Vista vs Windows XP Benchmark comparision

J

JRDtechnet

Member
Reaction score
22
Location
New Jersey
Alright I did a few benchmarks on my laptop: Vista Business sp1 (32bit) vs
Windows XP sp3 (32bit)
Celeron M 1.3ghz
1gb Ram
Crappy onboard Intel video​

This is pretty much MS recommended minimum for running Vista. Keep in mind that Windows XP minimum recommended is 300mhz with 128mb of ram. Frankly these results are pretty surprising when you consider that this machine is pretty decent and way above the recommended min requirements and for Vista this machine is bottom of the barrel.

Anyway, both Vista and XP are running with all default services, latest drivers, no tweaks or anything like that.

Vista install is about 3 months old and Windows XP was just installed new for the benchmarks.

3DMark03 (no, the results aren't a typo...like I said crappy video!)
Vista - 66
Windows XP -65
--Vista Wins but a point

Super PI - 1mb
Vista - 01m 07.127
Win XP - 01m 07.127
-----Dead Even

-Sisoft Sandra

Multi-Media
Vista - Int: 11859 it/s Float: 13546 it/s
Win XP – Int: 11858 it/s Float: 13233 it/s
Integer: Vista by a hair Float: Vista wins

Arithmetic:
Vista Dhrystone: 4200Mips Whetstone: 3133MFLOPS
Win XP Dhrystone: 4133Mips Whetstone: 3068
----Vista wins both

Cache and Memory (Combined Index / Speed Factor-lower is better)
Vista: 3758 MB\s 20.5
Windows XP: 3768[ mb/s 21.5
---Vista wins

Memory Bandwidth:
Vista: Int: 2205mb/s Float: 2207mb/s
Windows XP: 2178mb/s Float: 2178mb/s

--Vista Wins
Memory Latency: (lower is better)
Vista: 162ns / 62.5
Windows XP: 158ns / 64.5
---Mixed Windows XP wins the Latency but Vista wins the Speed factor

File System:
Vista: 23MB/s
Win XP: 23MB/s
--Dead Even

Unzipping 779mb File (using 7zip)
Vista: 01:57
Win XP: 02:14
--Vista wins again

Compressing 852mb File (using 7zip, Zip compression - normal)
Vista: 03:24
WinXP: 03:27
--Oh so close but Vista wins again

Well there you have it, people said I was insane to think that Vista was faster then XP but I just proved it. My main desktop with Vista x64 is absolutely more stable then when I had Windows XP x64 loaded.

For those interest in how Vista compares to XP in game performance I direct you to here http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp
 
Last edited:
Oh no! Gunslinger bait! (kidding)

Let me just get this thread overwith right now:
Vista sucks! No it doesn't! Yes it does! You're wrong! No I'm not! Here's proof! Here's MY proof! I don't care! Neither do I!
 
14049752 said:
Oh no! Gunslinger bait! (kidding)

Let me just get this thread overwith right now:
Vista sucks! No it doesn't! Yes it does! You're wrong! No I'm not! Here's proof! Here's MY proof! I don't care! Neither do I!
Click to expand...

LOL thats true, and to be honest the benchmarks were so close I bet if I did them 10 times on each OS XP would come out on top half the time and Vista would come out on top the other half. But an older OS should perform better on older hardware, yet as my benchmarks show both OSs were pretty even with Vista winning most of them by a hair. Bottom line is Vista is no slouch and any performance issues that Vista had has been fixed.

For those wondering about boot time, they were pretty much even with the laptop. Keep in mind though that Vista takes longer to boot the more ram you have installed. My 4gb Ram Desktop takes several minutes. I'm guessing this is do to superfetch loading programs into memory for faster program loads....a feature I like since I tend to use the same programs all the time.
 
Oh no! Gunslinger bait! (kidding)

Let me just get this thread overwith right now:
Vista sucks! No it doesn't! Yes it does! You're wrong! No I'm not! Here's proof! Here's MY proof! I don't care! Neither do I!
Click to expand...


hahahahahaha maybe it does, maybe it doesn but i really dont care anymore i just use what i feel is best for each machine i use.
 
Well there you have it, people said I was insane to think that Vista was faster then XP but I just proved it.
Click to expand...

System:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600
2.00 GB SDRAM
7600gt graphics card

Tested:
Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP3

Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1

Program used:

Geekbench 2.0.19


Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate: 1741

Microsoft Windows XP Professional: 1936



Time to compress a 352mb file using 7-zip normal compression:

Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate: 3:51

Microsoft Windows XP Professional: 1:43



Time to open Microsoft Word 2007:

Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate:15.6

Microsoft Windows XP Professional: less than one second



Startup and shutdown times:

Microsoft Windows XP Professional: Startup 53, shutdown 11

Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate: Startup 1:54, shutdown not sure, I got bored at about 3 mins and walked away.




Well there you have it, I said you would have to be insane to think that Vista was faster than XP and I just proved it.
 
Last edited:
Oh man, this thread was like the Bat Signal to Gunslinger.
Im surprised that Vista was faster on those lower specifications. I would say that the hardware might have been optimized for Vista but it seems to be pre-vista.. Hmm
 
I can feel the tension building already :D

15.6 seconds to open word 2007? Something is really wrong there :\ Mine opens word 2007 in less than a second on Vista.
 
got my curiosity up... Think Ill give it a shot! I am at work, so I am running the XP test now... I will run the Vista test tonight and update my post with the results it gives...

**Note: Both HDDs are encrypted

XP Pro (32bit) SP3
Vista Ultimate (32bit) SP1

System:
Dell D620
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz
Memory: 2047MB
Virtual Memory: 3939MB
Video: Quadro NVS 110M - Integrated 256MBytes

---Benchmark: Geekbench 2.0.19
XP score: 2380
Vista score: 2317

---Benchmark: 3DMark03
XP score: 3259
Vista score: 3170

---7Zip_Time to compress a 435mb file using 7-zip normal compression:
XP: 3:58
Vista: 2:51

---Time to open Google Earth
XP: 13 seconds
Vista: 8 seconds
 
Last edited:
gunslinger said:
Well there you have it, I said you would have to be insane to think that Vista was faster than XP and I just proved it.
Click to expand...

eh all you proved was that there is something wrong with your computer.

My geekbench score on my desktop which has a slower cpu 2.1ghz x2 BE2350 (about equal to a x2 4200) is 2069. Granted I'm running 4gb instead of 2gb but still I don't know how important having more ram would play into that particular benchmark. WHen I get back home I'll pull out a stick and try again with 2gb to see. As for program start time...the video speaks for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgUittyWYAY

Edit: and I should note that without the capture software running software open time is even faster. What do you use to measure the time it takes to open a program?
 
Last edited:
JRDtechnet said:
eh all you proved was that there is something wrong with your computer.

My geekbench score on my desktop which has a slower cpu 2.1ghz x2 BE2350 (about equal to a x2 4200) is 2069. Granted I'm running 4gb instead of 2gb but still I don't know how important having more ram would play into that particular benchmark. WHen I get back home I'll pull out a stick and try again with 2gb to see. As for program start time...the video speaks for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgUittyWYAY

Edit: and I should note that without the capture software running software open time is even faster. What do you use to measure the time it takes to open a program?
Click to expand...


not all memory is the same. size means not a whole lot if it's slow memory.
I can prove that by replacing my stock memory stick with my gskill stick.
one 1 gig stick of my gskill out performs the 2 gigs of the stock memory.
 
@JRDtechnet

Its funny that when my benchmarks are different than yours my computer is bad.....lol.

I think CPU or one of the other computer mags did some benchmarking a while back with Vista SP1 and XP SP3 and they also found XP to be faster across the board. I guess their computers were bad also?

I'm sure I'll have some other systems come to the shop that I can test. If the results are the same will you say that those have bad hardware also?

As for your youtube vid, yup that is pretty fast. But for every fast Vista video you can show me, I can show you another that runs like a slug (maybe 3-4 to your 1).
 
Last edited:
gunslinger said:
@JRDtechnet

Its funny that when my benchmarks are different than yours my computer is bad.....lol.

I think CPU or one of the other computer mags did some benchmarking a while back with Vista SP1 and XP SP3 and they also found XP to be faster across the board. I guess their computers were bad also?

I'm sure I'll have some other systems come to the shop that I can test. If the results are the same will you say that those have bad hardware also?

As for your youtube vid, yup that is pretty fast. But for every fast Vista video you can show me, I can show you another that runs like a slug (maybe 3-4 to your 1).
Click to expand...

The most striking thing to me is your 7zip times, my laptop with 1 less core half the ram and half the speed can compress a file thats more than twice as large as the file you compressed 30seconds faster then your Dual-Core in Vista. That clearly should not be! Are you sure you installed sp1? Zip before sp1 was horrid.

As for magazines some show XP winning, some show then just about even and some show vista winning. The problem with reading magazine benchmarks is that you have no clue if there using the latest drivers or not. This is especially crucial with Vista, with XP hardware makers learned years ago how to squeeze all the performance out of XP.
 
If it was just me having problems with Vista I might agree with you, but its not just me. There are people on this site that will agree with me about Vista. Hundreds of articles written in dozens of computer magazines by people who have forgotten more about computers than you or I will ever know that will agree with me about Vista. Hundreds of people on youtube who have posted video after video of problems with Vista.

Then there are the benchmarks. You can't say just because the benchmarks don't agree with what you think there testing methods must be flawed.
 
gunslinger said:
If it was just me having problems with Vista I might agree with you, but its not just me. There are people on this site that will agree with me about Vista. Hundreds of articles written in dozens of computer magazines by people who have forgotten more about computers than you or I will ever know that will agree with me about Vista. Hundreds of people on youtube who have posted video after video of problems with Vista.

Then there are the benchmarks. You can't say just because the benchmarks don't agree with what you think there testing methods must be flawed.
Click to expand...

There are people on here that will agree with my on Vista too. But I want to know what in the world is going on with the zip scores. Any chance you can upload that file your compressing on rapidshare or something? I want to use the same file your using to zip and unzip.
 
JRDtechnet said:
There are people on here that will agree with me on Vista too. .
Click to expand...

yes I'm one of them.

@gunslinger

most articles are prior to sp1 and are old therefore not relevent.
I get to work with vista a lot lately on customers computers and the regular consumers are very happy with it, add to that DX10 for the gamers that is almost everyone enjoying vista.

!ust my 2 cents

p.s. vista is here anyway and we might aswell spend time talking about how to service/clean/fix rather then wasting our time bickering about what's better.
 
most articles are prior to sp1 and are old therefore not relevant.
I get to work with vista a lot lately on customers computers and the regular consumers are very happy with it, add to that DX10 for the gamers that is almost everyone enjoying vista.
Click to expand...

Actually one of the articles was a direct comparison of SP1 to SP3.
I do think its odd that most of your customers like Vista. Almost all of mine dislike it, some to the point of wanting to go back to XP. Understand I have almost no gamers in my customer base.


p.s. vista is here anyway and we might as well spend time talking about how to service/clean/fix rather then wasting our time bickering about what's better.
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent. Its here, and at lest for the next year or two we have to suffer through it. It just grinds my gears that because its new and shiny people think its better. As I said before ,today people have more good choices than they did in the days when XP was new. Today we if we don't want to use Vista we can use XP, and when they stop support for that we have Ubuntu and OS X. All three are far better than Vista. All three are cheaper, heck one is free.
 
Last edited:
Took a quick video of my machine opening Firefox/Word 2007, extracting and then rezipping Service Pack 3 files with Winrar and finally running Geekbench.

The video was recorded using CamStudio. It would be interesting to compare our rigs using the same recording software and the same tests.

Download

PC Spec;
Intel 8400 @ 3.6ghz
3.25GB RAM
8800 Ultra
2 x 250GB RAID 0
Vista 32bit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
A good Software List..must see!!
Replies
11
Views
7K
nesrinamb
N
Back
Top