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

We'll see how joe average's benchmarks come up also once hes ready to get more of an idea. Deathfrombelow's setup had problems which could have affected the results. Just waiting to see how his rig does. I had a setup with a socket 939 dfi lanparty ut 3800 x2 @ 3ghz before with 4GB of ddr ram on vista and it never gave me those kinds of results. I remember company of hereos and many other games dropped in fps a lot compared to x64 xp.
 
Conker said:
We'll see how joe average's benchmarks come up also once hes ready to get more of an idea. Deathfrombelow's setup had problems which could have affected the results. Just waiting to see how his rig does. I had a setup with a socket 939 dfi lanparty ut 3800 x2 @ 3ghz before with 4GB of ddr ram on vista and it never gave me those kinds of results. I remember company of hereos and many other games dropped in fps a lot.
Click to expand...

No, my results were fine. The issues were on a completely different machine than what I benched on. Go re-read my thread.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
I've finished the XP tests, wiped the drive/installed Vista, and now I'm doing the Vista benches.
Click to expand...
Why aren't you capable of multi-booting between XP64 and Vista? I have both on my system, they don't influence each other one bit. Even better; I have a linux x64 next to them on the one drive. Ever hear of partitioning your boot-drive?
 
Meow said:
Why aren't you capable of multi-booting between XP64 and Vista? I have both on my system, they don't influence each other one bit. Even better; I have a linux x64 next to them on the one drive. Ever hear of partitioning your boot-drive?
Click to expand...

Putting both OS'es on the same drive would give an advantage to the OS closer to the edge of the drive.

Want to blow any more of your credibility?
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Putting both OS'es on the same drive would give an advantage to the OS closer to the edge of the drive.

Want to blow any more of your credibility?
Click to expand...
LOL, seems you have never heard of SSD ? They don't have an "edge", fool.
 
Meow said:
LOL, seems you have never heard of SSD ? They don't have an "edge", fool.
Click to expand...

If I had done the benchmarks on an SSD then you might have a case.

I used a regular 250 GB hard drive, as you would know if you had actually read my benchmark thread.
 
Meow said:
Ever hear of partitioning your boot-drive?
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the concept that hard drives are faster towards the outer edges - meaning the beginning - than towards the center or the end - meaning the middle of the platters or the inside portion closest to the spindle?

Having a multiboot setup for testing would skew the results in favor of the first OS installed on the drive because of hard drive mechanics and the simple physics of "it's faster at the beginning and slows down as you get deeper into the drive."

The only accurate way to do OS testing is to install an OS clean on a bare blank empty null and void hard drive, do whatever you're going to do, then install the next OS on the drive and remove the partition(s) so it's also being installed on a bare blank empty null and void hard drive.

Look at this benchmark I just ran:

hdtunebenchmarkmaxtor6yey3.png


Just for the sake of argument, that's a Maxtor 7200 RPM 80GB IDE drive I have in my box for storage, testing, etc. Note the classic downward stairstep of a physical hard drive - the left side of the graph is the highest rated, and it just gets slower as it gets deeper into the drive. Let's say I split that drive into two partitions and installed XP Pro x64 in the beginning portion, and then installed Vista Business x64 in the second partition.

Right out of the gate, the Vista Business x64 testing will be (on average) 15% slower automagically from being on the middle-to-end part of the drive. At the mid-way point, around 40GB into the drive, where Vista Business x64 would be installed, you're looking at a max speed of about 48MB/s and just in that little space (look at the graph and you'll see the intersection of 50% capacity along the bottom and then follow that line up to where the blue intersects - the MB/s is measured and shown on the left).

Soooo... dual or triple booting for testing = no fucking way, Jose...

Some of us, especially people like me, have been benchmarking PCs since before your average Joe (not me, I assure you) ever heard of "that Internet thing" around 1992-ish or so... it's a science, really... and we've been doing it so long we've got it down to... well... a science. :D

And Meow, no offense buddy, but you really need to STFU sometimes. Calling DeathFromBelow a fool is just crossing too many lines. If you can't participate without insults like that, hell, I'll just start reporting everything you have the balls to even post when it's in that manner.

Stop being a child, you're not doing it so well.
 
Joe Average said:
Ever heard of the concept that hard drives are faster towards the outer edges
Click to expand...
Ever heard of switching partitions around? In case you wondered; I co-developed Ranish partition manager. Switching partitions around on large drives is as easy as sh_t with open source tools like that. I've been using them for testing and multibooting partitions since 1993. I've co-written books about the structure of Master Boot Records, among others.
Guess you need a little more experience than you think you have, kids.

Apart from that, as I clearly stated in one of my earlier posts about XP64 versus Vista x64, I personally boot from an Intel X25-E slc SSD. They don't have edges. I highly recommend them, they're a LOT faster than the fastest HDD available today. About time you people switched.

Stop behaving like children and face the facts. My age is 42.
 
LOL. And when are you going to tell us the names of the programs you used to benchmark all of those different OSes you have in that silly graph of yours, "meow?" Talk about children. If you are 42, you are one SAD 42 year old.
 
devil22 said:
LOL. And when are you going to tell us the names of the programs you used to benchmark all of those different OSes you have in that silly graph of yours, "meow?" Talk about children. If you are 42, you are one SAD 42 year old.
Click to expand...

Dude, that wasn't necessary, because it wasn't sarcastic or funny. If it was funny, I would laugh along. That was bluntly cruel. Maybe, he likes cats. Cat people are obsessed with their pets.
 
Meow said:
LOL, seems you have never heard of SSD ? They don't have an "edge", fool.
Click to expand...

What if he isn't using a Solid State Drive?

Meow said:
Ever heard of switching partitions around? In case you wondered; I co-developed Ranish partition manager. Switching partitions around on large drives is as easy as sh_t with open source tools like that. I've been using them for testing and multibooting partitions since 1993. I've co-written books about the structure of Master Boot Records, among others.
Guess you need a little more experience than you think you have, kids.

Apart from that, as I clearly stated in one of my earlier posts about XP64 versus Vista x64, I personally boot from an Intel X25-E slc SSD. They don't have edges. I highly recommend them, they're a LOT faster than the fastest HDD available today. About time you people switched.

Stop behaving like children and face the facts. My age is 42.
Click to expand...

If you expect anybody to respect anything you say, you'll give them the details as to what software you've used to benchmark the two operating systems. Until then, your posts on the subject are no more credible than anything else.
 
devil22 said:
LOL. And when are you going to tell us the names of the programs you used to benchmark all of those different OSes you have in that silly graph of yours.
Click to expand...
Can you people even read? I was not the one who has done the tests which those graphs represented. Also; I don't feel the need to have to defend them, since they're not even favouring XP64 as much as I do myself from my own user-experiences at home.

Stop behaving like you know everything about me, because it is quite clear you do not.
 
AbJ32 said:
What if he isn't using a Solid State Drive?
Click to expand...
As I wrote: Then *at least* consider the option that others might not be as silly as to be using a different position on a HDD for testing different operating systems at the same time. How stupid do you think I am?

What many of you fail to see here is that you will never reach trustworthy testing results if you "wipe your disk clean", then install the other OS and do your tests. An average OS is not created to be measured right after installation. The image I showed you showed tests that have been performed on OS installs that were all in use for exactly the same duration of time, on the same drive. Yes, all of them. Boot-managers are not hard to come by these days.

Why do you feel the need to portray those who favor XP x64 Edition over Vista x64 as stupid sad 42 year olds? You realize how sad that looks for the smart reader?
 
Meow said:
Can you people even read? I was not the one who has done the tests which those graphs represented. Also; I don't feel the need to have to defend them, since they're not even favouring XP64 as much as I do myself from my own user-experiences at home.

Stop behaving like you know everything about me, because it is quite clear you do not.
Click to expand...

I can read fine, thanks. Maybe you should learn to read, your own post for example states:

Those tests were done when I was still employed by the FNWI at the University of Amsterdam, by me and some related ICT students as part of a pretty demanding project,
Click to expand...

Now you're saying it wasn't you. Which is it? And people have posted many benchmarks showing Vista to be faster than XP. Your graph to the contrary doesn't count because you cannot tell us the names of the programs used to benchmark the OSes so the numbers can be verified. I've used XP for years and I know for a fact Vista is faster, your fud not withstanding, and benchmarks posted here that are not made up bs like yours prove that as well. So, now what, are you gonna repeat yourself some more without backing up your claims and keep denying proof to the contrary?
 
Meow: Move on, simple.

"Moving partitions" is still a ridiculously inefficient way of accomplishing what imaging can do so easily it's not even funny and keeps the "playing field" for the benchmark - meaning the hard drive itself - the same for each test.

If you can't see the logic and the sheer simplicity of that, well...

And I'm 42 myself, so don't play the age card, you'll lose.
 
Joe Average said:
The only accurate way to do OS testing is to install an OS clean on a bare blank empty null and void hard drive
Click to expand...
Well, that's the most logical, efficient, and accurate way of doing so, but apparently accuracy isn't important to some readers.

Meow, let's just say you actually did help develop a partition manager. Wouldn't that obviously bias you towards using your own product? Just because it works, doesn't mean it is the best way to do something. If you want a truly accurate test, you eliminate all variables but one, and that variable would be the OS in question. You handle this by using a drive imagine application. Simple as that, really.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Well, that's the most logical, efficient, and accurate way of doing so
Click to expand...
No, it clearly is not. In case you didn't know, the average HDD deteriorates quite a bit. So if you "wipe your disk clean" for every test, the last one will actually suffer more from that than the first install.

Also, it isn't as efficient as installing all your test systems on one drive and then simply moving the primary partitions around (after having used them for a while).
What it is, "wiping your disk clean and then testing the next OS", is the laziest method. Obviously. If you're really serious about testing OSs, you'll do it the right way.
 
All of SHUT THE FUCK UP! ENOUGH!
If you like VISTA, use VISTA. If you like XP, use XP. If you like Linux, use Linux. If you believe 7beta1 is stable enough right now, use 7beta1. Have you tried all the current OSes? Oh, you haven't... Then SHUT UP! I tried it all, I know what I like to use for home. Please, do the same. OSes aren't our wives and she isn't running for a beauty pageant. Jesus...I thought having many choices were a good thing.

Thank you!
 
Meow said:
If you're really serious about testing OSs, you'll do it the right way.
Click to expand...
Right, which is, as I suggested, re-imaging the disk each time. Wiping a disk does nothing to deteriorate its performance, so I'm not sure where you'd get that from.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Right, which is, as I suggested, re-imaging the disk each time. Wiping a disk does nothing to deteriorate its performance, so I'm not sure where you'd get that from.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you want to make that claim? Harddisks deteriorate by the minute, mind you. Have you ever heard of a tool called MHDD? I guess not. It will show you how FAST your mechanical HD breaks down as you use it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZLLeMP6uII&fmt=18

Trust me, I know what I'm writing about. Harddisks die out fast, especially the new monsters on sale these days.
 
Meow said:
Are you sure you want to make that claim?
Click to expand...
Yes, I will make that claim. If you use different hard drives, you introduce another variable to the testing method. And, we all learned in 3rd grade why that was bad for an experiment.

Furthermore, anyone who claims to know what they are talking about, and is of sound mind, wouldn't be linking to YouTube as proof. I can link you to a video that shows how our planet is ruled by aliens called the Grays, but that certainly doesn't make it truthful, now does it?
 
Meow said:
Trust me, I know what I'm writing about.
Click to expand...

That right there is the death knell to credibility. The fact that you came back to this quite dead thread and revived it yet again speaks volumes...

To make the statement again: the only true way to benchmark computers accurately is to have the OS installed on the exact same partition in the exact same place every time, bit-for-bit if possible (which is easy with imaging software). Anything less is going to provide skewed results.

'Nuff typed.

Maybe a kindly mod will lock this one up tight once and for all...
 
Joe Average said:
That right there is the death knell to credibility.
Click to expand...
Except when it is true. Which it clearly is. You just can't handle the fact that you were wrong and I was right.

Joe Average said:
The fact that you came back to this quite dead thread and revived it yet again speaks volumes...
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah. Have anything useful to add? Like for example THE REASON this thread was revived, which is to answer to your silly claims about XP x64 versus Vista x64.

I still get faster results from XP64 than from Windows 7, this time using Prime95 and OCCT. Windows 7 might be faster on processors that are barely for sale yet, but on Quad Core and Dual Core systems, XP64 beats them all, hands down. By the way, XP x64 is also significantly faster with NTFS than EXT3 using the right controllers for SSD, making it the fastest Desktop/Workstation OS around a.t.m.

This company always uses custom MS XP pro x64 Edition images for testing.
 
Meow said:
You just can't handle the fact that you were wrong and I was right.
Click to expand...
Sounds more like you are the one failing to grasp reality, and you are reviving this thread from 3 weeks ago because YOU are the one who can't accept the results and let it go. The fact you went after this thread from that long ago, just to post another dig at Joe Average shows you have one serious personality flaw. If my wife can learn to let things go in that amount of time, you should be able to do so as well. Accept the facts, move on, and let the world keep spinning.
Meow said:
This company always uses custom MS XP pro x64 Edition images for testing.
Click to expand...
Didn't you tell me earlier in the thread that imaging a drive is bad for and deteriorates the drive....in post #218. Now you are linking to a company that uses imaging? Joe is right. You dug yourself a whole so deep because if your insane need for arguing that you don't even know what you are trying to defend anymore. Let it go, get some help, and move on.
 
Dude, for the last fucking time:

I am the loudest, most outspoken SUPPORTER of XP Professional x64 this forum has ever seen, so get in line and stop confusing me with someone that hasn't supported your position in the past, which I have done on multiple occasions and other people damned well know it.

I've been preaching XP Pro x64 since day one when it came out years past, and I never stopped supporting it and in some situations I still DO support it over Vista, and perhaps even Windows 7 - but it all depends on the situation.

You need to learn how to read and comprehend stuff, and quick, because you're still in the hole you dug and it's getting deeper. And linking to a site that specializes in creating and distributing hacked versions of XP Pro x64? Please... shot down in flames and still whining on the way down...

'Nuff typed.
 
Why did this thread get closed down:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1299869&page=16
?

It's highly relevant still.

I've been succesfully using DirectX 10 on XP64 for months now, the switcher (to switch between 9 and 10) works perfectly fine too.

XP x64 is not going away anytime soon; http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3198 As long as microsoft releases updates for 2003 SP2 x64, any XP x64 user will be able to apply them. Even better: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=8599 <- There isn't even an end date for XP x64 yet!

So I really don't see why that Deadsomething guy needs to nag on about reviving old subjects when they are as relevant as can be. I still don't trust any of his testing. He's probably paid well by Microsoft to bump up sales and to wipe XP out of the way. Many MS fanboys seem to be busy with that these days.
 
Meow said:
He's probably paid well by Microsoft to bump up sales and to wipe XP out of the way. Many MS fanboys seem to be busy with that these days.
Click to expand...
How childish do you have to be? Don't you realize how much of a cop-out this is? Boo hooo, he doesn't agree with me, so he's obviously paid by Microsoft and he's a fan boy....boo hoo. That might be the saddest and poorest argument you've come up with yet, and shows you are clearly out of intellectual ammunition. If you are honestly trying to convince people of your point, why would you ever resort to such childish and desperate tactics?
 
In case you don't know;
Microsoft doesn't particularly like the fact that so many are still happily using XP x64. Just like with their virus-hunting these days, they actually PAY people to help them with their 'issues'. And believe me, they pay well enough to make users untrustworthy when they keep pushing about upgrading to Vista when I clearly see it isn't any faster on today's hardware.

I don't trust the way this Death-figure starts up a new thread to avoid having counter-arguments pop up. Any old thread will do thank you very much!
 
Just post in newer threads please. Dead thread resurrection is usually considered bad form.
But since you guys have already bumped this one, keep it civil please and keep the discussion relevant.
 
Meow said:
they actually PAY people to help them with their 'issues'. And believe me, they pay well enough to make users untrustworthy when they keep pushing about upgrading to Vista when I clearly see it isn't any faster on today's hardware.
Click to expand...
First, where's your proof that Microsoft is paying people to falsify benchmark scores. Second, you are one individual person....nothing more, nothing less. Countless others on here, online, and from various other well known sites have shown (and storngly believe) that Vista is as fast or faster than any flavor of XP. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you need to resort to the childishness of labeling that person a fan boy, or suggest they are being paid to lie. I can even tell you honestly, on my Dell Latitude D630, Vista x64 runs faster and is more responsive for my normal everyday work than XP x86 and XP x64 on this very same laptop. I don't need benchmarks, articles, debates, etc to tell me so. I can see it for myself.

At some point, you need to realize that nobody cares about one person's individual thoughts on this subject. Each person is going to make their own decisions based on the feature set of the OS....not one some person tells them to do on a forum. If someone else runs some tests that show Vista is faster, that's life....deal with it. Necroposting in an old thread because you can't bare to be wrong or have someone disagree with you only shows the character flaw I mentioned before. Let it go, deal with it, and move along.

Have you ever read reviews for cars? One well known-trusted website will rip a car to shreds, while another well respect site suggests it is a great car, fun to drive, and a great value. So how to you know the truth? You stop reading a website and go try out the bloody car. Boo hoo, someone disagrees with you. If you feel XP x64 is faster, than drop the attitude and arguing and use it on your computer. No one cares, trust me. If DeathFromBelow feels Vista is faster, and has done his own testing to show for it...then he'll use Vista on his computer. Do you two share the same computer? No, so why does it bother you so? Let it go and move along.
 
When I do tests, I simply do them for my own use, for my own pleasure, to get my software preferences to work best and the most productive for me.
I got Vista x64 for my hardware when I bought it, but I still see no reason to move away from XP x64 Edition. On MY hardware (including a Lenovo notebook) XP x64 runs a hell of a lot smoother and faster than Vista does. I've tried Vista for ages, but it just doesn't cut it against a well-tuned XP64.

And so, do you really think I can't make my own fair judgement on what OS is fastest on current-day hardware? To be honest, I don't care about anyone else's opinion on that, aside from the fact that manufacturer support could be damaged by false claims about an OS. So when I see people pretending and lying about something I know simply isn't the case, I will respond to that.
 
Meow said:
And so, do you really think I can't make my own fair judgement on what OS is fastest on current-day hardware?
Click to expand...

Based on your personal attacks, trolling, and the fact that even people who like 64-bit XP have asked you to shut up, nope. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. LOL at you accusing me of being paid by Microsoft, I wish.

This thread really needs to die.
 
Meow, nobody cares what you run, go run XP-64, or a commodore-64 (a true 'bloat' free OS :rolleyes:)for all we care. What's more important is what's good for the average consumer. Vista with it's speed, security and stability trumps XP easily. It also looks much better, for what it's worth. Many public tests have shown Vista is faster than XP/XP-64, some show otherwise, but since they're all close anyway, you might as well look at other things, like those things I mentioned. MS has enough money to pay people to argue for it, it also has enough money to make a decent product that compels people to argue for it. Not much else to say, guess I'll wait for your next poorly thought out childesh anti-vista troll before I say more..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top