Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown

[joepic]

I have been accused of "MS bashing" in another post. So keeping up with my track record of posting the news and facts (you decide) here is another news article on Vista performance. Bottom line, if you use your PC to encode multi-media or run professional graphics applications stay with XP.

The complete story can be found here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

Conclusion: K.O. For Windows Vista?
Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications).

Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors.

There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and
we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications.

We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue.

There is good news as well: we did not find evidence that Windows Vista's new and fancy AeroGlass interface consumes more energy than Windows XP's 2D desktop. Although our measurements indicate a 1 W increase in power draw at the plug, this is too little of a difference to draw any conclusions. Obviously, the requirements for displaying all elements in 3D, rotating and moving them aren't enough to heat up graphics processors. This might also be a result of Windows Vista's more advanced implementation of ACPI 2.0 (and parts of 3.0), which allows the control of power of system components separately.

Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP. Is this a K.O. for Windows Vista in the enthusiast space?

If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it; stay with XP. But as long as you don't need to finish workloads in record time, we believe it makes sense to consider these three bullet points:

Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for free.

There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead.

No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor.

[Soopafresh]

Thanks a lot for the info. 18-24% slower at transcodes? Ouch.

[InXess]

Many will spend few hundred bucks on hardware to up their performance to later give it away for the pleasure of having Vista. Good post.

[ron spencer]

if drivers are not an issue 2000 kicks all butt in this....

[lordsmurf]

2000 is a bit long in the tooth after Windows XP Pro SP1 came out, and especially SP2. NT4 is a pest.

Vista was just slow and clunky and did nothing for me, when I tried the RC1. I doubt it's changed. Reports say it has not.

[SatStorm]

IMO win2K is about 10% faster XP pro SP2.

using virtualdub/TMPGenc that is...

[solarfox]

Windows 2000 may be a bit "long in the tooth", but so far I've seen no reason to even switch over to XP, much less Vista. Everything I actually need/want to do can be done in Win2K just fine.

[Specialist]

This info was already posted in this thread:

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=320699&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[ron spencer]

Win2000, as long as you are not a gamer, is perfect....it flies on dual core, with no overhead. So if all you want is video encoding, etc. go for it on dual boot.

For me I used Nlite and stripped XP down and used that as a 2nd OS..even with no virus scanner or software firewall, 2000 is still faster.

At present, 2000 is by far the fastest OS for digital imaging and video encoding...it is just sooo smooth...

[Des]

But, what do you do if you have built a 64bit system as I have recently done (against the recomendation of a prior forum post https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=316432&highlight= )

Windows XP 64 pro is pretty much the same price as Vista Home Premium 64 when purchased as an OEM on EBay and doesn't seem to fare too much better.

Linux 64 is ultra attractive, but all my software is Windows, much of it from the tools section here as well as Photoshop, which I use daily. It would be beyond annoyance to repurchase/relearn/reacquire things for Linux.

I am betting, which is my way of saying I have purchased Vista 64 Home Premium, that many of the 'conveniences' can be turned off and allow the system to run smoother/faster. Also, I figure that patches, sp's, etc. will come down the pike to improve things plus better drivers.

I should receive the disk by this weekend. I'm going to set Vista up on it's own drive as a dual boot system and then play and play and play until I decide if it was worth my while or a business write-off.

Will eventually post my opinion/experiences.

--dES

[alfredodedarc]

That analysis only makes perfect sense. Vista is so hungry for RAM, video GPU and CPU cycles [read: bloatware] that it's hard to imagine any application running better on Vista than on XP.

If you like eye candy and shiny baubles, Vista is the OS for you. If you actually need to get some work done, stick with XP for now, at least until the hardware catches up. In my opinion, the absolute MINIMUM requirements for Vista [any flavor] would be a quad [AMD or Intel] processor, 4 GB DDRAM @ 800mhz, 512 MB dedicated video card running on the PCI Express bus, SATA 300 HDD. Even then, don't expect XP-like performance.

One huge Vista bug I have discovered: the hard drive thrashes incessantly. The root of this problem seems to be the 'System Restore' feature. Once that is disabled, the HD settles down.

Good luck.

[Robert Simandl]

I remember when XP first came out people were saying the same things... resource hog, etc. After a while, articles started appearing telling us what services and stuff to shut off to make XP a good OS for multimedia. Anyone know of any such articles yet for Vista?

[ViRaL1]

This sounds familiar. When XP first came out 98 and Me were the mainstream OSes and most PCs had 128MB or less and much slower processors than we have now. Anyone seen an XP system running 128MB lately? Even a fresh install, let alone applications and services. As more and more apps are optimized for Vista, and more powerful systems become mainstream, performance will improve.

[Des]

I've been living with Vista 64 for a few weeks now (I have w2k on a 2nd HD for dual boot system just in case) and I have to say that over all I have not experienced much trouble or lag time running programs, tasks etc. One of the first things I did was turn off the 'Allow/Disallow' crap! You can do that through MSConfig at a command prompt.

Now, I haven't benchmarked my system or programs or tasks, instead I do the 'Windchill' to see if it feels slower than it is (like when the wind makes it feel colder than it is), maybe I should trademark it the "Windows Chill Method"

Anyway, nothing really feels slower to me than it did with w2k. Certainly not significantly slower. Actually most programs and tasks seem on par with w2k or faster.

I have made it a point to acquire 64bit drivers and programs when ever possible -no easy task Really the only program natively 64bit other than IE7 which I seldom use is WM 11 and Thunderbird. All my other programs are running as 32 bit emulation, Photoshop, Proshowgold, Audacity, Womble, etc.

My set is an AMD 4000+, 1.5gb of DDR 32000 RAM running in dual channel mode, an Radeon x1300 video card, 1 SATA 300 160gb hd and 2 IDE ATA 133 HD (under Vista, on w2k I have 2 more drives that are on a Promise card not supported by Vista

Things I don't like about Vista 64 are mostly driver then software related. Biggest annoyance being no driver for the Promise Ultra 133 board. I spoke with Promise and they have no plans to support it under Vista 64
I can't get my ATI TV Wonder 550 Elite card to capture from the s-video or composite using the horrific media center. I've begun researching out alternatives. ATI doesn't offer MMC and ChrisTV 4.99 doesn't do anything. I might need to downgrade the card drivers to 32 bit instead of 64 bit.
Biggest setback is I can't get Quickdex which is a 16bit cardfile type application from Windows 3.11 days <geesh> to work in 64bit. No 16bit support. This is the program I love to use for my phonebook, recipes, etc. Personal dissapointment but not a tragedy.

So, overall, I am not dissapointed but not thrilled either. I figure Vista 64 has a good one or two more years of true growth to be what it should be. Would I recommend it? No, but I wouldn't discourage it either.

--dES

[ssj2_goha]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070227/tc_pcworld/129410

I also saw this. it seems that most people say vista is a step backwards.

[JohnnyMalaria]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070227/tc_pcworld/129410

I also saw this. it seems that most people say vista is a step backwards.

No. That article states that ONE PERSON says Vista is a step backwards. And specifically in regard to "user interface friction".

Sheesh. If you want to get near-zero UIF, install Windows 3.1 on a quad-core

Oh, and the person saying Vista is a step backwards (i.e., Andreas Pfeiffer - "Independent" researcher) is in Apple's pockets:

http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/008344.html

[InXess]

A lag he refers to is not imaginary and can be easily measured. The fact is a fact and it's difficult to argue with what's obvious. regardless of where he's coming from Vista is a mixed bag and certainly doesn't deliver neither on "easier" or "faster" or "better" computing front. Whoever posts about Vista usually says, "hey it worked I was able to do this or that without major issues" - big accomplishment !!! . I have yet to find consistent praise of certain Vista functionality indicating improved experience beside desktop design which in itself is neither innovative (Apple "late" copy) nor functionally better (can you do more then you could do before?). I think CNET is fundamentally right calling it Windows XP SP3 as it simply doesn't deliver in any area you look at. XP loaded with up-to-date utilities and gadgets does everything Vista does, no DRM traps and is more responsive. If the only Vista advantage comes down to Aero interface as pointed by vast majority then as a major upgrade it has to be considered a failure. That's the way I look at it.

[lordsmurf]

Oh, and the person saying Vista is a step backwards (i.e., Andreas Pfeiffer - "Independent" researcher) is in Apple's pockets:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/008344.html

Why, oh why, does this happen so much in the past year?

I still remember that IBM ape that talked about how bad CD/DVD was, then <wink,wink,nod,nod> said data tapes were best (especially the IBM ones!).

Some of these tech "news" sites are becoming little more than online shit-stains that further propaganda. Yahoo and PC World are by far the two worst offenders in my mind.

[InXess]

It is obvious that harshest critics will be coming from the Apple's camp. So what? Does it make it less valid? Obviously they are watching just like MS camp is watching Apple. Nothing will take away from jealous looks MS fans were giving Apple's new OS at the time they were launching OS X. The same cannot be said now. It's all old news when it comes to Vista as we have seen it before. No one's jealous about MS new system, people are rather shaking their heads.

[guns1inger]

Every new system has a bunch of sad gits just waiting for it to fail and pointing out it's flaws (real or imagined) from the first beta onwards. MS happen to be targeted more often than others, but I have also seen an article "10 things I hate about iPhone" from someone who hasn't actually owned one.

Frankly, if you haven't used it, your opinion is just that and has no factual basis. If you have used it on sub standard or sub-requirement hardware, more fool you. Until is has been around a while, stabilised (SP1) and software has been tweaked for it, comparisons are pointless. Vista is not XP. Period. Hell, when OSX came out, any pre-OSX software run on it ran much slower than on the previous OS. It wasn't until applications were completely re-written for the new OS that any performance was seen. Vista won't require as much work, so the lag should not be as long.

But mostly all I am hearing is the chattering of monkeys looking for failure, but very little in the way of independent facts.

[InXess]

Look at the top of the thread for the beginning. Some monkeys as you say don't even look at the banana they were given... just swallow the whole thing and then wonder about diarrhea.

[lordsmurf]

Frankly, if you haven't used it, your opinion is just that and has no factual basis.

I cannot agree with a bland statement like this.

For example, I can look at an iPhone and tell you without even holding it that fingerprints on the screen make it obnoxious. I have a small area on my current LG phone that is whiz-bang shiny metal crap, and I'm forever wiping it clean. I would hate to have a phone where the whole stupid thing could be covered in visible fingerprints just by normal use.

The price too. I don't need to use it or own it to tell you the price is ridiculous.

And that's from a person who's only seen an iPhone once in passing in a store, and read nearly nothing on it.

I simply don't care about Apple "new and spiffy" crap products. That in itself is a third negative.

At least two of those have factual basis (price, fingerprints). The last one is pure opinion.

One need not use or own a product to make fair assessments about it (within reason).

[computerchuck]

There is the big software issue I have a beef with. One of my clients purchased a new hp and I told them they might be in for a shock. Sure enough we tried to load peachtree 2005 accounting software and it wouldn't load the system. Called tech support and they said buy a new version. Another customer of mine had to buy a new printer and guess what, I spent 2 hours downloading the driver for it even after the employee that sold it said it was vista ready out of the box. It only had xp drivers. And changing the name of the workgroup.....took 5 extra steps when all u have to do is just rightlclick my computer on xp. If vista can't run recently purchased software then there is a problem. They want business to adopt it, but it won't run there software. cancel or allow...

[JohnnyMalaria]

I think CNET is fundamentally right calling it Windows XP SP3 as it simply doesn't deliver in any area you look at. XP loaded with up-to-date utilities and gadgets does everything Vista does, no DRM traps and is more responsive. If the only Vista advantage comes down to Aero interface as pointed by vast majority then as a major upgrade it has to be considered a failure. That's the way I look at it.

Well, CNET and anyone else who thinks that all Vista offers is Aero are showing their fundamental ignorance and lack of research.

Unfortunately (for Microsoft), all the new stuff is "under the hood" and most definitely NOT available in XP. The benefits of these, though, won't show until third-party developers begin to ship products that use them. Just like when Intel launched processors with MMX. "Who the hell needs MMX? No software supports it!" was the clarion cry.

As far as menu speeds and other bizarre, how-can-I-waste-someone's-money-today "investigations", consider this:

Whether or not the actual time it takes for a menu to appear is longer or not, if the overall perception of the OS is that is more responsive, then that's what counts. I haven't noticed slower menus on Vista. I also fail to understand where the slowness is in XP. To me, the menus appear instantly. What I have noticed with Vista is that it hard drives "go to sleep" sooner so that if I open a folder (say from a program's "Open File" function), there is a very significant and - yes, ANNOYING, lag. Often up to a few seconds. I then hear the click of the hard drive coming back online. Nevertheless, after using Vista extensively for 3 months now, there are many areas where the OS does "feel" more responsive. And there are plenty of reports from others that have the same impression.

Comparison with OSX? - I have no experience with OSX except for an occasional fiddle with it in CompUSA or similar ilk. Nor do I have the desire to find out....

[joepic]

Just one more horror story for this great OS

Vista Download Disaster
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2098770,00.asp

"Jim took a recent backup image of his Averatec hard drive and reverted to Windows XP.

Where did Jim go wrong? Apparently, it was when he took a risk on the downloadable version of Windows Vista.

Microsoft has made a number of small missteps here, but the biggie is that it won't send out a Windows DVD to download customers. If the only way to "repair" Vista is to use that DVD, Microsoft must send them one. To say no is inexcusable.

Jim McCabe's experience may not be the same as everyone who goes this route, but if it can happen to a tech-savvy user like him, it could happen to you. I will say this: Hearing this Microsoft Windows Vista story did make me say "Wow.""

[JohnnyMalaria]

Just one more horror story for this great OS

Vista Download Disaster
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2098770,00.asp

"Jim took a recent backup image of his Averatec hard drive and reverted to Windows XP.

Where did Jim go wrong? Apparently, it was when he took a risk on the downloadable version of Windows Vista.

Microsoft has made a number of small missteps here, but the biggie is that it won't send out a Windows DVD to download customers. If the only way to "repair" Vista is to use that DVD, Microsoft must send them one. To say no is inexcusable.

Jim McCabe's experience may not be the same as everyone who goes this route, but if it can happen to a tech-savvy user like him, it could happen to you. I will say this: Hearing this Microsoft Windows Vista story did make me say "Wow.""

Certainly not good. I hope MS implement a policy that does permit users with failed upgrades via download to get a DVD.

But, for such a tech savvy person, it beggars belief that HE DIDN'T BURN THE DOWNLOAD TO A DVD FIRST. Maybe not an obvious move for your average user, but a techie....

[joepic]

Here is another users input on his Vista experience:

Windows Vista: I’m Breaking up with You
http://keznews.com/2420_Windows_Vista__I’m_Breaking_up_with_You

No, seriously. When I know I have time, I’m “upgrading” from Windows Vista to Windows XP.

I stand by my original assertion that the shipping version of this OS is late beta, at best. I realize that other enthusiasts are leaving Windows altogether (and leaping instead to Apple’s OS X), but there’s not yet enough momentum behind my willingness to do that. I’ll leave the installs of Vista 32 and 64 on this PC, but I’ll spend most (if not all) of my time back in tried-and-true Windows XP.

I’ll give Vista a second chance when the first service pack is released later this year, but until then…

1. My scanner doesn’t really work (Hewlett-Packard Laserjet 3052). HP hasn’t caught up with support yet, and software updates won’t be available until SP1 time-frame. The software works like a charm in XP - amazingly well, as a matter of fact.

2. Windows Movie Maker crashes on a regular basis.

3. My IPFax software doesn’t work (the driver will likely never be updated to be Vista-compliant). Never, EVER caused me a problem in XP. I need this software to work, and dual-booting to use this is not an option.

4. I still can’t get my Lifecam to work, but wound up purchasing the vastly superior Logitech QuickCam Ultra Vision (puts Microsoft’s new webcam software AND hardware to shame).

5. On the same machine (AMD Quad FX), XP trumps Vista in terms of performance. I don’t have specific benchmarks on hand, but I can tell you the difference is quite palpable. This is even with most of Vista’s eye candy tuned to a dull roar. We’ll see if it runs just as quickly when everything’s reinstalled there. I only discovered this after rebooting to try my scanner in XP - blazing differences, similar tasks.

6. NVIDIA chipsets and video cards. Need I say more?

7. I simply can’t get to my OS X from Vista (or mount a WebDAV server).

8. Copernic Desktop Search, a far superior desktop search client, either doesn’t like Vista or Outlook 2007 - not sure which, yet. Either way, I can’t run it right now - and the Windows Desktop Search tool is still as lame as ever (sorry, Brandon). I’ll miss the new Start Menu, but I think there’s similar third-party software that’ll keep me happy in the meanwhile.

9. Explorer keeps losing my view settings. THIS IS DRIVING ME UP THE FARKING WALL! Now, I realize that XP suffers from this problem as well, but it’s never been this bad. There are so many new options that it’s difficult to reset each window’s view every time - including column headers, which are now permanently stuck on “Tags” and “Date Taken” (even though I may not be in a folder applicable to these fields).

10. My workaday software still seems to suffer from weird quirks now and again. I really don’t have the time or patience to wait for each developer to catch up just so I can go on living my life. All these little annoyances are starting to add up to one major headache. Instead of detailing each one separately (and extending this list exponentially), I’m just wrapping all of ‘em together into one point.

[BJ_M]

a stupid salesman at future shop (best buy) was giving me a pitch on vista and how good it was when i went in this week to buy a laptop --

i wanted one with xp on it - not vista , but the only models w/ xp were old models which were not that great a deal ... i got one with vista and installed xp on it (easy to do) , i may even remove vista completely ... anyway, the sales guy tells that vista is 50% faster than xp and that you cant buy xp anymore from anywhere and HP will not honer their warranty if i install xp ..... i went to the HP website in front of him and showed him the same model laptop was available from hp exactly (same model number everything) for the south amer. market as well as EC preloaded w/ XP instead of vista .... and told him he was an idiot anyway ....

[InXess]

50% faster then XP... did he mention if this is on battery power or AC?

[BJ_M]

maybe it was crippled version of xp that only ran 1 core instead of both -- doesnt xp home only support one cpu ?

anyway i got a dual amd64 , though prob not as quick as intel - i will install xp64 on it (dual boot 32 and 64xp) as i have a few 64bit apps ... that is if i can find the right 64bit nividia drivers for the geforce go 6150