Looking to find out what's the better gaming experience out there right now --
Windows 7 beta or Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 -- the folks at
PC Perspective put both operating systems through the ringer with help from seven graphics cards running the gamut of price ranges. Overall, three
ATI Radeon HD and four
NVIDIA GeForce cards were pitted with six games and applications in one of the lengthiest benchmarking features we've ever read. AMD / ATI gets credit for being the first to release combined drivers that work on both OSs, and with one lone exception, performance on the Windows 7 machine was equal to or better than Vista. That said, the recomendations for each system is the same: ATI gets an advantage here for cards in the $120 to $130 range, but the competition is much closer as you start looking at more expensive models. Hit up the read link for technical details that you can shake an anti-aliased stick at.
posted Mar 25th 2009 10:41PM
God look at those cards
I wish engadget made fair newsof all things, both windows and mac.
$0.67 says theyll never post this story about how "god-like" macs are.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9130468&intsrc=hm_list
@ ImaYam
your such a TOOOOOOOLLLLLLL!
ATi Radeon HD 4870 X2
Uhhh, did engadget ACTUALLY TRY to comprehend my fake HTML?
I wrote the following (without periods)
..
.A.T.i. .R.a.d.e.o.n. .H.D. .4.8.7.0. .X.2.
..
Wow, it did it again
I'm going to shut up now.
Yeah looking on the read link of all of them just thrown into a pile makes me sick. Why would you subject the cards to that type of abuse. I mean, if you're just gonna throw them into a pile, you can send one or two my way and they would be put to good use instead of being a paperweight worth over a grand.
Who cares about Win7Beta?
Tell me how Windows 7 RC1 compares to Vista SP1 (or SP2 RC1) - and yes, you can get them through both official and unofficial channels
Setnev: Retail prices vs actual value are for electronics and pretty much everything is insanely different.
From IBM you could pay up to 2,000 for a blade server. When you are are a VAR you can buy a pallet of 100 for about $20,000...
I have piles of crap at my work that I don't give two sheets for, yet some idiot is willing to pay top dollar for it. We buy one kind of Risc server for literally $20 a pop, put some paint on it and clean it and sell it to some vendor for $1,000ea, and they RESELL it to hospitals.
Don't worry about how much you are expected to pay... remember, the consumer doesn't matter.
use > (>) and < (<) instead.
ImaYam,
Well said: "Macs plummet in Rescuecom reliability ranking
Loses more than 50% of its '08 score, now trails Asus and Lenovo"
Murememer, why is he such a tool?
Because he is exposing Apple as being a low quality computer dealer, or because he is exposing Engadget's unwillingness to post information to that end?
Im going got keep posting this link on engadget to spread some real truth around here. That atta sock it to em!
ImaYam,
God wouldn't be caught using a limited as shit Mac. You want something small, thin, trendy, one of the worst warranties in the industry, and has shit for upgradability? Get a Mac. You want something that can have its HD upgraded (Something the rest of the ind has been doing since the 90's.), RAM upgraded, CPU upgraded, and in some cases GPU upgraded down the road and COULD run any OS on the market if Apple wasn't the douchebag of the industry (Woo hoo for artificial limitations put in place by Steve I'm-a-Douchebag Jobs)? Get anything else. The Mac is to the computer industry as a blond binbo trophy wife is to the jet set. Read: Its great on the surface. But once you get to know her she's boring as hell, and offers nothing of real value beyond her looks.
PS- This is coming from someone who sold his 2.3Ghz MBP last Nov after 3 torturous years under the Mac logo. I will NEVER go back to a Mac.
Um, I've upgraded both my HD and my RAM on my 15" MBP. I'd like to see you upgrade your CPU and graphics card in a comparable notebook, while you're in the business of calling out Macs. (Say, one of those Dell Studio XPSs?).
Honestly, I don't care for either Mac or PCs. Both have their merits and limitations. Just pick what works for you, and use it. Saying that Macs can't be upgraded is like a Mac fanboy trolling about how your Windows computer can't run Final Cut Pro. In context, it's stupid for both parties. Out of context, it makes no FREAKING SENSE.
So yeah. Obviously, you prefer a Windows machine. It's nice to share your opinion. It won't make me, or anyone else suddenly change my mind.
I use a combination of Windows, OS X and Ubuntu, in situations where they are most useful. I'm both a developer of iPhone applications, and Xbox Games, as well as various Windows, Mac and Linux applications. I've had a detailed look at the workings of all three operating systems, and a deep understanding of the software features and limitations of each.
The door is that way, please don't forget to grab your misconceptions on the way out.
Umm Kevlar, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I never pointed out that I prefer Windows over OSX. I dont even know where anyone mentioned this, so what is the point of bringing it up?
Secondly, I was pointing out how Engaget would never post an article about the staggering quality of a mac COMPUTER. Nobody has mentioned OSX but you.
The news is misleading since I was unable to find where 7 wins over Vista, but found lots of results when 7 loses to Vista.
In MAX cards of course. I won't settle with anything less than the best.
How much they MSFT pay them for that result. Nvidia fix your windows7 drivers!!!
Now, pit it against the legendary Windows XP!
If Legendary = Old then ok. And i believe they did benchmark XP to 7 and it fared good in almost every category putting XP in number 2. Legends aren't #2 material.
Yah and if you could run Windows 95 on a modern system it would probably kick the crap out of Win XP and DOS on a modern system would kick the crap out of 9x. Modern OS's require more horsepower. That is a simple fact. I take an 8 year old laptop and slap a current Linux distro that wasn't specifically tailored for ultra old shit and it would run, but it wouldn't be happy. And no, MS can't, and frankly shouldn't cater to old ass hardware. Win XP is 8 years old.Support for modern hardware is very much shoehorned into the OS at this stage. Its time to let the thing die, move on, and let Windows 7 mature into a speedy replacement for XP that supports all the current bells and whistles. And due to its more modular nature should be dramatically easier to impliment newer tech in the coming years, vs. XP where it was a massive PITA.
Jon, the difference is that Windows 95 was unstable and lacked functionality while XP is very stable and delivers all the features most users need. Vista and 7 have offered no compelling reason to upgrade and represent a decline in terms of speed and stability. Why upgrade your hardware and pay a hefty licence fee for a new operating sytstem that delivers no tangeable benefits? There's no point buying something just becuase it's new.
XP just isn't as secure as Vista/7.
You need to have a third party firewall running all the time to prevent spyware from making a home in your OS.
"You need to have a third party firewall running all the time to prevent spyware from making a home in your OS."
If you believe that, you're ignorant. Sure... by adding a first party firewall. Outstanding security there. It's still not going to stop some kids mom from installing Buddy, the Internet shopping helper (now with built in phishing support!)
Vista must have really been one pig of an OS when it came to speed and resources. I'll be interested in trying Windows 7 when it comes out and see how it runs under VMWare Fusion.
I agree, Windows 7 blows away Vista in everything. If it comes out I'll buy it (hope it's not expensive). I tried the Beta by getting rid of my OEM Genuine Vista. However I was a bit alarmed by the bugs so I got rid of it.
Now, I currently run a torrented XP. Shame I know, but just holding on it until 7 comes out!
I think Boot Camp would be better.
Umm, no Fanboy.
No one is disputing Windows 7's greatness, but take a look at the benchmarks instead of blindly spouting your ignorant rhetoric.
Vista and 7 were neck and neck in virtually all of the benchmarks, with usually < 2 fps separating them.
Good read.
Now this guy seriously needs to give that GTX 295 to me.
Whoever has 7 graphics cards lying around like that just makes me want to break a face.
Most of the time, they're loaned hardware from companies to test them and compare them to other competitors.
windows 7 beta = free
windows vista = ugh, not free
Windows 7 final release: not free.
It's too bad my Win 7 64-bit beta can't run Punkbuster, or Daemon Tools for that matter (not essential for running games, but useful).
"Not essential"? Yeah right! :p
Magic Iso works for now (to mount iso images)
It's "ISO". See, abbreviations are capitalized.
And pedantic assholes are annoying.
I want one of those cards
I want all of those cards, its like a computer hardware porn shoot. However I would settle for 2 of the 295 or 4870X2's for some SLI/Crossfire lov'n on the X58...
If its faster than Windows 95 then I'll upgrade
If your hardware is running Windows 95, i think its time for an upgrade regardless if 7 comes out or not.
Why... if it works for them, why should they be forced to upgrade?
Which build is this though? I hear the most recent leaked build 7057 (which i'm using right now) has been causing crashes for ppl with nVidia, but build 7048 was fine and much faster than the public beta 7000.
7057 runs great though for me though (pre RC1 build).
i had crashes before ATI released it's Win7 drivers.. since then, it's been pretty smooth. I upgraded a Vista x64 box with all my games on it and i'm really impressed. Running it on all my boxes now.
Windows 7 is bound to be the greatest OS ever released.
Already in Beta form it stands head and shoulders above every other OS out there.
my windows 7 install absolutely died. won't boot consistently, when it boots its' full of errors. don't understand why just went all windows ME on me.
Bad HD sector.
RAM dying.
Lots of reasons, not necessarily OS related.
My 7 has been working beautifully for 2 months now.
Ahhh, "Works on my machine! You must have bad hardware. Software never fails!"
Especially beta software. Tough as Ares himself.
i have to say that truth is somewhere at middle. i use win 7 64bit at my laptop, and i agree, that they have solved many, many issues that XP just crashed. Not a single problem with drivers/devices (as i had with suse and ubuntu for example) and i ve seen almost 10% more FPS at WoW (the only game i play tbh :) ). Use it for almost 2 months now (since day 1 of beta release) and except some silly beta problems i ll not change them.
BUT
At desktop PC (1 with C2D 8400@3.5GHZ /4 GB black dragon SE/ 295GTX / raid 5) the problems were too many. Raid was just too slow to work with (2MB/sec!!!!) , 295 was not working properly (even with win 7 nvidia drivers) , and the one problem was coming after other. Same with another desktop i have (C2D 6600 / 4GB muskin 5/5/512 / OCZ 8800GTX) that neither pci-e wifi recognised (with any driver i ve tried), nor the ethernet controlers!!! (this has ubuntu on now).
Tbh , win 7 are the most promising (imo) windows i ve ever seen, and i hope they ll remain as stable as they are now. Coz even Vista at beta were nice, but as final product, they were the worst M$ product ever. ok.. maybe not ever, but since win Millennium! :PPPP
graphics cards are the bastard childs of electronics. Everything else gets smaller and sleeker while my 8800 GTX is as big as a lunch box.