XP (x64) -vs- Vista (x64) Actual Benchmarks

Stormshade

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 29, 2004
Messages
105
As requested here are my Results of my Testing of:
Windows XP Pro (x64) With SP2 againt Windows Vista Ultimate (x64) with SP1
Both OS's were Fully installed Liscenced Copies. I have saved the scores for ALL tests as a File In case anyone would like to see them.
All tests were completed using the System in My Sig. All I did between tests was Wipe HDD's Install Next OS and Fully Update all drivers.
The Scores to the 3dmark tests Link to the actual results page on futuremark's website.

First Test I ran was The Passmark Test
Windows XP (x64) = 1397.8
Windows Vista (x64) = 1341.2

3DMark06
Windows XP (x64) = 13186
Windows Vista (x64) = 12394

3DMark05
Windows XP (x64) = 16715
Windows Vista (x64) = 16141

3DMark03
Windows XP (x64) = 38163
Windows Vista (X64) = 39685

3DMark01
Windows XP (x64) = 46937
Windows Vista (X64) = 35498


I personally Use Windows Vista Ultimate (x64) bit On My system. This is not intended to start any Topics about which is better.
This is only to help those that are not sure which they would prefer to make a somewhat more informed decision. Thank you for Listening :D
 

silent-circuit

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
16,133
A couple of issues here:

1. They're all synthetic benchmarks. You know what we say about synthetic benchmarks around here? They're useless for anything and everything save making sure there isn't something horribly wrong with your system. All the scores are with an order of magnitude of one another, so there's nothing way 'off' here, that's about all that's really been shown.

2. Vista's caching system means you need to give a Vista system at least two weeks to reach its full potential (cache fully built, no longer running in the background almost constantly) whereas an XP based system is at its fastest immediately after a wipe of the HDD, new install and defrag. On one hand it's true that your test is 'fair' because they're done at the same time in the OS's lifespan, on the other you're testing a fully prepared OS against one still sorting itself out.
 

Joe Average

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
15,459
A couple of issues here:

1. They're all synthetic benchmarks. You know what we say about synthetic benchmarks around here? They're useless for anything and everything save making sure there isn't something horribly wrong with your system. All the scores are with an order of magnitude of one another, so there's nothing way 'off' here, that's about all that's really been shown.

2. Vista's caching system means you need to give a Vista system at least two weeks to reach its full potential (cache fully built, no longer running in the background almost constantly) whereas an XP based system is at its fastest immediately after a wipe of the HDD, new install and defrag. On one hand it's true that your test is 'fair' because they're done at the same time in the OS's lifespan, on the other you're testing a fully prepared OS against one still sorting itself out.
QFMFT.

I was about to go into a tirade about the applications chosen for this said benchmark test but... well, I'm probably the biggest proponent of XP Pro x64 here at this forum, always have been, always will be. ;) It's faster on the hardware I have than Vista x64 (any edition) even after a period of time has gone by.

One interesting note, however: Server 2008 by default is faster than XP Pro x64 on this machine... go figure. :D
 

Cyrilix

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
2,188
The problem with 3DMark is that the result is a score we don't know how to calculate based on a composition of CPU and GPU scores. I think it'd be nice if you could run some game benchmarks with raw FPS figures.
 

mobusta1

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
2,580
Nice I think you should run the same test again in a week or two using bost OS's equally and see if any of the numbers change. Also if you have time run some benchys on games like cod4/crysis etc you know the drill :D
 
A

altcon

Guest
nice try....
You'd probably need a bulldozer to get some fan love lost for the Vista64 crowd.
I can testify it's the same with games as the synthetics, and I have Vista64 for over a year now for the " kick in time" BS.
BTW - you all realize that the time vista needs to adapt is for quicker launch and cache options not actual performance once the benchmark is loaded, right? all you lovers KNOW THAT?
 

silent-circuit

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
16,133
nice try....
You'd probably need a bulldozer to get some fan love lost for the Vista64 crowd.
I can testify it's the same with games as the synthetics, and I have Vista64 for over a year now for the " kick in time" BS.
BTW - you all realize that the time vista needs to adapt is for quicker launch and cache options not actual performance once the benchmark is loaded, right? all you lovers KNOW THAT?
It's been shown /repeatedly/ now by HardOCP and others that there is a minimal loss in framerate, if /any/ (and in many cases, an increase) going from XP to Vista in game in modern titles. Yes, some older games run better in XP, but they run plenty fast, generally well over 100 FPS, on the same hardware in Vista. The 'extra' FPS do absolutely nothing for gameplay.
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,635
I ran similar tests on my older Inspiron E1705 laptop last night, and my numbers came out (proportionately) similar to the OP's, though my 3DMark06 benches were virtually identical, less than 1% difference with XP64 a few points higher. 3DMark01 was very different, XP64 was several thousand points higher. Passmark also favored XP64 a lot.

I've been off XP for a while, and now using XP64 for the first time in a while it just looks so old. I used to like the Classic grey-themed look, but Aero has really spoiled me.
 

screwballl

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
104
I ran similar tests in the past with XP vs Vista, 32 and 64bit (on the system in my sig) and with both gaming benchmarks AND synthetic benchmarks, XP (both 32 and 64bit) was ALWAYS faster and ALWAYS much more stable.
 

Cyrilix

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
2,188
I ran similar tests in the past with XP vs Vista, 32 and 64bit (on the system in my sig) and with both gaming benchmarks AND synthetic benchmarks, XP (both 32 and 64bit) was ALWAYS faster and ALWAYS much more stable.
When you put it that way, you make it seem like Vista just crashes and burns all the time. Surely, if you're going to say that XP is ALWAYS (can't forget the caps) more stable, you should start mentioning why (just a piece of advice in case you want to avoid starting a flame war). Also, you mention running synthetic benchmarks in the past. How long ago in the past? Pre-SP1 or Post SP1?

altcon said:
BTW - you all realize that the time vista needs to adapt is for quicker launch and cache options not actual performance once the benchmark is loaded, right? all you lovers KNOW THAT?
Could you please elaborate? You say "quicker launch" and "cache options". So what if I ask you, "does that mean maps in TF2 might load faster?" or "does that mean that when a game requests a frequently used resource from disk, it can acquire it right away?" What is your answer to these two questions? What is your justification? Assuming you have an answer, what does this mean with respect to actual game performance?
 

mwarps

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Messages
7,013
I ran similar tests in the past with XP vs Vista, 32 and 64bit (on the system in my sig) and with both gaming benchmarks AND synthetic benchmarks, XP (both 32 and 64bit) was ALWAYS faster and ALWAYS much more stable.
I'm not seeing any numbers mentioned here, and I don't see any mention of testing methodology. Maybe before making claims like this, you should have some facts ready to back up your claims.. instead of using caps on words that really have no meaning.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
3,589
Well, I thank the OP for the time spent on testing, but they are synthetic benchmarks. Not to mention that the benchmarks for the most are fairly close together. The question that you have to ask is "is it going to be a noticeable difference in games?"; probably not. I have gone back and forth 3 times now from XP x64 to Vista x64, and the third time I have stayed. I think it just took me a while to warm up to all of the little differences in Vista.
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,635
I ran similar tests in the past with XP vs Vista, 32 and 64bit (on the system in my sig) and with both gaming benchmarks AND synthetic benchmarks, XP (both 32 and 64bit) was ALWAYS faster and ALWAYS much more stable.
I'm always curious about this "stable" comment. People like to say XP is "more stable" .. As someone who has used Vista x64 since RTM, and now uses Vista x64 at work, I have not once, *since RTM*, seen Vista x64 do something that would make me say it is "less stable" than anything. It has absolutely, without question, NEVER crashed on me. It has never blue screen'd, never randomly "app not responding", never went off into lala land, never did anything I did not fully expect. Absolutely never. This is on two laptops and three desktops. Each has been run for extended periods of time, days or weeks, without issue, running various tasks.

To me, less than 100% stability is not stable. Vista x64, for me, is stable. As was XP64, and XP32, and Win2K if I can remember back that far.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,087
I've had a few driver issues with Vista, and getting the system stable took more time than XP but I still prefer Vista x64.
 

TheNuker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2001
Messages
398
**10 pages long topic detected**

Still prefer XP over Vista even if I used a NASA computer.
 

ThR!LL

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
342
The main reason I'm not switching to vista anytime soon is due to the fact I own an Audigy 2 ZS card and I'm not willing to give it up anytime soon for silly driver problems.
 

ScretHate

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2001
Messages
1,889
Superfetch, a feature which allows applications to load faster due to being pre-cached in the memory should not affect graphical benchmarks in any way.

XP x64 is based off of the 2003 server kernel, and as such is vastly more mature than Vista x64. You guys need to get your facts straight.
 

Redshirt #24

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
3,461
I wouldn't use the phrase "vastly more mature," at least not yet, but it's certainly obvious that Vista is where the vast majority of MS's attention is focused (well, when they're not sitting in darkened rooms listening to Ernst Blofeld talking about Windows 7). I've said it before, I'm saying it again: while it's pretty damn stable and robust in its own right, and I do love it, XP/x64 is basically the stopgap of this iteration; it sucks, but there you go.
 

Joe Average

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
15,459
I wouldn't use the phrase "vastly more mature," at least not yet, but it's certainly obvious that Vista is where the vast majority of MS's attention is focused (well, when they're not sitting in darkened rooms listening to Ernst Blofeld talking about Windows 7). I've said it before, I'm saying it again: while it's pretty damn stable and robust in its own right, and I do love it, XP/x64 is basically the stopgap of this iteration; it sucks, but there you go.
That's basic rubbish, from start to finish. Inaccurate, entirely too loaded with personal opinion instead of fact, and... hmmm... well... those of us that that have used, continue to use, and will continue to use XP Pro x64 for quite probably years to come would (and do, actually) consider absolute horse and bull shit. ;)

How anyone can call an OS that's been out for nearly 5 years, is based on the proven and solid as a rock Windows Server 2003 - and if you say that's not a rock solid OS you are a complete and utter buffoon - and kick ass from start to finish, then... well... I guess you're a buffoon anyway if that's the line of thought that exists.

Go figure...
 

Thuleman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
5,833
Let those who want to use XP64 use XP64, and those who want to use Vista64 use Vista64. Problem solved.

XP64 support officially ends in April 2009, of course they will supply security fixes for a few more years, so the XP64 crowd can enjoy that. Those who move(d) to Vista will be able to enjoy new functionality and continuing development.

Personally I don't care which is 10% faster than the other, that difference in performance is meaningless to me. All I know is that when I tried to install XP64 on an ASUS P5W64 WS Pro, it would bluescreen as if there is no tomorrow, not so in Vista64, and that's good enough for me. ;)

If I wanted an OS that I have to monkey with to make it run, I'd install Linux.
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,635
XP64 never took "monkeying" for me to run. It was more a matter of Googling the drivers than anything else. I think the most technically complex thing I had to do was install the Broadcom 440x ethernet drivers through Device Manager -> Update rather than through a setup executable.
 

theTIK

Gawd
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
757
Doesn't anyone remember how everyone said XP was too slow, too bloated, and too unstable when it first came out? This happens with every operating system and it continues until a little after SP2 comes out, after that happens the OS has been around long enough that there are not that many people running the previous one.

Vista probably is slightly slower in benchmarks and probably has slightly less FPS in games. Honestly though, it's not a drastic difference if you have a decent computer. Vista also does a lot more things then XP does. The superfetch, the background defragging, it looks way better, the 64 bit version is more comprehensive then XP64. 99.9% of the people still running XP right now will run vista and some point. You don't see people still running Windows 2000 anymore, some dragged their feet but eventually went to XP. Like I said, the same thing happens with every new OS(with the exception of Windows ME, god that was horrible).
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,180
The main reason I'm not switching to vista anytime soon is due to the fact I own an Audigy 2 ZS card and I'm not willing to give it up anytime soon for silly driver problems.
Did you ever bother to try it, or is this just based off something you heard? My Audigy 2 ZS works perfectly fine in Vista, even Vista x64, with a 5.1 surround speaker setup. I get full surround in movies and games, using the default drivers from Creative's website.
 

Dethman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
1,071
i just love chess in vista......if it was in XP, i would be an xp man, but gotta have chess
 

Cerulean

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
9,249
Bump for support (and also so that I find easily find this thread as future reference).
 

Redshirt #24

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
3,461
That's basic rubbish, from start to finish. Inaccurate, entirely too loaded with personal opinion instead of fact, and... hmmm... well... those of us that that have used, continue to use, and will continue to use XP Pro x64 for quite probably years to come would (and do, actually) consider absolute horse and bull shit. ;)

How anyone can call an OS that's been out for nearly 5 years, is based on the proven and solid as a rock Windows Server 2003 - and if you say that's not a rock solid OS you are a complete and utter buffoon - and kick ass from start to finish, then... well... I guess you're a buffoon anyway if that's the line of thought that exists.

Go figure...
Okay, who deleted the original "vastly more mature" post (which was referring to Vista, by the way)? :confused:

Don't get me wrong, now, Joe...I was one of the folks who got in on the original XP/x64 TAP trade-in thing back in 2005. I'm one of the people who tends to swear by it in terms of stability...original driver issues notwithstanding, it's never given me any serious problems. However, to me, it has always been meant as a stopgap/test bed for things that of course ended up in Vista--sort of, and I've used this analogy more than once over the last couple of years, the Windows ME of the piece. Only it's a Windows ME that people like using. :)
 

screwballl

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
104
When you put it that way, you make it seem like Vista just crashes and burns all the time. Surely, if you're going to say that XP is ALWAYS (can't forget the caps) more stable, you should start mentioning why (just a piece of advice in case you want to avoid starting a flame war). Also, you mention running synthetic benchmarks in the past. How long ago in the past? Pre-SP1 or Post SP1?



Could you please elaborate? You say "quicker launch" and "cache options". So what if I ask you, "does that mean maps in TF2 might load faster?" or "does that mean that when a game requests a frequently used resource from disk, it can acquire it right away?" What is your answer to these two questions? What is your justification? Assuming you have an answer, what does this mean with respect to actual game performance?
My testing has been done always with XP SP2 or SP3 and tested against Vista both pre- and post- SP1. Vista has always (yes ALWAYS) been less stable, more problematic and more prone to various errors. For benchmark programs, see below.

I'm not seeing any numbers mentioned here, and I don't see any mention of testing methodology. Maybe before making claims like this, you should have some facts ready to back up your claims.. instead of using caps on words that really have no meaning.
Cinebench, 3DMark05 and Vantage, SuperPi, Crysis benchmarks, Lightmark 2007, and photoshop scripts.

I'm always curious about this "stable" comment. People like to say XP is "more stable" .. As someone who has used Vista x64 since RTM, and now uses Vista x64 at work, I have not once, *since RTM*, seen Vista x64 do something that would make me say it is "less stable" than anything. It has absolutely, without question, NEVER crashed on me. It has never blue screen'd, never randomly "app not responding", never went off into lala land, never did anything I did not fully expect. Absolutely never. This is on two laptops and three desktops. Each has been run for extended periods of time, days or weeks, without issue, running various tasks.

To me, less than 100% stability is not stable. Vista x64, for me, is stable. As was XP64, and XP32, and Win2K if I can remember back that far.
I have used Vista since it was called Longhorn beta. Drivers have always been an issue, even to this day. For example, if I install it on my main system (in my sig), the networking only works maybe 10% of the time. The rest of the time it says it cannot connect to the internet. Looking in the Device Manager, it shows chipset errors when I have all the proper drivers installed either from the default Vista install or from Gigabyte. Yet no other OS has this issue (XP or any other flavor of linux that I have used).
I have built and setup many other systems with Vista and only one actually runs without a problem (although it is slow), which is my mother in laws Dell B110 with Celeron 2.53GHz, onboard video.


I used to be a staff member for another tech website (that is a type of nemesis from here) before the corruption took over there.
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,180
For example, if I install it on my main system (in my sig), the networking only works maybe 10% of the time. The rest of the time it says it cannot connect to the internet.
If that problem affected everyone or a majority of people with that board, then you'd have a case, but to blame Vista for it, or call Vista less stable than XP because of your individual issue isn't going to fly too well. One person's experience does not make for a proven fact. That board is an Intel based board, which have been very stable to set up and use with XP and Vista. If Gigabyte's drivers for the NIC aren't working, go straight to the manufacturer, such as Marvell, depending on who makes the NIC. If those drivers don't work, and you have already loaded the Intel chipset drivers, it's time to start looking elsehwere for the issue, such as a bad ethernet cable, faulty router, etc.
 

screwballl

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
104
I have seen this issue on a wide range of systems that use the Realtek and Marvel Gigabit network ports with standard networking hardware (in my case a SMC router connected to Cox cable). I have seen this with Linksys routers and Dlink routers and Belkin routers. I have seen it with Cox cable and Embarq DSL. So it is not tied to one system, one router, or one cable.
I have been dealing with this since Vista was in beta and released on a wide range of hardware, I just used my one home setup as an example.
 

HenryBravo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
357
I have used Vista since it was called Longhorn beta. Drivers have always been an issue, even to this day. For example, if I install it on my main system (in my sig), the networking only works maybe 10% of the time. The rest of the time it says it cannot connect to the internet. Looking in the Device Manager, it shows chipset errors when I have all the proper drivers installed either from the default Vista install or from Gigabyte. Yet no other OS has this issue (XP or any other flavor of linux that I have used).
If you can't even get Vista running properly on a modern Intel platform then your technical skills must be limited, which means you don't have the credentials to go around bashing Vista.

HB
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,180
I have seen this issue on a wide range of systems that use the Realtek and Marvel Gigabit network ports
Both have worked flawlessly for me in the home and in corporate settings in both Vista and Vista x64. For Marvell, I always used their drivers from their website, and they gave me zero issues at all.
 

Dethman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
1,071
If you can't even get Vista running properly on a modern Intel platform then your technical skills must be limited, which means you don't have the credentials to go around bashing Vista.

HB
yeah he does, and ill tell you why

vista is an operating system that is supposed to be used by 100s of millions of people....with that said...you shouldn't have to have technical skills to get it to work properly, anyone should be able to use it

any user has the credentials to state their opinion on the product.
 

Volcanon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
350
I think Vista is much easier to get working than XP, if you're running newish hardware.

Having said that, I think that once driver optimizations are smoothed out, you'll probably only see a 5-10% difference, if that.

I didn't notice the framerate drop from XP to Vista. At any rate it didn't kill my experience, I can still run at the same res and detail settings.
 

screwballl

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
104
If you can't even get Vista running properly on a modern Intel platform then your technical skills must be limited, which means you don't have the credentials to go around bashing Vista.

HB
you're right... 15 years as a PC tech, most of that time working in the technical field... the last several years working as a hardware tester.... yep I don't have the expertise or knowledge to handle this... sorry for clouding your opinion with my facts...
 

HenryBravo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
357
you're right... 15 years as a PC tech, most of that time working in the technical field... the last several years working as a hardware tester.... yep I don't have the expertise or knowledge to handle this... sorry for clouding your opinion with my facts...
Wow with all that experience you can't get Vista running properly on a P35? LOL
 

HenryBravo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
357
yeah he does, and ill tell you why

vista is an operating system that is supposed to be used by 100s of millions of people....with that said...you shouldn't have to have technical skills to get it to work properly, anyone should be able to use it
Well the reality of the situation is installing an OS does take some technical skills. Vista came preinstalled on most of those 100's of millions of computers you mentioned. If you're going to install an OS you need to know a few things. For example, the order of installation is OS->service packs->chipset drivers->peripheral drivers. Get that out of order and you may have problems. Another example is motherboard manufacturer's web sites often have outdated chipset drivers. Screwball mentioned he got his drivers from Gigabyte. Experienced OS installers go to intel.com (or nvidia.com) to get the latest Chipset Installation Utility or nforce drivers.

any user has the credentials to state their opinion on the product.
Unfortunately that is true. If I inadvertently unplug a spark plug wire on my Mercedes, I can start telling everyone that the engine runs rough in all Mercedes cars.

HB
 
Top