and a GTX 285. With that setup I got average FPS with Crysis benchmark around 46 FPS in XP 32-bit, 1280x1024 Very High 16xQ.
With my new setup on a P6T-Dlx i7-965 @ 4276MHz, 6GB Corsair DDR3 and the same GTX 285 I get around 30FPS in Win7 x64 using the exact same test.
Haven't had time to run the 3DMarks yet but I'll get to that later today. I used to get 21682 in 3DM06 in XP with the old setup.

[Leeghoofd]

3dMarks are also slower on Vista if you need to bench them best stay on XP for that... For the games it could be that it forces 10.1 directX as that drop is really big Hamilton. Give the card companies some time to iron out the bugs in the drivers...

[rozzyroz]

so the case may be that its just with these specific benchmarks? i usually use the 3dmark tests to see if i have the system up and running as it should..

[Leeghoofd]

Google is ya best friend

Win7 gaming performance

[rozzyroz]

oh, thanks... i did google for info, but i was specificly looking for 3dmark2001 and 2003 (i dont have most of the games that were tested in that particular review )

ill snoop around a bit more, thanks again!

[RPGWiZaRD]

Yea 3DMark have always ran a little worse in Vista/Win 7. I score like 18.000~18.150 in XP in 06 but 17.650~17.750 in Vista/Win 7 depending on driver.

However for actual games that's another story, there are several games that run slightly faster in Win 7 (only talking some 1~3%) for me and some run significantly faster (20% in Far Cry 2, Call of Juarez Bound in Blood, 3 - 10%) but also a few runs significantly slower (UT3 for example) but that's special cases that have poor hardware sound support etc.

BTW that test above is using 190.38 for nvidia, this is a buggy and slow performing driver which should be avoided. I'm personally sticking to 182.47 cuz newest isn't always best!

[Leeghoofd]

That's always the hard part for a reviewer to pick the best drivers, either someone tells you you didn't use the latest or like in your case not the most stable... overall XP is fast ( starts up fast which is why I still liek it alot) and it has good hardware support (peripherals and co)... I'm still running XP and XP64, have tried the beta Win7 and wasn't too impressed for my daily needs... I'm not into fancy graphics and wizards... nor eg a nero burning program of 1Gb total installation, while the one I need on XP only is 60mb large... but that's my opinion... If you don't need DX10.X I don't feel the need "yet" to upgrade

[rozzyroz]

I know what you are saying about winxp vs vista and win7... win xp was just fine, but the lack of MS upgrading direct x for winxp sort of leaves me no choice but to upgrade to get the most out of some of these newer games.

thank you both for your time.