Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Windows 7 vs Vista SP2 benchmarked [COMPLETE]

Last response: in Windows 7
Share
September 8, 2009 7:54:56 PM

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.

Also running XP SP3 vs 7 here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/841-63-windows-benchm...


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:
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:
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.
September 8, 2009 8:03:57 PM

XP 32
XP 64

Vista 32
Vista 64

Win7 32
Win7 64


Most (respective) up to date DX on each platform


?
m
0
l
September 8, 2009 8:24:02 PM

32 vs 64 should be negligible, really. I could do XP 32 versus 7 on my desktop machine, though - I'll think about it.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 8, 2009 8:31:52 PM

Thank you 8)


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.
m
0
l
September 8, 2009 9:17:04 PM

I completely agree that it'd be nice to see 32 and 64 side by side...but I don't think it's worth the time to do it.
m
0
l
September 9, 2009 4:08:46 PM

Whatever you feel like doing, i (and i'm sure everyone else here) will appreciate any results you post ^^
m
0
l
September 9, 2009 8:13:08 PM

I've decided to run the XP marks. There's a link in the original post if anyone wants to see it.
m
0
l
September 12, 2009 1:20:10 AM

bump as scores come in!
m
0
l
September 14, 2009 3:10:59 PM

....that is a HUGE loss in COD, that's really odd..
m
0
l
September 15, 2009 9:20:56 PM

That it is - though I won't be able to finish the 7 marks until this weekend probably. I really want to see if that was just a fluke.
m
0
l
September 27, 2009 6:22:59 AM

bump on gaming mark completion - when I get the time to do the battery drain, I shall.
m
0
l
June 16, 2014 12:20:09 PM

Kithzaru said:
XP 32
XP 64

Vista 32
Vista 64

Win7 32
Win7 64


Most (respective) up to date DX on each platform


?


"Late by 5 years LOL"

Windows XP uses DirectX 9.0C

Windows Vista SP1+ uses DirectX 10.1 and is upgradable to DirectX 11 via platform update

Windows 7 uses DirectX 11 and is NOW upgradable to DirectX 11.1

THAT'S A VERY LATE REPLY I KNOW
m
0
l
!