Windows 7 Build 7048 Benchmark
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 4.3.2009
Tip: Click here to update all your PC's outdated driversYesterday appeared a new beta version windows 7 (7048 , 64 bit version) the first release candidate according to some rumors. .Since this new build comes only in the 64 bit version we were limited to a few software with native 64 bits support the remaining was running as 32 bits applications .
Our Test System:
Processor : Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 3.6 GHz (450 MHz x8) , 1.15v,
Motherboard : Biostar Tpower Ip45 .
Memory : 2x 1 GB Ocz Reaper extreme 1150 MHz (5-5-5-11) . (@1180 MHz)
Video card : Nvidia 9800 GT (700Mhz Core , 1860 memory , 1700 SHader) , Nvidia driver : driver-v.181.71
HDD : Raid0, 2x Seagate 320 GB
Without excess words let us pass directly to the benchmark , we will start from daily use application (Compressing / Decompressing) .
Windows 7 Beta 1 7000 Vs Windows Xp Sp3 (Compressing / Decompressing)
The compressing performance was slow in this build, for some reason, just like the hole OS (*) , Test in 7-zip and Winrar were pretty similar , either the new build is slower or this is just the 64 bit OS .
However, Everest shows a robust performance in comparison with other OS , the memory bandwidth was also in a respectable level with over 9200 MB/s read and 9500 MB/s write , Note also the low latency only 56.8NS (Thanks to the 64 bit OS).
Super Pi benchmark show an average result in comparison with other OS , the new Build 7048 as always was faster than the windows vista 32 .
Again most likely driver issue , The HDD performance was suffering , this test was executed 3 times we even saw a 22 mb/s as a read performance in a Raid 0 setup !!! .
Finally the new Devil may cry 4 tests showed some nice result, but they are still slower than the previous and the fastest until today windows 7 and OS (7022) .
The new 64 bit version is not so promising as the previous release , let s wait for more build (Or at least for the next 32 bit builds) for the final verdict.
source:
xtreview.com
>> Click Here to Run a Free Scan for PC Errors <<
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Windows 7 Build 7048 Screenshot || Windows 7 Build 7048 May Be the RC - Release Candidate || Windows 7 build 7048 screenshots hit the net || Windows 7 build 7048 activation crack - TimerNuke || Windows 7 RC1 Build 7048 is Fake may be 7041 or 7046
Comments(29)
in my own experience ive always noticed the 64bit versions of windows running slower then
the 32 bit ones, the only reason ive been able to keep running 32 is because i only have 3
gbs of ram. just what ive experienced.
it is strange my computer runs faster with windows 7 build 7048 x64 than windows 7 build
7022 x86 and i have tested it 3 times but build 7048 is faster on my computer.
runs faster on systems with all requirements to be "windows vista capable" and with all
things certified/well installed.
and that is extreme with 64-bit ms soft. if
you have anything extrange or outdated, simply wont work or will work like the hell!!!
wait for the w7-sp1 x64 before buy :-p
why wait for sp1 when this is stil a beta (not out for sale yet) operating system.
your post makes no sense since we still dont even have a win7 rtm
xp still running great, just look at your numbers.
jose, dude he was being sarcastic ! if you dont know what that means look it up in a
thesaurus or dictionary. hence recognise the ":-p" noob ^^ .maybe you should expand your
vocabulary before calling people retards. now shut your trap muffin-muncher.
(at) nick, like sp1 ever changed much xd
i ran the 7022 x86 version and it was slower then 7000, but when i went to 7048 x64 it
was a lot faster. so not sure what kind of hardware that guy has, but i know mine is
vista certified (i built it with my bare hands raaa!).
most of the game still build in x86(32 bit) no x64(64 bit) builds. so in x64 it still
almost the same with 32 bits. i hope somedays i can see a 64 bit build. you can see the
installation folder is in c:\program files (x86)
ya if they had two seperate categories of x64 software, and x86 software there would be a
huge difference. but testing it on x86 can't really compare the power of x64 build.
it's like limiting it to x86 so benchmarks are only for x86, and not true x64
benchmark of x64 with 2gb ram.... rofl
why would anyone run a 64bit os on less then 4gb of ram...
nick's got a point. what the hell are they doing testing it with 2gs of memory? the
whole point of the 64 bit os is to cap it out for software that a normal 32 can't run...
since when do the test programs in question require more than 2gb? using 4gb isn't going
to change f-all in the benchmarks.
actually, it makes a lot of difference, because you cannot adress more memory to x86
programs, it's common knoledge that windows x64 uses twice more ram that x86, just for
the vm to allocate mamory.
i mean memory!!!, this key is moving!!, it's not my fault!!!
dont play with 64 to much truble with drivers.
so say zdnetm -try them thay knew
well, 64bit windows 7seven theme changes between themes are now virtually instantaneous!
everything feels highly tuned. microsoft should have a winner. now only if they
could get rid of the screen going black/blank when windows requests users okay to run
program.
meantime, kde 4.2.1 on kubuntu i am impressed with!
thank brother
wubbles-not i say - zdnet says-and he is big brother
drivers were a problem when vista first came out in 2006. pretty much everything is
supported with 64bit drivers now, the articles you are reading are old.
trol11 save ya time all drivers will work but the rest is slow as hell compare to x32
that test was deeply flawed, and everyone knows the best, smoothest running, fastest
windows os you can put on your machine is windows millenium edition, thats what gamers
like fatal1ty use, and thats why i use it too
raaaa let's riot the flawed benchmarks and demand a 4 gig with x64 software side by side
a 2 gig, and x86 software.
some benchmarks are so useless that they only provide turn offs.
basically,
what you feel and what you experienced is your own benchmark.
"basically, what you feel and what you experienced is your own benchmark"
well it reveal that is the true potential of your rig
"xp still running great, just look at your numbers" yea dichead and when windows 7 is
8 years old you look at them...
"well it reveal that is the true potential of your rig"
you can say that.
everything still bogs down to hardware.
i have run a buil 7000 x64, 16mb of onboard mem, aero activated gf6150. directx12.
system 1gb of ram= 842mb free ram.
testing hd10gb ide free space 5.42gb
installeds programs, office 2003, photoshop10, everest, usdownloader, wifi internet.
drivers viewsonic 15e.
a performance test have 64 bits test results are 40% fasters
than 32 bits.
32 bits test software not use the full power of cpu.
in test of 64
bits temp cpu up +2c but is faster.
cpu athlon 1640le temp 35 idle. 48c full 64bits
operation or dos full bug.
ravenloft: funny u have directx 12?
dx11 is first realeased with the full version
of windows 7 xd
No new comments are allowed for this article.
For your questions use our KezNews Forum
Windows 7 RTM 7600.16385.090713-1255 HERE !
In my experience
By TWiST on 05.03.2009 - 00:03