Windows 7 Preliminary testing in BlackShark has some very interesting results!
Remember the run I posted above for 3.06 GHz? Well, no need to go look up there for it. . .here it is:
Windows XP E8400 @ 3.06 GHz (speedstep enabled) DX9.0c 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 850Mhz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers
Frames: 16232 - Time: 480193ms -
Avg: 33.803 - Min: 5 - Max: 61
The following is the same run, but in Windows 7 (64 bit), with DirectX11, all other settings the same ( more than 2 gigs of RAM doesn't appear to make a difference in BS):
Windows7 core 0 E8400 @ 3.06 GHz (speedstep enable) D11 2x2gigs PC8500 at 850Mhz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers
Frames: 13802 - Time: 480225ms -
Avg: 28.740 - Min: 7 - Max: 60
So that's not so great. . .at this point it's not looking very good for Windows 7. . .but it's supposed to run like a better version of Vista, which supposedly is strong in Black Shark. . .so what gives? Ahhh, the CPU affinity trick you say?? Well, lets see if that makes up the lost performance!
For this run, settings are the same, only I enable both CPU cores in the taskmanager:
Windows7 core 0+1 core E8400 @ 3.06 GHz (speedstep enabled) DX11 2x2gigs PC8500 at 850Mhz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers
Frames: 21729 - Time: 480340ms -
Avg: 45.236 - Min: 23 - Max: 62
So umm. . . can you say AWESOME?!??!!!?! Not only did I get the lost performance back, but I set something of a record for this benchmark on my machine! If you take a look at my previously posted Windows XP run at the same settings the best I managed was - Avg: 42.185 - Min: 10 - Max: 62 and that was overclocked to 3.9 GHz!!!!!!
Even my runs at 3.960GHz with 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz, only averaged: 44.439fps in XP. . .so simply running Windows 7, and using both CPU cores gave me .8 avg fps better performance at a stock 3.06 Ghz than at nearly 4.0 GHz in 32 bit Windows XP!!
I can't wait to see what it does at 3.96 GHz!!! Well, yeah I can, I need to sleep now that it's 6:30 am!!!! 
[Edit to add the results from the 3.96 GHz runs]
Windows XP 32 E8400 @ 3.960GHz 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks vSynch and triple buff on on 178.24 drivers
Frames: 21281 - Time: 480107ms -
Avg: 44.439 - Min: 10 - Max: 63
Windows7 (64) core 0+1 E8400 @ 3.960GHz 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers vSynch ON
Frames: 26647 - Time: 480074ms -
Avg: 55.506 - Min: 27 - Max: 62
Windows7 (64) core 0+1 E8400 @ 3.960GHz 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers vSynch OFF
Frames: 28235 - Time: 479994ms -
Avg: 58.823 - Min: 32 - Max: 93
Impressive results no? Under the same conditions I had an increase of 11.1 frames per second better on average when overclocked to 3.96 1100MHz DDR2, and 14.4 frames per second better when vSynch and triple buffering are forced off in the driver control panel (the normal way in which benchmarks are run).
Perhaps most impressive is the minimum fps. . .they are almost as good as the average fps at stock clocks!!!! My track really killed the fps in a flew places on XP, but with 7, and both CPU cores, that's gone!!!!!
Also, I am using drivers that are not technically compatible with WIndows 7 in the interest of running the same driver as I'd used previously. Next I'll try the driver MS suggests, and perhaps the 185 series beta that shows big gains in many titles.