Vista x86 and x64 Vs. XP Whos Faster? Benchmarks Inside

Discussion in 'Main Lounge' started by Jason, Feb 27, 2008.

  1. Jason

    Jason

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago,IL
    Obviously you must take all benchmarks with a grain of salt, but it doesn't look too good for Vista. At least at this point in time, I predict SP1 will help out as well as future updates. In an attempt to stay neutral when it comes to Vista vs. XP I decided to post this. In these test it appears Vista is slower in nearly all tests: :unsure:


    Please note I did not do these tests, they were done by http://www.anandtech.com

    <SPAN class=content>Networking Benchmarks

    Just to get a quick idea of what these new features can do, we ran our usual networking benchmark suite on a pair of ASUS P5B-Deluxe motherboards using both the on-board PCI and PCIe connected gigabit network controllers (Marvell 88E8056 and 88E8001 respectively). We used two tests for this, a multiple small file transfer test consisting of about 450 files totaling 600MB, and a large file transfer test consisting of a pair of ISO images totaling 3GB. In order to keep the load on our D-Link Gamer Lounge router consistent, we also had the WMV-HD version of Terminator 3 streaming in the background. We tested Windows XP SP2 for a base score, followed by Vista with Compound TCP switched on and off.

    <DIV align=center>[​IMG]</DIV>


    <DIV align=center>[​IMG]</DIV>


    Unfortunately for Vista, neither test is particularly favorable. Compared to XP when Compound TCP is disabled, Vista is anywhere between 25% and 50% slower than XP in terms of the total time required for these tests. Without the ability to separate Vista's networking stack from the drivers for our NICs, it's impossible to tell if this slowdown is the fault of the networking stack being worse for this situation, or if the Vista drivers for this line of Marvell NICs are not quite as tuned, so as a comparison to XP this test is inconclusive. Either way, for this particular setup Vista ends up being slower at file transfers than XP.

    The one bright spot however is that when enabled, Compound TCP is clearly having some effect even on our low-latency network. The 5% or so boost in Vista's low scores won't bring it back above XP, but it clearly proves that Compound TCP does have a real-world effect on performance. This will be something we will be able to talk more about as Microsoft perfects this algorithm set for the release of Longhorn Server later this year. Hopefully, the relatively slow performance we're seeing right now is being caused by drivers rather than by Vista's "new and improved" networking stack. We will definitely keep an eye on networking performance over the coming months, as most of the people we've talked with expected Vista's networking performance to be faster than XP's.


    <SPAN class=content>CPU Performance and Threading in Vista

    While we found memory requirements in Vista to be greater than XP, CPU requirements weren't as much of a big deal. There are parts of Vista that will obviously
     
    Jason, Feb 27, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.