http://benchmark3d.com/trainz-simulator-12-windows-xp-vs-windows-7-benchmark
So, in the end, not much difference...
So, in the end, not much difference...
Trainz 12 XP-vs-7 "Let's get ready to Rumble!"
- Thread starter Euphod
- Start date
You must have read my mind, because I was about to post in another thread how it seems lots of folks around here with new and relatively new equipment who seem to be having performance problems only have one thing in common - they run either Vista or Win7. I suspect configuration has a little to do with it, but it's alarming so many people with i7s and 460s are getting such mediocre if not poor performance considering their hardware.
The article itself really doesn't surprise me - I'm sticking with XP for performance reasons myself - but I'd be furious if I'd dropped a grand on a new machine and got what a lot of people are getting...or, really, AREN'T.
The article itself really doesn't surprise me - I'm sticking with XP for performance reasons myself - but I'd be furious if I'd dropped a grand on a new machine and got what a lot of people are getting...or, really, AREN'T.
Last edited:
Gandalf0444
FVRR member
Same here that is why I spent a grand on hardware and installed Windows XP Pro 64bit. Then dropped windows 7 from my laptop and installed XP Pro 64 bit on that to:hehe:
But I do have Windows 7 in dual boot on my desktop waiting for Battlefield 3.
[FONT="]Yeah it looks like they did some pretty extensive testing there, lol.[/FONT]
[FONT="]No mention of what route they used, resolution or anything. They also didn’t mention the extended loading time that you get with when running Trainz on Windows XP compared to Vista and Windows 7.[/FONT]
[FONT="]What they did show is how the Core 2/ATI 5750 setup can’t even maintain 60 fps even at a lousy 2xAA setting.[/FONT]
Will miracles never cease…
I can actually agree with you on something
For me XP is not even an option, I can't find half the drivers for my motherboard for example that are for XP. I came to that realization three years ago. Now I can still run XP on my laptop, but I don't. The only time I've ever had an issue with was way back when I first bought TransDem, and Roland quickly solved it. Other than that and I run a ton of software, I've not had a single issue running Windows 7 64-bit.
But let's see to squeeze out that 2 frames per second, I'm going to cripple my motherboard, and shoehorn on an obsolete operating system that has no support whatsoever from Microsoft, does that really sound productive?
I don't think so, but that's just me. I actually looked at a neighbors PC the other day, and they were running XP and I actually had to laugh, because we've come a long way baby and I don't plan to go back not for two frames per second.:hehe:
Last edited:
I'd have to question the 2 frames per second also.
I've got multiple copies of XP 32-bit, XP 64-bit, Vista Ultimate 32/64 and Windows 7 Ultimate 32/64-bit that I've tested on three different machines one with a Core 2 Quad (Q9650)/4GB of RAM/8800 Ultra, i7 975X/6GB of RAM/ATI 5870 and a i7 980X/6GB of RAM/580 GTX (specs in signature), not one of them performs any better with Trainz (or any of the other 15 or so sims/games I run) with Windows XP. As a matter of fact many of sims/games I run perform worse now on XP then they do on Vista or Windows 7, the longer load time with Trainz when running on XP is just one example of this.
There's even a frame rate hit when running RailWorks on Windows XP compared to Vista and Windows 7 and I'm not the only one to notice it. I haven't seen one benefit to running OpenRails or OpenBVE on XP with the above mentioned hardware either.
I don't know anyone with half a clue who's going to consider that sites result's as a benchmark and analysis.
RoysTrainz
Rembrandt van Trainz
how come benchmarkets always test unreal things?
Ed, RRsignal, Mrsci and others in here it sounds almost like everybody has his little secret and miracle to make it look work better for his purpose.
Honest i do not check any benchmarket only this one here as Ed started commenting:hehe:....
I've my little route doing the things it has to do, Win7 64bit doing it things the hardware doing its things and Trainz doing its things
:hehe:.
All together I am more than happy with Win7,TS12,Nvidia etc etc.
You call it miracles I look at it like a chef cook, mix the ingredients and fry/cook it till its ready to be consumed, sometimes fast sometimes slow but overal I enjoy it the most even with some fps drops but still running nice to very good. That is my bench market.
I remember Darkdan his splendid little routes I tried a few times to run and so the fps drop like my pants when in urge for something drastic:hehe: and natural as of so many details on a small area do the miracles on fps on any machine and WIN config (Mac hmm they boil with water too, it must be)
y'all have a nice day
Roy
Ed, RRsignal, Mrsci and others in here it sounds almost like everybody has his little secret and miracle to make it look work better for his purpose.
Honest i do not check any benchmarket only this one here as Ed started commenting:hehe:....
I've my little route doing the things it has to do, Win7 64bit doing it things the hardware doing its things and Trainz doing its things
:hehe:.All together I am more than happy with Win7,TS12,Nvidia etc etc.
You call it miracles I look at it like a chef cook, mix the ingredients and fry/cook it till its ready to be consumed, sometimes fast sometimes slow but overal I enjoy it the most even with some fps drops but still running nice to very good. That is my bench market.
I remember Darkdan his splendid little routes I tried a few times to run and so the fps drop like my pants when in urge for something drastic:hehe: and natural as of so many details on a small area do the miracles on fps on any machine and WIN config (Mac hmm they boil with water too, it must be)
y'all have a nice day
Roy
modeltrains
Whipped
well, i run xp with trs12 and runs perfectly. I don't think it would run as well if i didn't have my good graphics card.
Last edited:
It’s surprising to me since on clean installs of Windows XP and Windows 7 on three different setups with the latest updates and drivers I’ve haven’t seen it perform worse at all. Not to mention that they tested on a machine with 4GB of system RAM in addition to a video card with 1GB RAM and they used the 32-bit version of XP so I don’t have much faith in what they show for results.
In addition the Core 2 (Q9650)/8800 Ultra setup I’ve tested TS2010 and TS12 on is not able to maintain a consistent 60 fps at 1920x1200 resolution with 8xAA enabled on every one of the default routes either regardless of running Windows XP or Windows 7.
I was searching for an image the other day, and ran across those two charts, which brought my attention to the site, and article. I just decided to post the link for entertainment purposes, you know, like throwing bread to the ducks and watching them compete...
Unfortunately as has been proven, the latest multitasking operating systems handle programs differently than before, particularly in the way the operating system allows programs to "talk" to the underlying hardware.
Remember the whole stability thing with Windows? Well this is due to HAL, or the Hardware Abstraction Layer.
Starting with Windows NT 3.51 in the mid-1990s, the operating system was developed with stability and reliability in mind. The hardware was never again to be accessed directly by programs. Up to this time, when programs ran in Windows 2.x and MS-DOS and PC-DOS, the program developers wrote their own hardware drives that went around the operating system. This made for some great performance by the programs, relative to the time period, but this came at a cost. If the program was running in Windows 2.x, and talked to the hardware outside of DOS, which was handling Window's calls to the hardware, the whole bundle could crash easily.
So with Windows NT, an new method of hardware and system access was developed. This is now a layered approach where the OS does the in between talking to the components, and all of this runs in different rings of access to the processor and hardware
The OS its self runs in the middle, closest to the hardware, the drivers are bit farther away, and the applications are out on the edge, so to speak.
Now the rule is no hardware can be accessed directly by any one except for the operating system. Applications have to go through the HAL first. HAL is then accessed by the inner ring of the OS, and then the thread is opened for connection to the program.
This layered access is extremely stable, and yes even NT 4.0 runs quite well when it's maintained properly. In my olden days, I managed NT 4.0 file severs that rarely crashed, except for a couple of times when a drive or two or a power supply died.
In the late 90s, this idea was introduced into the personal computer world through Windows 2000. NT 4.0 Workstation was around, but mostly high-end CAD and engineering workstations ran this. Windows 2000, like its children, XP, Vista, Win 7, etc. are all based on this same base, and have inherited the same virtues as wells as the faults.
This stability is great for servers and high-end mission-critical systems, but for gaming workstations, this comes at a cost; mainly speed,which is something we really want out of our hardware. Hardware manufacturers have gotten better with the underlying speed, but still the big translation factor is still there, and this still eats up the time we need, which leads to performance hits.
We'll never see really great performance on the new machines unless we move to a game-only operating system such as that on consoles where the operating system doesn't get in the way of the programs because they are written to act directly with the hardware they are operating on.
John
Remember the whole stability thing with Windows? Well this is due to HAL, or the Hardware Abstraction Layer.
Starting with Windows NT 3.51 in the mid-1990s, the operating system was developed with stability and reliability in mind. The hardware was never again to be accessed directly by programs. Up to this time, when programs ran in Windows 2.x and MS-DOS and PC-DOS, the program developers wrote their own hardware drives that went around the operating system. This made for some great performance by the programs, relative to the time period, but this came at a cost. If the program was running in Windows 2.x, and talked to the hardware outside of DOS, which was handling Window's calls to the hardware, the whole bundle could crash easily.
So with Windows NT, an new method of hardware and system access was developed. This is now a layered approach where the OS does the in between talking to the components, and all of this runs in different rings of access to the processor and hardware
The OS its self runs in the middle, closest to the hardware, the drivers are bit farther away, and the applications are out on the edge, so to speak.
Now the rule is no hardware can be accessed directly by any one except for the operating system. Applications have to go through the HAL first. HAL is then accessed by the inner ring of the OS, and then the thread is opened for connection to the program.
This layered access is extremely stable, and yes even NT 4.0 runs quite well when it's maintained properly. In my olden days, I managed NT 4.0 file severs that rarely crashed, except for a couple of times when a drive or two or a power supply died.
In the late 90s, this idea was introduced into the personal computer world through Windows 2000. NT 4.0 Workstation was around, but mostly high-end CAD and engineering workstations ran this. Windows 2000, like its children, XP, Vista, Win 7, etc. are all based on this same base, and have inherited the same virtues as wells as the faults.
This stability is great for servers and high-end mission-critical systems, but for gaming workstations, this comes at a cost; mainly speed,which is something we really want out of our hardware. Hardware manufacturers have gotten better with the underlying speed, but still the big translation factor is still there, and this still eats up the time we need, which leads to performance hits.
We'll never see really great performance on the new machines unless we move to a game-only operating system such as that on consoles where the operating system doesn't get in the way of the programs because they are written to act directly with the hardware they are operating on.
John