Tech-Hounds.com

Like Quake 4, this benchmark is more sensitive to processor overhead than transfer rates. See how the RAID 0 array is slower than a single drive in XP? If we look at Vista, there seems to be no difference between a single drive and a RAID 0 array. That may seem to be good news, but it doesn't change the fact that Vista is slower than XP - at least with a single drive. This does confirm our conclusion concerning higher processor overhead in Vista..

First Run Load



Consecutive Load



Compared to the other games / benchmarks, Serious Sam II 'eats' very little RAM. Physical memory usage stays under 1 GB. RAM usage the whole time and SuperFetch is less likely a factor here. There's also very little variations between runs, though this game dynamically uses RAM like F.E.A.R, but in much smaller proportions. Level loads are shorter - generally about 5 to 7 seconds - too short a time and not enough data to push the storage subsystems. So, it looks like Serious Sam II level loads are more influenced by processor overhead than anything else.

There is no doubt about it - Vista is slower than XP when ti comes to I/O and storage performance. There's a lot of factor to be considered here, but from these benchmarks we seem to narrow down two factors - processor overhead (probably more due to drivers than anything else) and transfer rates. There is that memory issue, where Vista does not have enough memory so it had to swap data into the pagefile

[Previous Page]
[Go to top]
[Next Page]