Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Vista SP1 versus SP2 Benchmarked!

Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
May 26, 2009 5:19:02 PM

I'm going to run some benchies comparing Vista SP1 and SP2 on my notebook. I'll be updating this post through the day.

I'm running marks on:
3D mark 05
3D mark 06
Crysis Benchmark
Audio MP3 encoding/ripping (decided the video would take too long - I don't have all day)
WinRAR compression


Vista x64 SP1 Scores:
C:\Windows\ directory size: 22.3 GB
3d mark 06: 7186 @ 1920x1200
3d mark 06: 7898 @ 1680x1050
3d mark 05: 11379 @ 1920x1200
3d mark 05: 11761 @ 1680x1050
Crysis: 17.70 fps @ 1920x1200, High, DX10, 64bit
Crysis: 21.59 fps @ 1680x1050, High, DX10, 64bit
Single MP3: 00:24:95 - 6:00 track @ 128kbps
Audio CD to MP3 rip: 03:04:59 @ 192kbps
WinRAR compression: 7:06 - My starcraft program folder (660MB)

Vista x64 SP2 Scores:
C:\Windows\ directory size: 24.8 GB
3d mark 06: 7182 @ 1920x1200
3d mark 06: 7888 @ 1680x1050
3d mark 05: 11354 @ 1920x1200
3d mark 05: 11745 @ 1680x1050
Crysis: 17.18 fps @ 1920x1200, High, DX10, 64bit
Crysis: 21.20 fps @ 1680x1050, High, DX10, 64bit
Single MP3: 00:22:73 - 6:00 track @ 128kbps
Audio CD to MP3 rip: 03:04:64 @ 192kbps
WinRAR compression: 6:14 - My starcraft program folder (660MB)

Performance Delta
C:\Windows\ directory: +11.2%
3d mark 06 (1920x1200): -0.06%
3d mark 06 (1680x1050): -0.01%
3d mark 05 (1920x1200): -0.22%
3d mark 05 (1680x1050): -0.14%
Crysis (1920x1200): -2.94%
Crysis (1680x1050): -1.81%
Single MP3 (128kbps): +9.25%
Audio CD to MP3 rip: -0.03%
WinRAR compression: +12.21%

Overall Result
Vista SP2 is a hair better at certain multimedia operations, but really, there's no noticeable performance drops or gains, aside from WinRAR. The features it brings though, which are more qualitative, may make it worth the hour or so it took to install.



Note: I guess it's also kind of cool to see how much the OS and drivers have advanced since I got the notebook. Those numbers are here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/50535-35-sager-np5793...
May 26, 2009 5:29:56 PM

This should be interesting. :) 
May 26, 2009 6:17:02 PM

Just out of curiosity, could you also include the size of your C:\Windows before and after the update? Any cleanup option like for SP1?
Related resources
May 26, 2009 6:19:47 PM

Sure, Zenthar. I'm looking for a cleanup procedure now, but I'm not entirely sure I want to run it until I know SP2 is solid. It's a gamble, I guess. But the C:\Windows size can be posted for sure.

Edit: Yeah, there's the same cleanup option here:
http://www.windowsvistaplace.com/service-pack-cleanup-t...
I'm still deciding on it, though.

Edit: Is my directory size correct? It seems rather large to me...maybe I threw some file in there at some point? Can someone else post their size?
May 26, 2009 7:41:52 PM

Quick Q:


Does anyone know if nLite lets you make a Sp2 Slipstream disc for Vista? Or is it XP only?

thanks.
May 26, 2009 8:02:43 PM

For Vista, you should use vLite instead. It's still a very new technology, though, so I doubt it will be flawless. You can always try it.
May 26, 2009 8:38:31 PM

Microsoft is currently working on getting vlite to work with sp2. there having issues with vlite removing some windows files. I have used vlite for vista SP1 slip steaming but you have to download and install windows automated installation kit. its over 1gb
May 26, 2009 9:24:11 PM

vlite for unattended sucks anyhow - driver signing in vista x64, unofficial hacks to install drivers etc - much better ways to make a vista dvd
May 26, 2009 9:25:23 PM

vlite will slipstream SP1 on VISTA 32, but not 64. A slimstreamed Vista 64 disk may be possible now, it has been about six months since I tried to slipstream a Vista 64 SP1 disk unsuccesfully.

SP2 does not offer much in the way of processor/Ram speed incentives to an SP1 installation. I notice today after installing SP2 on four Vista 64 machines, IE8 appears to be more 'responsive'. Interesting to see what you find with the benchmarks. :) 

FAQ's SP2:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd335038.asp...

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd335036(WS.10).aspx


SP2 adds support for the 64-bit central processing unit (CPU) from VIA Technologies, which adds the ID and vendor strings for the new VIA 64-bit CPU.


SP2 integrates the Windows Vista Feature Pack for Wireless, which contains support for Bluetooth v2.1 and Windows Connect Now (WCN) Wi-Fi Configuration. Bluetooth v2.1 is the most recent specification for Bluetooth wireless technology.


SP2 improves performance for Wi-Fi connections after resuming from sleep mode.


SP2 includes updates to the RSS feeds sidebar for improved performance and responsiveness.


SP2 includes ability to record data to Blu-Ray Disc media.



May 26, 2009 10:50:13 PM

Maybe you should make the "+11.2%" increase in Windows directory size in red, since it's a bad thing to take up more disk space.
May 27, 2009 8:51:01 AM

Yea, is it just me or is 24GB absolutely ridiculous for an OS by itself to take up? Chop off 18-19GB and I'll be happy.
May 27, 2009 4:07:36 PM

You are correct randomizer! I would give it 5-6 gigs tops. I know hard drive space is cheaper now but that's no excuse. That's just sloppy and bloated code.
May 28, 2009 5:11:31 AM

As long as it does what I want when I want with minimal fuss, I couldn't care less how much space it occupies on my hard drive.
May 28, 2009 5:14:46 AM

I do. More HDD usage means more code which means less efficient code. I can write a "Hello World" program in a few lines of code or a few pages. The latter would be full of redundant bloat.
May 28, 2009 1:09:34 PM

randomizer said:
I do. More HDD usage means more code which means less efficient code. I can write a "Hello World" program in a few lines of code or a few pages. The latter would be full of redundant bloat.
Not necessarily, they might have "splitted the code". For example, the same DLL could have been used for AMD and Intel CPU (with CPU check everywhere in the code) and now they decided to split it even if many LOC (Lines Of Code) are identical. This results in tougher code maintenance, more HDD space being used, but a somehow more efficient code execution because you check at startup what the CPU is, load the proper DLL and never have to check again at runtime.

However it might also be just as you said: more code to support new features only a few people use, but will make the overall OS slower ...
May 28, 2009 1:17:52 PM

Vista is hardly as snappy as XP, so I'd go with the latter :lol:  Also, Win 7 cut down the initial installation to 10GB so 5GB of "efficient" code is now missing (along with some features).

Speaking of which, another issue is that while Vista's initial installation is ~15GB, it somehow ends up at 26GB (in my case it managed that within 9 months). Is it impossible for some basic self-maintenence to be added?
May 28, 2009 1:39:27 PM

And I remember the same arguments from Windows 98 SE to Windows 2000 and from windows 2000 to XP. The thing is it can only go worst as long as we keep old legacy support and adding new features ... oh and as long as we keep accepting mediocrity in software developers/engineers/analysts.

The Windows Vista size problem is probably mostly due to the WinSxS folder. Unfortunately, their is no reliable tool yet to clean it up, but some people claim they were able to cut its size considerably with some "home made" automated tools. Some MS patches also use considerable space considering what they do (one in mind adds some entries in some dictionary for names in foreign languages ... 1GB).
May 31, 2009 12:55:00 AM

Yea mine's about 14GB. A few other folders are >1GB as well.
May 31, 2009 5:30:10 PM

Is that your entire windows directory?
June 2, 2009 10:29:37 AM

Me or the OP? My whole Windows directory is a hair over 26GB now.
June 2, 2009 4:04:34 PM

Either, I suppose. Just making sure that my windows folder wasn't bloated out with something.
!