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

/me hands *someone* a shovel with a diamond-coated edge so it's easier to dig the hole...
 
Jon55 said:
Amen. It's amazing how people so quickly forget XP got the same crap as Vista is getting when it was still in its early days (pre-SP2).
Click to expand...
This, in itself, hardly discredits people's complaints about upgrading to XP (or 2000, etc.).

In any case, what makes you think people have forgotten about this? I didn't like having to upgrade my memory to run XP over Windows 2000 at decent speeds, so I waited several years before making the switch. Are you trying to tell me that I actually did like this?
 
So why do people give Vista a hard time over XP when XP had the same problems at the beginning?

It's simply because they can.
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
Vista provides things that XP doesn't (you can argue the merits of what it provides all you like, but you can't dispute that it does provide things). New features generally come at the cost of performance, but with the ever-increasing speed of computer hardware, a new OS is almost always "fast enough" on mainstream hardware within a year of launch (a point which we are well beyond.) Sure you can get slightly better performance in XP under certain circumstances, but is it really worth it? Some people think yes. I think no. XP is as old as dirt and the few truly Vista-related issues I had have all been resolved since SP1 or earlier, so I no longer see the need to run XP.
Click to expand...

/thread

We need to stop bickering over performance benchmarks, the margins are getting smaller and smaller all the time. Its not worth it.
 
Slade said:
So why do people give Vista a hard time over XP when XP had the same problems at the beginning?
Click to expand...
Is it so inconceivable to you that people might have had problems upgrading with both of them?

I certainly didn't enjoy having to upgrade my ram to get decent performance out of XP, and likewise I didn't particularly enjoy having to upgrade my ram to get decent performance out of Vista. That fact that I had a negative experience with both of them (among many positive experiences) in no way makes the complaint less true.
 
jimmyb said:
Is it so inconceivable to you that people might have had problems upgrading with both of them?
Click to expand...
Based on the comment you quoted, I believe he's saying the same issues with Vista were present with XP when it was released, and so on.
 
I agree. And the fact that these issues are endemic with every release in no way lessens the fact that they are issues, which is what he is suggesting...

I had hardware compatibility issues at the release of XP, and eventually they were all resolved. I had hardware compatibility issues at the release of Vista as well, most which have been resolved. They were still issues in both cases.

To have my (very minor) complaints of Vista dismissed because XP had the same problems is an argument completely devoid of logic and common sense.
 
I'd agree with that completely. There's always been a period of "growing pains or maturity" needed with a new OS. I've always laughed though, at the people who bashed Vista as worthless because of these issues, instead of realizing that this is absolutely normal with all OSes, and most, if not all issues will be worked out in time. I don't think these people realize how complex an OS is, and how diverse of a hardware base it tries to work on, so it is only natural to expect some issues from the beginning.
 
When XP came out I remember people talking about how much better their games run on it. I was still on 98 at the time.
 
When XP first arrived device drivers for gaming graphic cards on that platform were woefully abysmal, just like they were for Vista when Vista first arrived. Dunno what those people you mention must've been smoking back in the day, but for the initial 3 to 5 months at least of XP's lifetime the 'fastest' gaming to be had was under Win Me! Craploads of people reverted to gaming under Win 98SE, not because 98SE was 'fastest' but because when you tried to game under Me the OS shat itself!

Reality is that when a new windows version arrives you get a shortish period of time during which gaming on the platform is woeful because device drivers for it aren't yet mature enough, then you get a considerably longer period of time during which the gaming is perfectly acceptable on the platform, but during which a whole heap of whiney-arses bewail the fact that it isn't as 'fast' as it was on the earlier and leaner version. Then, after a while, it all stops even mattering to anyone because hardware manufacturers stop wasting their resources supporting an older and now redundant OS version.

This time around that second phase of it all is proving to be a much more drawn out one, predominately because nowadays pretty much every 'pooter is on the internet, shitloads of people have realised the real potential of forums and blogs, and consequantly there's a helluva lot more people prancing about making themselves feel good by pretending that they know shit about stuff!


But underneath it's all still same as it ever was. If you REALLY want to improve the gaming performance then go get a better gaming 'pooter. Better hardware gets better framerates. It's as simple as that, and all the posturings about operating systems are, effectively, just so much hot air.
 
In my own experience, the absolute fastest "gaming OS" I've ever encountered was and still is Windows 2000 Professional. Way faster (by roughly 30%) than Win98SE on the machines I used to run it on, even faster than 95 believe it or not with games like Unreal and Quake I and II. But I've never been a hardcore gamer, just a Quaker so...

I've never used games as the end-all-be-all benchmark for system performance. It's more of a video card test than anything else, given all the factors involved. I prefer testing machines with real-world situations as I've already noted: how fast a machine can defrag a truly fragmented partition, how fast it can catalog thousands of media files with metadata, how fast it can do a suite of scripts with Office, that sort of thing.

This thread is going nowhere now... let's all agree to disagree as the case may be (yes, that rhymes, sue me) before they try to shut me down on HardOCP... Eminem, blow me... :)
 
I tend to omit mention of Win 2000 when engaging in such reminiscences, mainly because for the overwhelming bulk of 'gamers' the progression was from Win 9x -> Win XP, and not a very big proportion of people ever really did game on Win 2000. Plus the fact that its largest usage as a gaming platform came after XP had already got good enough, rather than before XP arrived.
 
Catweazle said:
This time around that second phase of it all is proving to be a much more drawn out one, predominately because nowadays pretty much every 'pooter is on the internet, shitloads of people have realised the real potential of forums and blogs, and consequantly there's a helluva lot more people prancing about making themselves feel good by pretending that they know shit about stuff!
Click to expand...

Damn, one of the most insightful summations I've read in quite a while. Add in a bit about internet toughguys and you've hit the nail on the head.
 
ThR!LL said:
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.
Click to expand...

I had no such issues with my ZS in Vista (I crossgraded to the X-Fi for reasons other than driver stability, honestly, since driver issues weren't an issue for me). In fact, my Mom (who also runs Vista Ultimate) has my ZS today (she has no driver issues, either).

The one possible difference? Both our PCs have Intel processors (P4 Northwood-C for me, and Northwood-B for mom) and Intel chipsets (875P for me, 845E for mom). Most of the cases where the ZS and Vista failed to cooperate had to do with nForce chipsets (and mostly with S754/939 AMD processor-based motherboards), at least going by the reports here on [H].
 
PGHammer said:
I had no such issues with my ZS in Vista (I crossgraded to the X-Fi for reasons other than driver stability, honestly, since driver issues weren't an issue for me). In fact, my Mom (who also runs Vista Ultimate) has my ZS today (she has no driver issues, either).

The one possible difference? Both our PCs have Intel processors (P4 Northwood-C for me, and Northwood-B for mom) and Intel chipsets (875P for me, 845E for mom). Most of the cases where the ZS and Vista failed to cooperate had to do with nForce chipsets (and mostly with S754/939 AMD processor-based motherboards), at least going by the reports here on [H].
Click to expand...

I've had Audigy 2 ZS cards in two nForce 4 based motherboards since the Vista consumer launch and never had a problem.

Creative did take their sweet time putting out decent drivers though. :mad:
 
Yet another reason for me to not switch to Vista:
perfressmall.gif

The test-system here had an Intel Dual Core. It would be quite different with a Quad Core CPU (even more in favor of XP x64 actually, considering where it got a little behind keeping up with Vista in CPU usage).
As you can clearly see, the XP x64 purple line blasts others away in the GUI and 2D department (fonts, text, drawing lines).

Considering the upcoming use of NAND/Flash/SSD as the OS storage medium I would say XP x64 will beat the crap out of Vista once more, for one because Vista is inherently doing a huge amount of sequential writes that aren't related to the processes of the user at the time the user is using the operating system, those writes will severely get in the way of speedy use. With XP x64 the full SSD write speeds will be available when asked for.

I'm currently in the process of creating a decent nlited version of XP x64, with the latest Intel Matrix set of drivers and other missing stuff that Vista has on board. When it's finished it will be available through the normal channels (bittorrent mostly). I will not provide a key though, to keep it fair for MicroSoft.
 
devil22 said:
Please. What does XP Pro x64 offer that Vista doesn't? Nothing that outweighs what you get with Vista x64, which is better driver and program support since MS makes it mandatory, Aero, integrated search, DX10, better support for limited users, protected mode IE, security improvements, accelerated desktop windows, etc. Assuming performance is more or less equal, Vista is much better for the average user.
Click to expand...
That's exactly it: What is your average user? The average user I know does not share its machine with others (except when showing movies etc.) and wants to be root (admin) on it ALL THE TIME.

Besides, if you want to have true protection of your data, you're much better off using a TrueCrypt filecontainer and use that for all your sensitive stuff. I use my XP x64 that way, and it's the safest method, by far outweighing internal Vista 'encryption' and user-shielding schemes. I startup as root (Admin) on my XP x64 system so I can do what I want, when I want, the way I want to with everything in the system, and then mount my TrueCrypt drive if I need my shielded data (punch in a password or use a fingerprint reader for it), like my Mozilla profiles, email etc.
 
Are people still avoiding Vista because they own an Audigy 2 ZS? Really? Their drivers have been perfectly fine for over a year now. Hell, on an Intel chipset, mine worked fine from Vista's launch.
Meow said:
As you can clearly see, the XP x64 purple line blasts others away in the GUI and 2D department (fonts, text, drawing lines).
Click to expand...
So you are avoiding Vista because it draws lines faster? Do some comparisons of some games and other high end apps, and I think you'll find some strinkingly different results. better yet, you don't have to run those tests...there are many reputable sites online that have done them already.
 
Meow said:
That's exactly it: What is your average user? The average user I know does not share its machine with others (except when showing movies etc.) and wants to be root (admin) on it ALL THE TIME.
Click to expand...

Your average user is not a single male/female. Your average user(s) are going to be families where several people share a machine. While encrypted drives and biometric readers are fine for power users and single use machines, in the family enviroment, the added security of Vista (UAC) are very tangible. Dad as admin, little Kyle, Kenny, Cartman, and Stan as limited users.

So, average Vista user is not a power user.
 
silent-circuit said:
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.
Click to expand...

QFT!

altcon said:
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?
Click to expand...

LoL at bulldozer.

silent-circuit said:
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.
Click to expand...

QFT.


There is almost no difference between Vista and XP anymore, and some games, like FC2 for example do like VIsta better.
 
Catweazle said:
Vista does some stuff better than XP does, some other stuff a wee bit slower than XP does, but doesn't really do anything so much slower than XP that it's worth really remarking upon.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right?
Check the example tests above.
And I can give you huge listings of incredible shortcomings in Vista. Like the amazing wasteful use of its winsxs folders, its ridiculous non-stop harddisk-polling, its shameful wow64 looping in the registry by overlooking its own sym-links, its annoying way of limiting what a user is allowed to do etc. etc.

Sure, if you're a total idiot and newbie, and you have all the time in the world, Vista is good and reasonably safe for you, but it will not be a fast and smooth operating system, ever.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Are people still avoiding Vista because they own an Audigy 2 ZS?
Click to expand...
Actually, I use an echoaudio Layla3G, its drivers are of the third party type, so they're the same in Vista64 as they are in XP64, except that installing and configuration in XP went about twice as quick as it did in Vista.

I also noticed this with wireless hardware and its 'third party' drivers and software. Vista doesn't like it, so it tries to do things by itself, and it has three ways to name networked connectivity, which is annoying to say the least. For Vista I had to click at least three times as much before being connected with my wireless USB Senao thingy. That is with the whole user allowance stuff switched off, even.

DeaconFrost said:
So you are avoiding Vista because it draws lines faster?
Click to expand...
I have not avoided Vista, ever. I have used it and am forced to use it for my work (I'm a sysadmin), but yes, XP64 draws lines and the GUI so obviously much faster than Vista does, that it makes you work much more productively in a real-world situation. You just can't stand the fact that Vista loses against XP64. Face it: Vista is slow and bloated, even on newer hardware.
 
Meow said:
I also noticed this with wireless hardware and its 'third party' drivers and software. Vista doesn't like it, so it tries to do things by itself, and it has three ways to name networked connectivity, which is annoying to say the least.
Click to expand...
Typically, unless you are using a major brand, it is better to use the Windows utility anyway. Secondly, Vista x64 doesn't have an issue with common 3rd party wireless utilities. I'm using Intel's ProSet to manage my wireless in my Dell Latitude D630 without issue.
 
Meow said:
I have not avoided Vista, ever. I have used it and am forced to use it for my work (I'm a sysadmin), but yes, XP64 draws lines and the GUI so obviously much faster than Vista does, that it makes you work much more productively in a real-world situation. You just can't stand the fact that Vista loses against XP64. Face it: Vista is slow and bloated, even on newer hardware.
Click to expand...

It's interesting you say that, seeing as according to your own benchmarks Vista x64 SP1 beats XP64 in many of the tests. Faster at lines maybe but check out those 2D shapes scores.

Enjoy your lines.
 
I can't remember where those benchmark results came from, but I've seen that image before and even referenced the article/review where they were posted in my own posts over the past year. Seems I didn't bookmark the site... ;)

However... the end result of the benchmarking that site did in that review placed XP Pro x64 squarely in the lead overall, which was why I was mentioned it in the first place long ago. The end result, the cumulative overall score at the end of all the testing procedures, put XP Pro x64 ahead of all the competition, even 2K3 x64 which is at the heart of XP Pro x64 in the first place so I found it pretty ironic.

But, as already noted, this thread is getting long in the tooth. Best way to end it gracefully:

To each his own, and YMMV...
 
Meow said:
Sure, if you're a total idiot and newbie, and you have all the time in the world, Vista is good and reasonably safe for you, but it will not be a fast and smooth operating system, ever.
Click to expand...
Or if you aren't a total idiot and a newb, you think with logic, and give Vista it's two weeks or so for SuperFetch to kick in, you'll wonder how you used XP in the past. All it takes is for someone to use Vista for a little while, and then go back to XP. You'll soon realize how much more efficient Vista is. You spouting off ridiculousness, and posting links from a old, stale comparison aren't going to convince anyone....quite the opposite actually. Why not offend the people who disgree with you as well? That might aid your cause too.
 
As long as Vista has had the proper amount of RAM it has been better than XP in my experience with it. So what a new OS came out with a higher requirement for RAM than we are use to. It happens with the release of any new OS; requirements go up. Besides, RAM is cheap anyway.
 
I can't believe we're STILL arguing over the better OS. Good grief. Vx64 wears the crown. I use it on my 3 boxes at home, my 2 for work (sysadmin) and more if I could. It runs fast as hell on all of them and I'm picky. XP is old news and Windows 7 will make Vista old news. It's how it goes.

Vista is far, far more stable than XP is and ever was.
 
Vista has different needs than XP. So to put Vista on a machine designed for XP hardware-wise and then complain is like putting a Honda Civic engine into an 18-wheeler and wondering why it won't move. Vista needs more RAM to work properly, like it or not. Bashing it because it runs like crap on 1GB RAM while XP flies is pointless, for example.

On SuperFetch: it takes time but it's worth the wait. I don't like reformatting anymore because then I have to wait while SuperFetch retrains itself. With XP, oftentimes formatting made it faster, but with Vista it's just the opposite. That, to me, is an indicator of stability (at least as far as having to avoid formats from "Windows rot.")
 
2 gb is the minimum you want for Vista. With 2gb it is 100% acceptable for anything. Under 2gb the OS still runs ok, but you start to give up some stuff.

I ran Vista on a p41.7 with 512megs of ram and it works wonders if you only want to surf the internet and play minesweeper. I couldn't watch a you tube video on it though.

Overall, it depends on what you plan to use the computer for.
 
Sovereign said:
So to put Vista on a machine designed for XP hardware-wise and then complain is like putting a Honda Civic engine into an 18-wheeler and wondering why it won't move. Vista needs more RAM to work properly, like it or not. Bashing it because it runs like crap on 1GB RAM while XP flies is pointless, for example.
Click to expand...
The tests here were performed with a system holding 4 GB DDR2 Mushkin RAM. The full 4GB could not be used by all the tested systems, but the 64 bit systems all profited from it, and XP64 was clearly fastest with it.

Vista is only interesting when vlited properly, disabling the shadowing overhead and a lot of its other annoying 'features'. By the way, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of OS patching and tweaking, I can recommend these three places (where I'm a regular); http://msfn.org/board | http://forum.retestrak.nl | http://www.iso-tek.org/
 
yanno, Meow, it's kinda cool that you're all orgasmic and soiling your drawers because you seen some longer lines on a picture, but realistically all that graph you keep posting is telling us is that if you're gonna be doing CAD work and the like you're gonna be doing it better in XPx64. Other than that, it's all much of a muchness and no justiofication whatsoever for expansive claims like "blasts it away".


Got me buggered why people can't restrict their gushings to what's actually relevent. Why they think that 'faster' must necessarily mean "better in every way". Like Joe Average said, earlier in the thread:

It's amazing that you people still look at the only indicator of PC performance as some fucking synthetic graphics or game benchmark as the fucking ruler that all OSes and hardware platforms should judged by.

It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

He and I have both thoroughly given all the available options extensive testing and usage, and settled on what suits OUR PERSONAL purposes best for our personal, everyday usage. Doesn't mean that somebody else's choice is somehow a wrong one. Different people have different usages and different needs. What suits one person best doesn't necessarily suit another person best,

FFS, for most of the computer activity I personally conduct I use Vista 32-bit! Wanna know why that'n is, for me, the 'best choice'? Easy-peasy. I can't be fucked swapping all my stuff over to a 64-bit install, because doing so simply doesn't give me enough benefit to make the time spent worthwhile. Simple as that. not worth swapping my everyday 'stuff' over until it's getting swapped over to the next box it's gotta live on.


All bloody sorts of considerations have to go into the decision about what's 'best' for a person.
 
The people that are defending vista are only defending it because they forked over the cash for it. I understand they don't want their OS to look bad but in reality the OS is just bloated and overloaded with glitter and glamor. We can always add that to XP by just skinning with window blinds or style XP. So why even settle for a slower OS. I remember when everyone was looking at vista for what it really was and then now people settling in and taking it. We can't settle in with something thats worse than what we started with. I know vista might be alright for some people but it isn't the best mainly. Xp x64 is just better. Gotta admit that from all the bench marks and all that. Someone should really stick the final nail on the coffin with some game benchmarks because some guys here are just true skeptics. I understand about defending your purchase but don't go around saying its faster and more reliable. All the tests prove otherwise lol.
 
Oh go play in a corner with the other kiddies, rather than throwing out the insults hey huh? WindowBlinds turns it into Vista? Bullshit! Ya really think XP does everything Vista can, and Vista is just a 'pretty version? Bullshit.


Here's the 'crunch' for me:

To do what I need to do regular on the PC, under XP I need to have somewhere in the vicinity of a core group of around 18 to 20 software packages installed. On a Vista box I get the same functionality with 7 or 8 software packages installed.

Tests of 'speed' are only relevent where 'speed' os needed, and any result which is indicative of a level above 'good enough' is an irrelevence anyways.
 
Brahmzy said:
I can't believe we're STILL arguing over the better OS. Good grief. Vx64 wears the crown.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's just not true. If recent linux versions do not count, among the desktop/workstation flavours of Microsoft's releases XP Pro 64bit Edition is wearing that crown.

I'd have preferred it if Microsoft gave us a Windows Server 2008 x64 edition altered for desktop/workstation use, but they didn't (want to) do that. The direct consequense of that stupid decision is that the smarter types of users will keep on using XP64 instead (and will not buy a new OS). This idea is pretty much dead on arrival, because it will not be supported by third party software/hardware dev.
 
Meow said:
I'd have preferred it if Microsoft gave us a Windows Server 2008 x64 edition altered for desktop/workstation use, but they didn't (want to) do that.
Click to expand...


errmmm...

Server 2008 and Vista SP1 are both Windows version NT 6.0.6001. One is the server version, the other the desktop/workstation version ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top