View Full Version : XP SP3 Boosts Performance. Vista SP1 Doesn't
Description:
With both Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and Windows XP Service Pack 3 nearing completion and already delivered to select experts, it is about time we see some benchmarking scores and comparisons.
The research staff at exo-blog benchmarked both service packs and while they were disappointed with the much anticipated Vista SP1, they were pleasantly surprised with XP SP3's unexpected performance gains.
The team benchmarked Windows Vista RTM (with no updates) against a fully updated Windows Vista SP1 version. Both versions performed identically in all tests except 2 where SP1 performed 1% faster in one and 2% in the other.
"Bottom Line: If you've been disappointed with the performance of Windows Vista to date, get used to it. SP1 is simply not the panacea that many predicted", the research staff concluded. "In the end, it's Vista's architecture - not a lack of tuning or bug fixes - that makes it perform so poorly on systems that were "barn-burners" under Windows XP."
On the other hand, benchmarking Windows XP SP2 against SP3 showed an unexpected 10% performance gain. Both XP versions performed more than 100% better than Windows Vista for the same tasks on the same hardware.
http://www.megagames.com/news/html/software/xpsp3boostsperformancevistasp1doesnt.shtml
JasonPC
11-25-07, 05:27 PM
I wish they actually had some hard proof there. I'm going to take it with a grain of salt that SP3 actually boosts performance.
nm I didn't see the link. Still hard to find it conclusive, but it's hopeful.
Rakeesh
11-25-07, 09:12 PM
Both XP versions performed more than 100% better than Windows Vista for the same tasks on the same hardware.
Sorry but this is just plain retarded. XP performs basically twice as fast as Vista on the same hardware? Yeah right. I run both OSes on the same system, and the performance is roughly identical.
Whoever wrote that article is a moron.
Sorry but this is just plain retarded. XP performs basically twice as fast as Vista on the same hardware? Yeah right. I run both OSes on the same system, and the performance is roughly identical.
Whoever wrote that article is a moron.
Your system is not what everyone has.
With Vista..something thats new..its gonna need the right drivers to make everything work, and with soo much hardware difference/software 3rd party installations/etc..its hard to say..ok Vista runs perfect on mine..so should the rest of the world..
Its pretty easy for vista to have hiccups from just 1 bad driver.
Logical
11-26-07, 04:13 AM
Your system is not what everyone has.
With Vista..something thats new..its gonna need the right drivers to make everything work, and with soo much hardware difference/software 3rd party installations/etc..its hard to say..ok Vista runs perfect on mine..so should the rest of the world..
Its pretty easy for vista to have hiccups from just 1 bad driver.
I wish people would stop saying Vista is new....it's been released for the last 12 months and had around 3 years of beta testing before that. You would think that by now these driver conflicts would have been sorted out.
Slammin
11-26-07, 06:20 AM
The difference in performance between Vista and XP is a LOT more dramatic on a Pentium 4 vs a C2D machine. Once you get to later/faster hardware, the difference is almost nil.
six_storm
11-26-07, 06:43 AM
The difference in performance between Vista and XP is a LOT more dramatic on a Pentium 4 vs a C2D machine. Once you get to later/faster hardware, the difference is almost nil.
Exactly. What hardware PC gamers around here don't understand is that there are tons and tons of PC users around the world that are still rocking out P4s and AMD Athlons. Heck, there are tons and tons of suckers out there that buy Black Friday special desktop and laptop with the lowest end C2D and 512MB or 1GB RAM with Vista and it barely runs! Trust me, I have one of those laptops. :D Vista's performance is pretty horrible actually on those lappys.
While I might cannot tell a difference on my desktop between the two OSs, I'm sure I could tell on my laptop.
Vista IS still new to the average PC consumer; when it's still isn't the standard for most platforms, aka more people are still using XP (the predecessor), it's still pretty new IMO.
Being new to consumers does not qualify developers persistent lack of support for Vista.
You guys get a new video card and expect perfect drivers within the first day of it's release, but you don't expect the same level of perfection with a piece of software that's been out for about a year?
The difference in performance between Vista and XP is a LOT more dramatic on a Pentium 4 vs a C2D machine. Once you get to later/faster hardware, the difference is almost nil.Another vote for this quote! My backup rig is a P4-3.2GHz machine and it runs XP exclusively for this reason. Vista is very slow on older machines, but on my current primary rig both XP and Vista do perform about the same.
six_storm
11-26-07, 09:02 AM
Being new to consumers does not qualify developers persistent lack of support for Vista.
You guys get a new video card and expect perfect drivers within the first day of it's release, but you don't expect the same level of perfection with a piece of software that's been out for about a year?
I don't know if anybody was saying that devs are lacking support for Vista. The problem is that Vista runs like poop on older machines and when comparing XP vs. Vista performance on that machine, XP is significantly faster. At least that's what I said. :D
I'm still waiting on a reason to buy Vista. I'm sure it will come eventually when DX10 and 64bit becomes more common.
The only reason I got XP was that I got tired of looking at 2k.
conroejoe
11-26-07, 10:08 AM
I wish people would stop saying Vista is new....it's been released for the last 12 months and had around 3 years of beta testing before that. You would think that by now these driver conflicts would have been sorted out.
They are just making excuses for the sub-par performance and want to justify their purchase. A quote in the article was spot on "If you've been disappointed with the performance of Windows Vista to date, get used to it."
I dual boot (see sig) & the difference in performance is like night & day, Vista is bloatoware using far more resources just to stand still, XP is leagues ahead performance wise & my rig is not old hardware!
Monolyth
11-26-07, 12:01 PM
I dual boot (see sig) & the difference in performance is like night & day, Vista is bloatoware using far more resources just to stand still, XP is leagues ahead performance wise & my rig is not old hardware!
Unfortunately resource usage is not a viable measure of performance in Vista. Vista (much like Linux) makes greater use of the memory available to it, and there are specific services designed to speed-up load-times of commonly used apps (by placing them in memory). If the memory is needed else-where Vista will re-allocate.
Now if you are running 1GB of memory, yeah it's going to stink. This argument of course takes me back to things like...why would you wanna play Crysis on a Geforce 2 GTS? Choose the product that's right for your system specs. The force-loading of Vista by OEM's (and probably due to pressure from MS) on low-end machines was a terrible idea and gave users a horrid impression of what the O/S can/can't do. MS has done some good work with 3rd parties and even with a couple hot-fixes to get their performance back on par with XP on high-end systems, but if you were expecting an increase in performance on low-end systems that already had trouble...yeah, whatever.
I dual boot (see sig) & the difference in performance is like night & day, Vista is bloatoware using far more resources just to stand still, XP is leagues ahead performance wise & my rig is not old hardware!
Have you tweaked Vista any? (Services, hotfixes, etc) With my recently retired 4800X2 rig, I still did not see much if any difference in performance between XP and Vista, but I admit the first thing I do it tweak the services and install the major hotfixes. With my current rig, there is seriously no difference. Both cold boot to a working desktop in under a minute fully loaded with anti-virus installed, etc.
Even so, clean install Vista vs. clean install XP, I still did not see much difference unless I was using a P4 or older processor or a machine with less than 2GB.
conroejoe
11-26-07, 05:47 PM
Top ten terrible tech products
#10 Windows Vista
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm
Absolution
11-26-07, 07:29 PM
the bash vista is almost as popular as the bash the iraq war
its a bunch of crap
the bash vista is almost as popular as the bash the iraq war
its a bunch of crap
I'll admit that there are a ton of bandwagon folks along for the ride, but there are still some fairly significant issues, mainly performance centered, that are a thorn in the side for the OS. I've seen countless C2D, 2GB laptops/desktops that struggle to run the OS properly. You can blame Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc. if you want, but even with their bloatware issues XP ran well on lesser systems.
Butter Bandit
11-26-07, 10:24 PM
I really need to try out Vista one of these days.
I stuck with Windows 2000 for like 2 years after XP came out...I guess I'm just slow to upgrade.
I really need to try out Vista one of these days.
I stuck with Windows 2000 for like 2 years after XP came out...I guess I'm just slow to upgrade.
Even though I'm not on Vista's bandwagon by any means, I think you should at least try it out. It's got a lot of nifty stuff, and it runs quite nicely on many systems. If you can afford to just try Vista... do it! You can always go back.
I love my Technet subscription. :D
I really need to try out Vista one of these days.
I stuck with Windows 2000 for like 2 years after XP came out...I guess I'm just slow to upgrade.One thing I give Windows 2000...it was rock stable.
hell_of_doom227
11-26-07, 11:31 PM
The only reason i'm on Vista is DX10.0, but every day i realize DX10.0 is bunch of crap as well...
Rakeesh
11-26-07, 11:52 PM
Your system is not what everyone has.
Ok, even on an older rig I built during the early days of vista just to see how it would run (this was a P4 1.4ghz IIRC) vista STILL ran on par with XP.
Again, this comment is retarded.
six_storm
11-27-07, 12:00 AM
The only reason i'm on Vista is DX10.0, but every day i realize DX10.0 is bunch of crap as well...
DX10 = Hype PERIOD
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.