Performance / Benchmarks in Win2k... Your comments Please.

JoeJerky

Junior Member
Oct 21, 2000
11
0
0
Just got my Duron sys up! I am a Got my Duron sys up this weekend! Yeah! But? I was a very disappointed when I ran 3D Mark 2000.

My previous sys was a Celeron 400@488 on a Abit BX6r2. I ran 3DMark before the teardown and got 2177 3D Marks and 134 CPU Marks in Win2000 Pro.

After the upgrade to a Duron 600@1000 on a Abit KT7, I ran 3D Mark again. The first run was in Win98se, with a score of 3731 3D Marks and 364 CPU Marks, about what you would expect to see. The big disappointment was when I ran 3D Mark in Win2k Pro. I got 2190 3D Marks and 129 CPU Marks!! I know that D3D performance in Win2k isn?t good, but no performance gain? Can anyone explain this lack of performance gain or offer any tips? Any info would be greatly appreciated!!

I am VERY happy with Win2k stability. I NEVER had a sys crash or lockup in 8 months of use! But if gaming performance can be that much greater in Win98 I am considering dual booting and using Win98 for games only? Any input? Thanks all!!!

The Jerk?
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,968
592
136
3DMark 2000 sucks in win2000... Benchmarks suck IMO. Test them in real life performance like Quake 3. I got 79FPS 1024x768 32-bit in Win98 I got 83FPS in Win2000... pretty good IMO. Might be from NTFS.
 

LocutusX

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,061
0
0
That minute difference in fps between Win2K and Win98SE is because Win2K has no 16-bit code, and is purely 32-bit.