Vista - Why is Vista 2D Graphics & Text performance so bad compared to XP?

I've run repeated tests of Passmark Performance Test on the same computer
with XP64 and Vista64. Most results are reasonably close (+/- 20% say) but 1
thing is wildly different. XP records a mark for 2D graphics of 1281 against
Vista's 376 ie it is over 3 times faster. The difference is easy to see while
the test s are running too and is totally repeatable. For this reason overall
XP records around 875 against Vista's 725.

"Spirefm" wrote:

> I've run repeated tests of Passmark Performance Test on the same computer
> with XP64 and Vista64. Most results are reasonably close (+/- 20% say) but 1
> thing is wildly different. XP records a mark for 2D graphics of 1281 against
> Vista's 376 ie it is over 3 times faster.

How did you make the tests? Because Passmark Performance Test doesn't work
in Vista RTM (stop responding and it's closed).

In article <7B5E8C1D-2A12-4576-9EDB-A58B85F77AE7@microsoft.com>,
Spirefm says...
> I've run repeated tests of Passmark Performance Test on the same computer
> with XP64 and Vista64. Most results are reasonably close (+/- 20% say) but 1
> thing is wildly different. XP records a mark for 2D graphics of 1281 against
> Vista's 376 ie it is over 3 times faster. The difference is easy to see while
> the test s are running too and is totally repeatable. For this reason overall
> XP records around 875 against Vista's 725.
>
Immature drivers. Expect things to improve dramatically over the next
few months.


--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.

Spirefm wrote:
> I've run repeated tests of Passmark Performance Test on the same
> computer with XP64 and Vista64. Most results are reasonably close
> (+/- 20% say) but 1 thing is wildly different. XP records a mark for
> 2D graphics of 1281 against Vista's 376 ie it is over 3 times faster.
> The difference is easy to see while the test s are running too and is
> totally repeatable. For this reason overall XP records around 875
> against Vista's 725.

As much as I dislike Vista, I've got to caution you about drawing
conclusions about it from these tests:

How can you be sure that the issue isn't with the benchmarking tool?
Have you tested with several different graphics cards and drivers to ensure
that the problems you're seeing are not related to the hardware and are
actually representative of a fault in Vista itself, as you claim?

If so, I'd be very interested in seeing how your fault is reproducable over
the major graphics card manufacturers (e.g. Intel on board graphics, ATI
graphics, nVidia graphics), to see if the problem always shows and if it is
always roughly the same scale of fault. If you can't do this then you can't
really pin this one on Vista.

Regards
Rob Moir.

The new Passmark 6.1 works with Vista 64.
Yes, I realised after I wrote the question that the ATI drivers are
different for XP and Vista although both are very recent. I should have
thought harder before posting.

"Conor" wrote:

> In article <7B5E8C1D-2A12-4576-9EDB-A58B85F77AE7@microsoft.com>,
> Spirefm says...
> > I've run repeated tests of Passmark Performance Test on the same computer
> > with XP64 and Vista64. Most results are reasonably close (+/- 20% say) but 1
> > thing is wildly different. XP records a mark for 2D graphics of 1281 against
> > Vista's 376 ie it is over 3 times faster. The difference is easy to see while
> > the test s are running too and is totally repeatable. For this reason overall
> > XP records around 875 against Vista's 725.
> >
> Immature drivers. Expect things to improve dramatically over the next
> few months.
>
>
> --
> Conor
>
> If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
> worthwhile.
>

I should have thought more before posting. The problem is almost certainly
the ATI driver for Vista 64 is simply not as good as the XP64 driver although
both are very recent. Since it is the same computer, the hardware doesn't
change nor does the Passmark software and yes the results are reproducible
time and time again. Hopefully the ATI driver will be improved. I think the 2
different drivers must have been written by different programmers.

"Robert Moir" wrote:

> Spirefm wrote:
> > I've run repeated tests of Passmark Performance Test on the same
> > computer with XP64 and Vista64. Most results are reasonably close
> > (+/- 20% say) but 1 thing is wildly different. XP records a mark for
> > 2D graphics of 1281 against Vista's 376 ie it is over 3 times faster.
> > The difference is easy to see while the test s are running too and is
> > totally repeatable. For this reason overall XP records around 875
> > against Vista's 725.
>
> As much as I dislike Vista, I've got to caution you about drawing
> conclusions about it from these tests:
>
> How can you be sure that the issue isn't with the benchmarking tool?
> Have you tested with several different graphics cards and drivers to ensure
> that the problems you're seeing are not related to the hardware and are
> actually representative of a fault in Vista itself, as you claim?
>
> If so, I'd be very interested in seeing how your fault is reproducable over
> the major graphics card manufacturers (e.g. Intel on board graphics, ATI
> graphics, nVidia graphics), to see if the problem always shows and if it is
> always roughly the same scale of fault. If you can't do this then you can't
> really pin this one on Vista.
>
> Regards
> Rob Moir.
>
>
>

I have been using Ghost 2003. I have a bootloader disk with win98se boot
files and a directory containing the ghost.exe file.
On my computer I have a 50 gig partition named backup. I put the cd in and
boot from it and cd to the ghost directory on the cd then run ghost.exe.
Using the tab key and arrow keys I can make a backup of all partitions to
the backup partition on harddrive. 21.3 gig drive c: system takes about 7
minutes to backup. WhenI reboot to Vista I can leave the backup files where
they are or burn to disks or put on external hd. I also have the Ghost 2003
Program loaded on baclup partition so that I can use Ghost Explorer to
select individual files or folders to restore. Has always worked great. If
you hace 2 writers cd and dvd you can copy directly ro DVD just takes a lot
longer.
"Spirefm" <Spirefm@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7B5E8C1D-2A12-4576-9EDB-A58B85F77AE7@microsoft.com...
> I've run repeated tests of Passmark Performance Test on the same computer
> with XP64 and Vista64. Most results are reasonably close (+/- 20% say) but
> 1
> thing is wildly different. XP records a mark for 2D graphics of 1281
> against
> Vista's 376 ie it is over 3 times faster. The difference is easy to see
> while
> the test s are running too and is totally repeatable. For this reason
> overall
> XP records around 875 against Vista's 725.

Well, it is a beta driver. The final drivers have not be released yet.
Graphics processing has changed quite a bit in Windows Vista and drivers
need to be updated accordingly. Try your benchmarking again once you get
final drivers, they likely will be more efficient.

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

"Spirefm" <Spirefm@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7A7A7516-2611-4B0D-8BF2-766B539BBD3F@microsoft.com...
>I should have thought more before posting. The problem is almost certainly
> the ATI driver for Vista 64 is simply not as good as the XP64 driver
> although
> both are very recent. Since it is the same computer, the hardware doesn't
> change nor does the Passmark software and yes the results are reproducible
> time and time again. Hopefully the ATI driver will be improved. I think
> the 2
> different drivers must have been written by different programmers.
>
> "Robert Moir" wrote:
>
>> Spirefm wrote:
>> > I've run repeated tests of Passmark Performance Test on the same
>> > computer with XP64 and Vista64. Most results are reasonably close
>> > (+/- 20% say) but 1 thing is wildly different. XP records a mark for
>> > 2D graphics of 1281 against Vista's 376 ie it is over 3 times faster.
>> > The difference is easy to see while the test s are running too and is
>> > totally repeatable. For this reason overall XP records around 875
>> > against Vista's 725.
>>
>> As much as I dislike Vista, I've got to caution you about drawing
>> conclusions about it from these tests:
>>
>> How can you be sure that the issue isn't with the benchmarking tool?
>> Have you tested with several different graphics cards and drivers to
>> ensure
>> that the problems you're seeing are not related to the hardware and are
>> actually representative of a fault in Vista itself, as you claim?
>>
>> If so, I'd be very interested in seeing how your fault is reproducable
>> over
>> the major graphics card manufacturers (e.g. Intel on board graphics, ATI
>> graphics, nVidia graphics), to see if the problem always shows and if it
>> is
>> always roughly the same scale of fault. If you can't do this then you
>> can't
>> really pin this one on Vista.
>>
>> Regards
>> Rob Moir.
>>
>>
>>