Vista SP1 vs XP SP2, Benchmarking

[Dracon M'Alkir]

Note: This was a fair test. Both benchmarks were done in the same environment, aside from operating system. No hardware changes were made, and the latest drivers for both operating systems were used. These were the optimal conditions possible for gaming and benchmarking. (I did this on my own system using CrystalMark. Both copies were of the same version.)

Windows XP Service Pack 2

Windows Vista Service Pack 1

Comparisons:

CPU
XP: 57293
VA: 54583
Difference: -3.85% Slower

Memory
XP: 15243
VA: 15257
Difference: No Change

Hard Drive
XP: 16962
VA: 17772
Difference: +3.85% Faster (Thanks to ReadyBoost)

2D Rendering
XP: 22078
VA: 17897
Difference: -18.7% Slower

3D Rendering
XP: 35267
VA: 29555
Difference: -15.97% Slower

Overall Change: Vista is 7.41% slower than Windows XP on the same hardware.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Thanks for the exact evidence. I won't be getting another computer for at least a few years though and by that time I bet all new PC's will have Windows Vista with not choice of XP.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Karel]

Thanks for the exact evidence. I won't be getting another computer for at least a few years though and by that time I bet all new PC's will have Windows Vista with not choice of XP.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

<Linux>
I don't think so

Linux - 2.6.24-1-686 #1 SMP Mon Feb 11 14:37:45 UTC 2008 i686 GNU/Linux

Not to mention my webserver, which perfectly runs quite active webpages on hardware on which Windows wouldn't probably even be usable.
</Linux>

Vista is slow (see how much more you have to pay to have the same productivity as with XP). Mainly it's because of DRM, there are just too many layers of it.

 

[fedaykin]

This is what I've been trying to prove to some Vista lovers, but I never bothered to do benchmarks. I first noticed Vista lag when I tried Halo 2. It was unplayable on Vista. After the XP patch came out I tried again on XP, because my instinct told me that it was Vista's fault. And voila, no lag in XP.

By the way, DarkLegacy, what's your rig?

 

[Hotel California]

The fact you're forgetting is that Vista was never really designed to be run on old machines.

You're saying its 7% slower on your hardware. However, considering what the normal specs for a good vista PC would be that doesn't actually make much difference since a decent Vista machine would give you benefits that XP just can't offer.

For example - look at DX 10 and 64 bit systems. We all know that XP has trouble seeing anything more than 3Gb of RAM. Vista on the other hand does not. Quad Core? You'll be wanting Vista for that sir. DX10 Card, Vista again!

A lot of the problems and complaints people have with vista are due to the old hardware they run it on. IMHO you shouldn't be running vista on laptops with 1gb ram nor on single core machines. Anything less than a Dual Core 2Gb RAM will be slow, period, when run with Vista.

For me I've upgraded from a basic P4 with 1Gb DDR RAM on XP Pro to a Q6600 Quad, 4Gb DDR2 and 8800 GTS with Vista Home Premium. Can I notice the difference? Of course! However, I can safely say that running XP on my new rig wouldn't give quite the same results! They would be slower.

Remember - its about new tech!

 

[SuAside]

I won't be getting another computer for at least a few years though and by that time I bet all new PC's will have Windows Vista with not choice of XP.

eventhough sites such as Dell only advertise Vista (and often dont even offer XP anymore), you simply have to contact them and they'll get you the same pc with XP installed.

DISCLAIMER: do not take this as an endorsement of you buying a fucking Dell, or i'll rip your fucking spine out and use it as a coat hanger.

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

The fact you're forgetting is that Vista was never really designed to be run on old machines.

You're saying its 7% slower on your hardware. However, considering what the normal specs for a good vista PC would be that doesn't actually make much difference since a decent Vista machine would give you benefits that XP just can't offer.

For example - look at DX 10 and 64 bit systems. We all know that XP has trouble seeing anything more than 3Gb of RAM. Vista on the other hand does not. Quad Core? You'll be wanting Vista for that sir. DX10 Card, Vista again!

A lot of the problems and complaints people have with vista are due to the old hardware they run it on. IMHO you shouldn't be running vista on laptops with 1gb ram nor on single core machines. Anything less than a Dual Core 2Gb RAM will be slow, period, when run with Vista.

For me I've upgraded from a basic P4 with 1Gb DDR RAM on XP Pro to a Q6600 Quad, 4Gb DDR2 and 8800 GTS with Vista Home Premium. Can I notice the difference? Of course! However, I can safely say that running XP on my new rig wouldn't give quite the same results! They would be slower.

Remember - its about new tech!

New Tech or Not, the fact is that it's slower. Any way you slice it.

 

[SuAside]

there's a lot of tweaks out there already though. you might want to look into them if you want to keep using Vista.