> Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test

allen6368 · 04-16-2008, 07:41 AM

New tests have revealed that XP with the beta Service Pack 3 has twice the performance of Vista, even with its long-awaited Service Pack 1.

Vista, both with and without SP1, performed over two times slower than XP with SP3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete the test, compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35 seconds.

Vista's performance with the service pack increased less than two percent compared to performance without SP1 — much lower than XP's SP3 improvement of 10 percent.

**CrowdAds** · [Remove Advertisement]

crabby · 04-16-2008, 07:56 AM

Link?

That is more of a performance difference than I expected. I'd like to see the system they used and the test run.

Surely we all know that Vista has to run slower than XP by virtue of it having more features running?

crabby

allen6368 · 04-17-2008, 02:50 AM

Here is the link... for u crabby to get along

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9291081,00.htm

crabby · 04-17-2008, 04:03 AM

The link doesn't work

But I found the article anyway

Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test - ZDNet.co.uk

The system is a 'Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM'

So is quite a low end Vista machine. I would like to see the benchmark run on a current desktop, but they do not mention wether the benchmark is available publicly.

I was more wondering what your opinion on the story was.

I think we should start a benchmarking thread with PC specs, so what would be your choice of benchmark to run?

crabby

Znod · 04-17-2008, 06:49 PM

Passmark's Performance Test or Geekbench. I like the former better. But, both have 32- and 64-bit software. On the other hand, I wonder is there is a 32-bit test designed for both 32- and 64- bit machines. It would be interesting to see what happens under the more usual operating conditions for 64-bit machines--i.e., sans native 64-bit software.

allen6368 · 04-18-2008, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crabby

The link doesn't work

But I found the article anyway

Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test - ZDNet.co.uk

The system is a 'Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM'

So is quite a low end Vista machine. I would like to see the benchmark run on a current desktop, but they do not mention wether the benchmark is available publicly.

I was more wondering what your opinion on the story was.

I think we should start a benchmarking thread with PC specs, so what would be your choice of benchmark to run?

crabby

Hi crabby you are right that the test was on a dell and the config of 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM' but that is the standard pc even the manufacturers are coming with and if we got for 4 GB RAM.. that is nothing to think of as a common environment to test...

As the test should always be their the current hardware in the practice..

What are your opinion on that

crabby · 04-20-2008, 02:05 PM

I agree that the benchmark should be based on current normal market PCs. Vista is ridiculously heavy, but I think this is because it was created with future PCs in mind. When XP was first released it was very slow in comparison to 98.

So it would be nice to see the benchmark updated with future changes in hardware. FOr instance, 2GB is steadily becoming the norm for UK macines.

crabby

Seansmit17 · 04-20-2008, 05:16 PM

I will admit that XP does seem to run faster for me but i still use vista.. its the eye candy lol

My sys specs are avg i think: AMD 64 X2 5000+ @2.9Ghz 2Gb DDR2 667MHZ RAM and a geforce 8500gt 256mb with a nforce 430 mobo. even with this set up my vista socre is a nice 5.3 and it runs good to so im happy even if its not as snappy as xp

ncgenek · 04-20-2008, 10:55 PM

[QUOTE=crabby;23148]I agree that the benchmark should be based on current normal market PCs. Vista is ridiculously heavy, but I think this is because it was created with future PCs in mind. When XP was first released it was very slow in comparison to 98.

So it would be nice to see the benchmark updated with future changes in hardware. FOr instance, 2GB is steadily becoming the norm for UK macines.

crabby
You need at least 2GB of RAM to run Vista OR you have to disable some stuff espeicially the eye candy.
Gene K

Seansmit17 · 04-20-2008, 11:17 PM

you dont have to have 2gb!! i and my borther was quite happily running along on 1gb with vista ultimate.. haveing the eye candy on wasnt a problem. Now that we both have 2gb of ram the only thing thats changed is mem usage has droped and a few programs were faster.

allen6368 · 04-21-2008, 01:12 AM

Yeah crabby... i appreciate your points.. nice to have all your input's

04-16-2008, 07:41 AM	#1
allen6368 Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 72	> Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test New tests have revealed that XP with the beta Service Pack 3 has twice the performance of Vista, even with its long-awaited Service Pack 1. Vista, both with and without SP1, performed over two times slower than XP with SP3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete the test, compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35 seconds. Vista's performance with the service pack increased less than two percent compared to performance without SP1 — much lower than XP's SP3 improvement of 10 percent.
(Offline)

04-16-2008, 07:56 AM	#2
crabby Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Salisbury, UK Posts: 2,355	Link? That is more of a performance difference than I expected. I'd like to see the system they used and the test run. Surely we all know that Vista has to run slower than XP by virtue of it having more features running? crabby
(Offline)

04-17-2008, 02:50 AM	#3
allen6368 Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 72	Here is the link... for u crabby to get along http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9291081,00.htm
(Offline)

04-17-2008, 04:03 AM	#4
crabby Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Salisbury, UK Posts: 2,355	The link doesn't work But I found the article anyway Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test - ZDNet.co.uk The system is a 'Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM' So is quite a low end Vista machine. I would like to see the benchmark run on a current desktop, but they do not mention wether the benchmark is available publicly. I was more wondering what your opinion on the story was. I think we should start a benchmarking thread with PC specs, so what would be your choice of benchmark to run? crabby
(Offline)

04-17-2008, 06:49 PM	#5
Znod ABXpert Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Phoenix AZ Posts: 3,136	Passmark's Performance Test or Geekbench. I like the former better. But, both have 32- and 64-bit software. On the other hand, I wonder is there is a 32-bit test designed for both 32- and 64- bit machines. It would be interesting to see what happens under the more usual operating conditions for 64-bit machines--i.e., sans native 64-bit software. __________________ [CENTER][sigpic][/sigpic] [COLOR="DeepSkyBlue"][/COLOR][URL=http://homepage.mac.com/donv1/.Pictures/Vista/Bannerxx.jpg][B]Larger Sig Pic Linked Here[/B][/URL][/CENTER]
(Offline)

04-20-2008, 02:05 PM	#7
crabby Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Salisbury, UK Posts: 2,355	I agree that the benchmark should be based on current normal market PCs. Vista is ridiculously heavy, but I think this is because it was created with future PCs in mind. When XP was first released it was very slow in comparison to 98. So it would be nice to see the benchmark updated with future changes in hardware. FOr instance, 2GB is steadily becoming the norm for UK macines. crabby
(Offline)

04-20-2008, 05:16 PM	#8
Seansmit17 Special Member - Vista Babble Promoter Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 643	I will admit that XP does seem to run faster for me but i still use vista.. its the eye candy lol My sys specs are avg i think: AMD 64 X2 5000+ @2.9Ghz 2Gb DDR2 667MHZ RAM and a geforce 8500gt 256mb with a nforce 430 mobo. even with this set up my vista socre is a nice 5.3 and it runs good to so im happy even if its not as snappy as xp __________________ I cant use BB Codes in my sig!!! Allow BB Code No Allow HTML No
(Offline)

04-20-2008, 10:55 PM	#9
ncgenek Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3	[QUOTE=crabby;23148]I agree that the benchmark should be based on current normal market PCs. Vista is ridiculously heavy, but I think this is because it was created with future PCs in mind. When XP was first released it was very slow in comparison to 98. So it would be nice to see the benchmark updated with future changes in hardware. FOr instance, 2GB is steadily becoming the norm for UK macines. crabby You need at least 2GB of RAM to run Vista OR you have to disable some stuff espeicially the eye candy. Gene K
(Offline)

04-20-2008, 11:17 PM	#10
Seansmit17 Special Member - Vista Babble Promoter Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 643	you dont have to have 2gb!! i and my borther was quite happily running along on 1gb with vista ultimate.. haveing the eye candy on wasnt a problem. Now that we both have 2gb of ram the only thing thats changed is mem usage has droped and a few programs were faster. __________________ I cant use BB Codes in my sig!!! Allow BB Code No Allow HTML No
(Offline)

04-21-2008, 01:12 AM	#11
allen6368 Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 72	Yeah crabby... i appreciate your points.. nice to have all your input's
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode