Vista - XP vs Vista Speed Test

I used Passmark benchmarking software. It tested CPU use, disk access,
graphics, memory access. On the same machine (triple boot to XP, Vista 32,
Vista 64) the numbers were virtually identical for all three with the
exception of the graphics. Graphics performance changed as I updated drivers
(sometimes up, sometimes down) but in general Vista seems to be faster with
the graphics (ATI PCIexpress card). There was no difference in performance
between XP, Vista 32, Vista 64 for the 32 bit benchmarks. When I ran the 64
bit benchmarks (only in Vista 64) they were significantly better for memory
access and graphics but no difference in CPU or disk access.
There seems to be no improvement in CPU use, Memory access or disk access
between XP or Vista 32 bit, although there is a significant difference in
memory access with Vista 64 bit.

sure
from a pure hardware benchmark point of view you test the hardware which is
the same.
when you test the graphic card the drivers have an important impact.

if you test the network, where the drivers and windows himself has an impact
you'll see a difference.
In my case my web access was greatly improved, my download speed was
improved from 650kb/s to 750kb/s and peak to 800kb/s!

if you want to compare Vista vs XP, you have to compare application access
and an overall usage of Windows. For example, open some applications and do
some work, compress some files, index your drive, browse the web listen some
music or videos.
I have found Vista better when there is different activities on the
computer.
There is less locks like I suffer with XP when I start to load a lot of
applications after a reboot.


"Bill U" <BillU@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C28E50A-D158-486D-A191-CD68F21EA094@microsoft.com...
>I used Passmark benchmarking software. It tested CPU use, disk access,
> graphics, memory access. On the same machine (triple boot to XP, Vista
> 32,
> Vista 64) the numbers were virtually identical for all three with the
> exception of the graphics. Graphics performance changed as I updated
> drivers
> (sometimes up, sometimes down) but in general Vista seems to be faster
> with
> the graphics (ATI PCIexpress card). There was no difference in
> performance
> between XP, Vista 32, Vista 64 for the 32 bit benchmarks. When I ran the
> 64
> bit benchmarks (only in Vista 64) they were significantly better for
> memory
> access and graphics but no difference in CPU or disk access.
> There seems to be no improvement in CPU use, Memory access or disk access
> between XP or Vista 32 bit, although there is a significant difference in
> memory access with Vista 64 bit.

My internet connection seems faster with Vista also but that's almost
impossible to quantify. There are so many variables at any one time.
I had hoped to see objective performance increases with Vista over XP but
other than graphics and network, I've been disappointed. It's nice when it
"feels" faster but that doesn't always mean much.

Bill

"Jeje" wrote:

> sure
> from a pure hardware benchmark point of view you test the hardware which is
> the same.
> when you test the graphic card the drivers have an important impact.
>
> if you test the network, where the drivers and windows himself has an impact
> you'll see a difference.
> In my case my web access was greatly improved, my download speed was
> improved from 650kb/s to 750kb/s and peak to 800kb/s!
>
> if you want to compare Vista vs XP, you have to compare application access
> and an overall usage of Windows. For example, open some applications and do
> some work, compress some files, index your drive, browse the web listen some
> music or videos.
> I have found Vista better when there is different activities on the
> computer.
> There is less locks like I suffer with XP when I start to load a lot of
> applications after a reboot.
>
>
> "Bill U" <BillU@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C28E50A-D158-486D-A191-CD68F21EA094@microsoft.com...
> >I used Passmark benchmarking software. It tested CPU use, disk access,
> > graphics, memory access. On the same machine (triple boot to XP, Vista
> > 32,
> > Vista 64) the numbers were virtually identical for all three with the
> > exception of the graphics. Graphics performance changed as I updated
> > drivers
> > (sometimes up, sometimes down) but in general Vista seems to be faster
> > with
> > the graphics (ATI PCIexpress card). There was no difference in
> > performance
> > between XP, Vista 32, Vista 64 for the 32 bit benchmarks. When I ran the
> > 64
> > bit benchmarks (only in Vista 64) they were significantly better for
> > memory
> > access and graphics but no difference in CPU or disk access.
> > There seems to be no improvement in CPU use, Memory access or disk access
> > between XP or Vista 32 bit, although there is a significant difference in
> > memory access with Vista 64 bit.
>

In general it should be faster since Vista has a completely rewritten TCP/IP
stack.

"Bill U" <BillU@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CB671207-FA81-4E40-B5DA-9AF5B72FF764@microsoft.com...
> My internet connection seems faster with Vista also but that's almost
> impossible to quantify. There are so many variables at any one time.
> I had hoped to see objective performance increases with Vista over XP but
> other than graphics and network, I've been disappointed. It's nice when
> it
> "feels" faster but that doesn't always mean much.
>

I just completed the final setup on my notebook. I installed Vista fresh
and have 99% of my applications installed/working. On the speed issue
the Internet is faster using IE-7+ but not with the Phishing Filter enabled.
Overall, I tested the final setup with PCPitStop. When the notebook was
running Windows MCE it scored an overall 2010. Running Vista it gets
a consistent 2074 overall score.
One observation - Windows Vista seems to run better using the Aero Glass
theme than with Windows Classic set to Optimize
for
performance. (Go Figure that one)

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:u5vzB7JHHHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> In general it should be faster since Vista has a completely rewritten
> TCP/IP stack.
>
> "Bill U" <BillU@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CB671207-FA81-4E40-B5DA-9AF5B72FF764@microsoft.com...
>> My internet connection seems faster with Vista also but that's almost
>> impossible to quantify. There are so many variables at any one time.
>> I had hoped to see objective performance increases with Vista over XP but
>> other than graphics and network, I've been disappointed. It's nice when
>> it
>> "feels" faster but that doesn't always mean much.
>>
>

I'm not sure that should matter since rendering is done in the GPU whether
Glass is enabled or not or whether you run Aero or Classic. Interesting.

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eLJt4DKHHHA.3952@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I just completed the final setup on my notebook. I installed Vista fresh
> and have 99% of my applications installed/working. On the speed issue
> the Internet is faster using IE-7+ but not with the Phishing Filter
> enabled.
> Overall, I tested the final setup with PCPitStop. When the notebook was
> running Windows MCE it scored an overall 2010. Running Vista it gets
> a consistent 2074 overall score.
> One observation - Windows Vista seems to run better using the Aero Glass
> theme than with Windows Classic set to
> Optimize for
> performance. (Go Figure that one)
>