I tested a Core 2 system today, using the same Video card, Drive and the
default settings on the motherboard. Yes, I know that the chipset and
motherboard are different, but it's still interesting:

All previous tests, same video card, same hard drive, 2gb to 4gb RAM,
default install of Vista Business.... Video score of 1.0 in both
categories.

On the Intel D945PLRN board, Core 2 - 2.4Ghz (not a Core 2 Duo), 2GB
RAM, same video card, same drive, default install, it gets a 3.0 and 3.6
score for video.

The difference is not expected - the Dual CPU Xeon 3.2ghz machine should
have performed much faster, being a server class motherboard, same video
card, same harddrive....

So, it seems that MS has indeed determined that people running less than
a Core 2 CPU will suffer performance problems.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

Utter Crap!

I have a 5yo Packard Bell 2Ghz CPU, 1G Ram and 126MBs Graphics, and Vista
Home Premium

I get a performance rating of 3.0 for the CPU, and Graphics is 4.0.

So, don't talk **** about a single processor being spurned by Microsoft..

"Void" wrote:

> I tested a Core 2 system today, using the same Video card, Drive and the
> default settings on the motherboard. Yes, I know that the chipset and
> motherboard are different, but it's still interesting:
>
> All previous tests, same video card, same hard drive, 2gb to 4gb RAM,
> default install of Vista Business.... Video score of 1.0 in both
> categories.
>
> On the Intel D945PLRN board, Core 2 - 2.4Ghz (not a Core 2 Duo), 2GB
> RAM, same video card, same drive, default install, it gets a 3.0 and 3.6
> score for video.
>
> The difference is not expected - the Dual CPU Xeon 3.2ghz machine should
> have performed much faster, being a server class motherboard, same video
> card, same harddrive....
>
> So, it seems that MS has indeed determined that people running less than
> a Core 2 CPU will suffer performance problems.
>
>
> --
>
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> (E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)
>

In article <E668C698-3815-4CC0-9230-(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Utter Crap!
>
> I have a 5yo Packard Bell 2Ghz CPU, 1G Ram and 126MBs Graphics, and Vista
> Home Premium
>
> I get a performance rating of 3.0 for the CPU, and Graphics is 4.0.
>
> So, don't talk **** about a single processor being spurned by Microsoft..

Sorry, I posted my experience on more than a dozen machines in testing.
I've avoided Vista on production systems because every one of the
machines in the P4 (including P4+HT, Dual P4 (Xeon) and single Xeon,
have performed slowly and with no more than 1 on video performance using
a 128MB video card from different vendors. This last card was a Dual
Video port card, 128MB RAM, and was used in computers I setup for the
test again.

I even loaded GuildWars on the PC's, since it is a good test for
performance of video, on the P4/Xeon based system, with the video card
in question, they were very laggy (screen) and I had to change down to a
lower resolution and least detail in order to move around without
skipping/lagging. On the Core 2 system it would play smoothly at
1280x1024 with medium detail settings.

While I'm sure there are exceptions, it really does appear that Vista
has some difference that gives better performance on a Core 2 (and I'm
still not talking a Core 2 Duo) system than on the P4/Xeon systems.

You might want to check that attitude too - you're seems to be on attack
mode instead of UNDERSTAND mode.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)