Windows 32bit Family XP RTM - 5.1.2600
XP SP1a - 1106
XP SP2 - 2180
Server 2003 RTM - 5.2.3790
Server 2003 SP1 - 1830
Server 2003 SP2 - 3959
Vista RTM - 6000.16386
Server 2008 Beta 3 - 6001.16510
Windows 64bit Family XP 64bit RTM - 5.2.3790.1830
XP 64bit SP2 - 3959
Server 2003 64bit RTM - 5.2.3790.1830
Server 2003 64bit SP2 - 3959
Vista 64bit RTM - 6000.16386
Server 2008 64bit Beta 3 - 6001.16510
Mikael at the Futuremark Forums ran a few benchmarks of Windows Vista SP1 (presumably the latest RC Refresh) vs. XP SP2 with some surprising results. It seems that having 8GB RAM with SuperFetch enabled doesn't hurt...
I just reinstalled Vista Home Premium 64-bit and thought I'd run some tests. These are just a bunch of quick benches I did to satisfy my own curiosity, but I thought I'd share them with you guys. The test config is as follows:
Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.2GHz (8*400)
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3
8GB DDR2-800 4-5-4-15
GeForce 8800GT 512MB (stock)
Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB <--- Vista Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Samsung SpinPoint T166 320GB <--- Windows XP Professional SP2
Some excerpts from the conclusion:
The general usage tests are either faster or equal to XP. However, Vista is on the slower drive (the WD), so it only makes the results even more impressive.
Crysis was almost certainly not cached into RAM during the test, but still loaded faster than in XP.
The horrendous file copy performance has been fixed. Performance is definitely higher than in XP. Also gone is the sometimes irritatingly long file delete times. File deletion seems instantaneous now, just like it's always been in XP.
Crysis: Performance is down 5-8% when looking at DX9 32/64-bit benches and DX10 is even worse off. The CPU test is also curious with a WinXP performance lead of 15%! This was definitely unexpected and something that would be interesting to research further.
Loading the image for the Photoshop test was about twice as fast in Vista compared to XP and it was the first time that file was loaded so it couldn't have been cached.
Gaming performance is still a let-down and it seems we'll have to live with it.
SuperFetch has a very large impact on program load times.
Posted by Kelxin (414 posts) on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008, 10:14 am
(1 replies to this Comment) | - IP: Hidden
"Gaming performance is still a let-down and it seems we'll have to live with it. "
Ummmmm, no we won't =P
XP works just fine still, and there are no reasons to upgrade. Lemme think, drop a couple hundred bucks on ram just to make the Gates family richer? I think not.
Posted by boe (168 posts) on Friday, Jan 18, 2008, 9:34 pm
- IP: Hidden
Yeah - with XP - I get faster file transfers, copies, moves. I get faster gaming performance. I get signficantly better network performance - all tested (by tg, gizmodo, engadget, cnet...) and proven even with the latest hardware, latest drivers, patches, SP RC to be much slower in Vista than XP.
Not sure why anyone would live with Vista when XP is an option.
Who knows Vienna/Windows 7 might be better but lord knows Vista is a lost cause. While some home users with new PCs who may not know any better might be OK with Vista - no knowledgeable IT person who has actually performed testing has interest in Vista - thus the incredibly miniscule number of real businesses with real IT departments who would even consider Vista.
Welcome to WinBeta.Org Betas - News - Reviews. 
1
4
3
1
0
0
Sponsored Links 
View Full Article/Benchmarks: 
