XP SP3 outperforms Vista's SP1
The new service pack for XP is reputed to show significant performance improvements over SP2 as well as over Vista SP1- Vista SP1 supposedly does not improve performance from the release package. This is based on a little testing using office benches by exoblog - and it was hardly exhaustive- in fact, it's kinda FUDdy. I would like to see someone do some more extensive comparisons though.
After a disappointing showing by Windows Vista SP1 (see previous post), we were pleasantly surprised to discover that Windows XP Service Pack 3 (v.3244) delivers a measurable performance boost to this aging desktop OS. Testing with OfficeBench showed an ~10% performance boost vs. the same configuration running under Windows XP w/Service Pack 2.
Since SP3 was supposed to be mostly a bug-fix/patch consolidation release - unlike w/Vista SP1, Microsoft made no promises of improved performance for XP - the unexpected speed boost comes as a nice bonus. In fact, XP SP3 is shaping-up to be a "must have" update for the majority of users who are still running Redmond's not-so-latest and greatest desktop OS.
Of course, none of this bodes well for Vista, which is now more than 2x slower than the most current builds of its older sibling. Suffice to say that performance-minded users will likely choose to stick with the now even speedier Windows XP - at least until more "Windows 7" information becomes publicly available.
Figure 1 - OfficeBench Completion Times
(In Seconds - Lower is Better)
Note: As with our Vista SP1 testing, we used the identical Dell XPS M1710 test bed with 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU, 1GB of RAM and discrete nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS video.
1 GB of RAM ... They didn't even need to do a test for anyone to know Vista was going to be significantly slower w/ 1 GB of RAM ... It's a pretty well-known fact that Vista performs like shit on a system w/ 1 GB of RAM ...
Anyways, on my desktop system where I run both, the SP1 Beta that I got off t3h internetz didn't really speed up performance much except in the area of boot and shutdown times (the places where it really needed it, IMO). Once booted, both XP and Vista perform close enough that I don't notice a difference except in games and benchmarks and, even then, it's not a huge difference.
It just seems to me like a lot of people are out to get Vista ... I mean, look at all the problems Leopard has been having and you rarely see articles about that. :shrug:
One thing MS really needs to do is to stop trying to cram UAC, which very few people want, down our throats.
I agree- I do tire of the Vista witch-hunt myself.
People who are complaining about Vista need to UPGRADE THEIR SYSTEMS! You look at the threads full of people who are like "I'm going to stick with XP until Vista performance improves". Then one day they will finally buy a new computer, it will come with Vista and they're going to be like "oh, look the performance is better now".....
Guess what! XP performed like a dog on hardware that was 1-2 years older than itself too!
I'm just going to paste what I posted on another forum:
I've been waiting for this set of benchmarks to get linked on here...
The site that benchmarked this thing is crap, it's a blog where 90% of the posts are bashing Vista and promoting its unheard of benchmarking tool.
Tried getting the benchmarking tool to try for myself, but it doesn't even work, it spits out "Session Error - Current Task Aborted", at the end of the tests, and won't give me a time. I'm not going to install XP simply to test this, but using a stopwatch to time their test, I get ~22 seconds, compared to their 80+ seconds in Vista, on similar hardware... not that that's a useful measurement, but it's about as good as the benchmarking done by the site releasing these reports.
Testing on a laptop, that is not only biased it is stupid. Also, 1GB of ram is also a stupid way to test since it costs less than $50 for 2GB of desktop ram. If you have a laptop then this test may mean something, but it is utter crap for desktop performance. Vista is better and I will never go back to XP no matter how nice they patch it up to squeeze a few more $$$ out of us.......
IMO 3GB is required for Vista to really shine past XP. My girlfriend has that Acer notebook with the 8600GT and the HDMI out (the $1300 one) and she found it slower than XP with the 2GB that came with it, but tolerable. I threw a 2GB stick in there and now she's happy as can be. I've never noticed a slowdown with my 4GB system either.
Well, Acers have a bunch of crap running in the background, so that's understandable ...
Nah. The first thing I did with her notebook is a fresh format of Vista x64 Ultimate. It will still annoying until I went to 3GB. I think part of the problem is that the CPU is pretty slow and so is the hard drive. Needs more RAM to mask the poor performance of everything else.
That testing REALLY seems suspicious. Even accounting for the lack of RAM, the discrepancy between the scores really doesn't seem right at all. Assuming the benchmark isn't just a POS custom-designed to bash Vista (Heaven forbid they run some Sandra or PCMark routines), this is probably a situation where Vista is using a higher percentage of it's limited memory than XP, forcing a poor little 5400rpm 2.5" drive to work overtime on swapfile duty.
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:30 AM.|