I'm sure many of you are curious about this, so I've decided to do a bench test. I'm a part of the MSDNAA and already have a copy of Windows 7 Professional available. I'm ordering a new hard disk for my notebook so that I can still have my working copy of Vista ready if needed - since this is the case, the hard disk limited apps should be taken with a grain of salt. The hard disks I will have are technically equivalent, but we all know the real world performance will be different.
Hardware is my Sager NP5793, which is in my configuration, if you want to take a look.
Vista x64 SP2 Scores: C:\Windows\ directory size: 26.8GB Battery Drain: 1:58 3D Mark 05: 11180 @ 1920x1200 3D Mark 05: 11758 @ 1680x1050 3D Mark 06: 7297 @ 1920x1200 3D Mark 06: 7980 @ 1680x1050 Crysis: 18.89 fps @ 1920x1200, DX10, High, 64-bit Crysis: 23.11 fps @ 1680x1050, DX10, High, 64-bit UT3: 48.24 fps @ 1920x1200, all settings maxed UT3: 49.29 fps @ 1680x1050, all settings maxed COD WaW: 53.94 fps @ 1920x1200, all settings maxed COD WaW: 56.07 fps @ 1680x1050, all settings maxed Left 4 Dead: 49.07 @ 1920x1200, 4xAF, all settings maxed Left 4 Dead: 56.49 @ 1680x1050, 4xAF, all settings maxed COD 4: 51.23 @ 1920x1200, 2xAA, all settings maxed COD 4: 64.43 @ 1680x1050, 2xAA, all settings maxed Bioshock: 42.45 @ 1920x1200, DX10, all settings maxed Bioshock: 45.53 @ 1680x1050, DX10, all settings maxed WinRAR: 1:34 (141MB Starcraft folder) DIVX upscale: 2:36:14 Sonar 8 mix-down: 0:38 (Custom 4-track mix of the Hymn to the Red October)
Windows 7 x64 Professional Scores: C:\Windows\ directory size: 11.0 GB Battery Drain: [b][/b] 3D Mark 05: 11268 @ 1920x1200 3D Mark 05: 11630 @ 1680x1050 3D Mark 06: 7326 @ 1920x1200 3D Mark 06: 7955 @ 1680x1050 Crysis: 18.12 fps @ 1920x1200, DX10, High, 64-bit Crysis: 22.14 fps @ 1680x1050, DX10, High, 64-bit UT3: 49.78 fps @ 1920x1200, all settings maxed UT3: 51.18 fps @ 1680x1050, all settings maxed COD WaW: 37.05 fps @ 1920x1200, all settings maxed COD WaW: 45.94 fps @ 1680x1050, all settings maxed Left 4 Dead: 38.98 @ 1920x1200, 4xAF, all settings maxed Left 4 Dead: 42.93 @ 1680x1050, 4xAF, all settings maxed COD 4: 36.93 @ 1920x1200, 2xAA, all settings maxed COD 4: 41.61 @ 1680x1050, 2xAA, all settings maxed Bioshock: 54.90 @ 1920x1200, DX10, all settings maxed Bioshock: 60.20 @ 1680x1050, DX10, all settings maxed WinRAR: 0:55 (141MB Starcraft folder) DIVX upscale: 2:29:21 Sonar 8 mix-down: 0:56 (Custom 4-track mix of the Hymn to the Red October)
Performance Delta C:\Windows\ directory size: -58.96% Battery Drain: [b][/b] 3D Mark 2005 (1920x1200): +0.79% 3D Mark 2005 (1680x1050): -1.09% 3D Mark 2006 (1920x1200): +0.40% 3D Mark 2006 (1680x1050): -0.31% Crysis (1920x1200): -4.08% Crysis (1680x1050): -4.20% UT3 (1920x1200): +3.19% UT3 (1680x1050): +3.83% COD WaW (1920x1200): -31.31% COD WaW (1680x1050): -18.07% Left 4 Dead (1920x1200): -20.56% Left 4 Dead (1680x1050): -24.00% COD 4 (1920x1200): -27.93% COD 4 (1680x1050): -35.42% Bioshock (1920x1200): +29.33% Bioshock (1680x1050): +32.22% WinRAR: +41.49% DIVX upscale: +3.20% Sonar 8 mix-down: -47.37%
Conclusion Windows 7 shows notable gains in Unreal engine based games, and some pretty heavy losses in the COD series. The Source engine based game results should be taken with a grain of salt - I had considerable trouble getting the games to not crash on entry (anyone with the looping audio problem knows how frustrating it can be). Standard multimedia and file based applications are notably faster, though more professional apps (Sonar) are still lacking. I'd imagine this is all because of drivers - but they should improve over time.
Message edited by frozenlead on 09-27-2009 at 08:21:42 AM
I like the idea of XP, Vista, 7 because win7 is basically vista with xp performance. So it will be interesting to see how the "less hungry OS" will do along with having the DX advantage over XP.
and, you're right 32 vs 64 should be negligible, i just figured i would ask since it would be nice to have them all on the same plate anyway.