Why no Windows 7 benchmarks by OCP?

hardc0re

Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
869
Am I missing something? are the benchmarks coming? will there be benchmarks? I'd love to see win xp, vista, and 7 head to head in gaming, apps, etc...
 

zupahwez0e

n00b
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
63
i think they have been using win7 in their reviews since a little after the RC came out
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,462
Hard OCP benchmarking Windows XP would be a step backwards and I would laugh at them. As for 7 vs Vista we really don't need a comparison because they are so very similar on mid/high (gaming) rigs, it's not worth the time.
 

sub.genius

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
172
They are first and foremost a computer hardware enthusiast website so... reviewing an OS kinda goes against that since software != hardware, yanno. ;)

I would expect them to probably do a "30 Days with Windows 7" article here at some point in the near future but, even so, that's not really a benchmarking-type of analysis but more of a personal usability publication.

I'm glad to see they don't do software or OS reviews. If they did, they'd turn into just another tech website like so many others...
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,413
Hard OCP benchmarking Windows XP would be a step backwards and I would laugh at them. As for 7 vs Vista we really don't need a comparison because they are so very similar on mid/high (gaming) rigs, it's not worth the time.

So what about netbooks, laptops and other not so fast systems.

not everyone has a quad core rig with 8g of ram and a high end video card beleive it or not, even on this site.
 

heelix

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
1,078
Hard OCP benchmarking Windows XP would be a step backwards and I would laugh at them. As for 7 vs Vista we really don't need a comparison because they are so very similar on mid/high (gaming) rigs, it's not worth the time.

I would not laugh. I compared Vista-64 to XP-64 and stayed on x64 XP. When I get a free weekend I'm planning to put XP64 and Win7 head to head to see if it might be time to upgrade.

Likewise, I don't see much of a point comparing Vista to Win7.
 

RubbingAlcoholic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
455
So what about netbooks, laptops and other not so fast systems.

not everyone has a quad core rig with 8g of ram and a high end video card beleive it or not, even on this site.

How many reviews of low end video cards to you see on this site? How many reviews of low end CPUs do you see? How many reviews regarding low end laptops or netbooks have you ever seen in this site's history? Kyle has stated he doesn't care about low end stuff because his readers don't care about it.

BTW I'm browsing right now on a 1.2ghz C2D ULV and I don't care about it either. I can tell you I didn't need benchmarks to perceive an improvement between Vista and 7 on this machine, but the primary reason I'd ever upgrade an OS would not relate to benchmark speeds.
 

Ritorix

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2002
Messages
1,825
They have done OS comparisons before, I had to dig a bit to find them.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2007/06/05/xp_vs_vista_tale_framerates_redux/
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2007/05/07/xp_vs_vista_tale_framerates/
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2005/05/04/windows_xp_pro_x64_edition_gaming_comparison/

The facts were not kind to the newly-released Vista:
1178010522zQcJDy9Cez_6_2_l.gif

1180585113b2IdtfYgb3_5_1_l.gif


The [H] reviews talk a lot about playable settings and what hardware and money is required to get there. So if you could get a 10% performance improvement by choosing OS #1 over OS #2, allowing you to bump up your visual settings, that seems like a no-brainer. Just like a hardware upgrade. An OS after all exists only to run your software; if you "upgrade" your gaming system's OS only to take a 10% gaming performance hit, what the hell kind of upgrade was that?

In my own completely unscientific tests, 7 games between 0 and ~10% slower than XP but no real playable difference; no game became noticeably slower and I'm still using 7. No game was faster on 7 than on XP. But that was back on build 7000 and it really depended on the game, so those tests are pretty worthless now. I did tests both on my (new at the time) i7 system and a netbook, with similar results under two very different sets of hardware and games.

I would love to see [H] do a professional comparison. Theres a huge difference between an H review and the "heres XP vs Win 7 in unspecified synthetic benchmarks" garbage we got from other sites.
 
Last edited:

Langford

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
1,339
They have done OS comparisons before, I had to dig a bit to find them.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2007/06/05/xp_vs_vista_tale_framerates_redux/
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2007/05/07/xp_vs_vista_tale_framerates/
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2005/05/04/windows_xp_pro_x64_edition_gaming_comparison/

The facts were not kind to the newly-released Vista:
IMG
IMG

The [H] reviews talk a lot about playable settings and what hardware and money is required to get there. So if you could get a 10% performance improvement by choosing OS #1 over OS #2, allowing you to bump up your visual settings, that seems like a no-brainer. An OS after all exists only to run your software; if you "upgrade" your gaming system's OS only to get a 10% gaming performance hit, what the hell kind of upgrade is that?

In my own completely unscientific tests, 7 games between 0 and ~10% slower than XP but no real playable difference; no game became noticeably slower and I'm still using 7. It also didnt get any faster than XP. But that was back on build 7000 and it really depended on the game, I would love to see a site like [H] do a professional comparison.

Even with better performance, XP will unfortunately not be supported well enough on future hardware. That's just the way things always are. Ideally Windows 7 will live on new faster hardware, so the performance hit may be unnoticed. Of course it's always good to ask why things are different, to see if maybe the loss can be tweaked away. Then again, I'm easy to please, anything 30fps or more looks pretty good by my definition.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
At this point there really isn't need for this type of review. For a PC gaming enthusiast, Windows 7 is THE Windows platform for now. Period, end of discussion. No Eyefinity or Ti-SLI or DX10 or DX11. Each one by itself isn't a huge deal though Eyefinity is gaining a hell of a following that I want to join!

At this point a LOT just doesn't work on XP and that list is stating grow faster as XP is finally starting to see the beginning of the end.

For rigs that we are buying these days, i5s and i7s, with at least 4GB in them, Windows 7 is the only logical choice. Because the driver model in 7 is the same as Vista's, people who are on Vista will see most of the top line features as well. But XP is just going to more and more left behind in the department.
 
A

akotlar

Guest
Am I missing something? are the benchmarks coming? will there be benchmarks? I'd love to see win xp, vista, and 7 head to head in gaming, apps, etc...

Unless you're running DX11, benchmarks will be virtually the same. Although a DX11 DirectCompute4 vs DX10 comparison would be nice. It's kind of been done, but implicitly. No real exposition on the benefits of Dx11 vs DX10 for DX10 hardware
 
Top