Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Test Setup

Windows 7 And Windows Vista: Performance Compared
By
System Hardware
Benchmarks
Details
Performance Benchmarks
CPU
Intel Core i7-920 (45nm, 2.66 GHz, 4 x 256KB L2 and 8MB L3 Cache, TDP 130W, Rev. C0)
Motherboard (Socket LGA1336)
Asus P6T (Rev. 1.0)
Chipset: Intel X58, ICH10R
BIOS: 0403 (02/26/2009)
RAM
3 x 2GB DDR3-1600 (Corsair TR3X6G1600C8D)
operating at DDR3-1333 (CL8-8-8-24)
Graphics
Zotac Geforce GTX 260²
GPU: Geforce GTX 260 (576 MHz)
Graphics RAM: 896 MB DDR3 (1998 MHz)
Stream Processors: 216
Shader Clock: 1242 MHz
Hard Drive
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
10,000 RPM, SATA/300
Blu-Ray Drive
LG GGW-H20L, SATA/150
Power Supply
PC Power & Cooling, Silencer 750EPS12V, 750W
System Software and Drivers
Operating System II
Windows Vista Ultimate Version 6.0 Service Pack 2 (Build 6000)
Operating System II
Windows 7 Ultimate Version 6.1 (Build 7600)
Drivers and Settings
Intel Chipset Drivers
Chipset Installation Utility Ver. 9.​​1.​​1.​​1019
Intel Storage Drivers
Matrix Storage Drivers Ver. 8.​9.​0.​1023
Nvidia Graphics Driver
Version: 191.07
3D Games Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmark
Details
Far Cry 2
Version: 1.0.1
Far Cry 2 Benchmark Tool
Video Mode: 1280x800
Direct3D 9
Overall Quality: Medium
Bloom activated
HDR off
Demo: Ranch Small
Left 4 Dead
Version: 1.0.0.5
Video Mode: 1280x800
Game Settings
- Anti Aliasing none
- Filtering Trilinear
- Wait for vertical sync disabled
- Shader Detail Medium
- Effect Detail Medium
- Model/Texture Detail Medium
Demo: THG Demo 1
Audio Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmarks
Details
iTunes
Version: 8.1.0.52, Audio CD ("Terminator II" SE), 53 min., Convert to AAC audio format
LAME MP3
Version 3.98, Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min., convert WAV to MP3 audio format, Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kbps)
Video Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmarks
Details
Mainconcept Reference 1.6.1
Version: 1.6.1
MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264)
MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec
28 sec. HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2)
Audio:
MPEG-2 (44.1 kHz, 2-Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kbps)
Codec: H.264
Mode: PAL (25 FPS)
Profile: Settings for eight threads
Application Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmarks
Details
Grisoft AVG Anti-virus 8
Version: 8.5.287
Virus base: 270.12.16/2094
Benchmark
Scan: some compressed ZIP and RAR archives
Winrar 3.9
Version 3.90 x64 BETA 1
Compression = Best
Benchmark: THG-Workload
Winzip 12
Version 12.0 (8252)
WinZIP Commandline Version 3
Compression = Best
Dictionary = 4096KB
Benchmark: THG-Workload
Adobe Photoshop CS4
Version: 11
Filtering a 16MB TIF (12000x5813)
Filters:
Radial Blur (Amount: 10; Method: zoom; Quality: good)
Shape Blur (Radius: 46 px; custom shape: Trademark sysmbol)
Median (Radius: 1px)
Polar Coordinates (Rectangular to Polar)
Deep Fritz 11
Version: 11
Fritz Chess Benchmark Version 4.2
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
Benchmarks
Details
3DMark Vantage
Version: 1.02
Options: Performance
Graphics Test 1
Graphics Test 2
CPU Test 1
CPU Test 2
PCMark Vantage
Version: 1.00
PCMark Benchmark
Memories Benchmark
SiSoftware Sandra 2009
Version: 2009 SP3
Processor Arithmetic, Cryptography, Memory Bandwith
Display all 102 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 26 Hide
    shubham1401 , December 11, 2009 7:07 AM
    brockhI'll never understand why someone that considers themself a "gamer" would still being using Windows XP. First off, if you're really a gamer your hardware should be at least relatively new; second off, you should be interested in both DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 by now. How can a "gamer" with relatively new hardware justify to themselves that Windows 7 may take up some more of their hard drive space or memory? 4.00 GB is almost a standard these days, not to mention Windows XP 64-Bit Edition was and is still trash.



    Why? A person having old rig but plays games can't call himself a gamer?
  • 16 Hide
    nzprogamer , December 11, 2009 6:35 AM
    Good review there but i still runing xp pro. how about XP Pro VS Win7 Ultimate. i believe there are still lots gamer still running XP Pro.
  • 10 Hide
    geekrick , December 11, 2009 7:20 AM
    When Vista first came out I switched to vista and never found it as bad as it is generally perceived to be in the first place.In fact the more I used it the more I started to like it.As per my experience the immediate advantages of Vista were- the aging effects were less prominent than that of XP and the backdoor was much more secure than XP,and you got less infected with malware. However as soon as windows 7 went to public beta I started using it.Since then I haven't looked back.It may be just an incremental evolution from Vista but it carried all the good points of both vista and Xp .
    7's UI is just awesome.It is more faithful to FITT's laws of UI design and increases productivity.
    Well XP's functionality and supporting services are much less(read less secure,less efficient)so no wonder it runs very very fast.
    Win7 on the other hand has all the latest technology but also runs very fast because it uses the available resources more efficiently .Providing all the goodies at almost the same speed as Xp is one hell of an achievement in itself and makes Xp look prehistoric.That's the reason I have at last upgraded my old P4 system from Xp to 7(dual booted with UBUNTU 9.04) and to be true I don't miss XP at all anymore.
    Windows 7 is really great like this review testifies and more.
    Not only the generic tasks are performed more efficienty , it helps to improve the efficiency of the user by its UI enhancements thus enabling a significant productivity boost.I think this part should have been elaborated in the article.However a very good article.
Other Comments
  • 6 Hide
    noob2222 , December 11, 2009 5:21 AM
    boot and shut down times are the main reason I put 7 on my laptop. Vista was getting soo slow, I would turn it on and walk away for 10 mins, and it would still be loading stuff into memory. If i sat there, I couldn't open IE for at least 3 mins from bios post, and 1 min after the desktop was showing.

    I can run 7 basic on my laptop with all the bells and whistles turned on.

    On my desktop, windows 7 seems snappier, even compared to xp. Large file games seem to load quite a bit faster on 7, wish it was included in this review. Also left out was the first thing I noticed with 7 vs Vista, IE unloads from memory more than Vista. on a limited system, unloading fully is critical.
  • 2 Hide
    tacoslave , December 11, 2009 6:07 AM
    noob2222boot and shut down times are the main reason I put 7 on my laptop. Vista was getting soo slow, I would turn it on and walk away for 10 mins, and it would still be loading stuff into memory. If i sat there, I couldn't open IE for at least 3 mins from bios post, and 1 min after the desktop was showing.I can run 7 basic on my laptop with all the bells and whistles turned on.On my desktop, windows 7 seems snappier, even compared to xp. Large file games seem to load quite a bit faster on 7, wish it was included in this review. Also left out was the first thing I noticed with 7 vs Vista, IE unloads from memory more than Vista. on a limited system, unloading fully is critical.


    mine never got that slow besides im still running vista because i need to put that money elsewhere IMO where it really matters a new graphics card.
  • 16 Hide
    nzprogamer , December 11, 2009 6:35 AM
    Good review there but i still runing xp pro. how about XP Pro VS Win7 Ultimate. i believe there are still lots gamer still running XP Pro.
  • 1 Hide
    kettu , December 11, 2009 6:40 AM
    "Here’s a real life result: Far Cry runs faster on Windows 7."

    I disagree that this is a 'real life' result. Not at medium quality and 1280x800 resolution. In my opinion if you include gaming benchmarks you should use more realistic settings.
  • -9 Hide
    brockh , December 11, 2009 6:54 AM
    nzprogamerGood review there but i still runing xp pro. how about XP Pro VS Win7 Ultimate. i believe there are still lots gamer still running XP Pro.


    I'll never understand why someone that considers themself a "gamer" would still being using Windows XP. First off, if you're really a gamer your hardware should be at least relatively new; second off, you should be interested in both DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 by now. How can a "gamer" with relatively new hardware justify to themselves that Windows 7 may take up some more of their hard drive space or memory? 4.00 GB is almost a standard these days, not to mention Windows XP 64-Bit Edition was and is still trash.
  • 26 Hide
    shubham1401 , December 11, 2009 7:07 AM
    brockhI'll never understand why someone that considers themself a "gamer" would still being using Windows XP. First off, if you're really a gamer your hardware should be at least relatively new; second off, you should be interested in both DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 by now. How can a "gamer" with relatively new hardware justify to themselves that Windows 7 may take up some more of their hard drive space or memory? 4.00 GB is almost a standard these days, not to mention Windows XP 64-Bit Edition was and is still trash.



    Why? A person having old rig but plays games can't call himself a gamer?
  • 0 Hide
    bodyknight , December 11, 2009 7:12 AM
    Quote:
    I'll never understand why someone that considers themself a "gamer" would still being using Windows XP.


    The answer is: because of ArmA2.
  • 10 Hide
    geekrick , December 11, 2009 7:20 AM
    When Vista first came out I switched to vista and never found it as bad as it is generally perceived to be in the first place.In fact the more I used it the more I started to like it.As per my experience the immediate advantages of Vista were- the aging effects were less prominent than that of XP and the backdoor was much more secure than XP,and you got less infected with malware. However as soon as windows 7 went to public beta I started using it.Since then I haven't looked back.It may be just an incremental evolution from Vista but it carried all the good points of both vista and Xp .
    7's UI is just awesome.It is more faithful to FITT's laws of UI design and increases productivity.
    Well XP's functionality and supporting services are much less(read less secure,less efficient)so no wonder it runs very very fast.
    Win7 on the other hand has all the latest technology but also runs very fast because it uses the available resources more efficiently .Providing all the goodies at almost the same speed as Xp is one hell of an achievement in itself and makes Xp look prehistoric.That's the reason I have at last upgraded my old P4 system from Xp to 7(dual booted with UBUNTU 9.04) and to be true I don't miss XP at all anymore.
    Windows 7 is really great like this review testifies and more.
    Not only the generic tasks are performed more efficienty , it helps to improve the efficiency of the user by its UI enhancements thus enabling a significant productivity boost.I think this part should have been elaborated in the article.However a very good article.
  • 3 Hide
    Herr_Koos , December 11, 2009 7:55 AM
    Your comparative chart seems to be missing DX10 for Vista and DX11 for Win7...
  • 0 Hide
    ravewulf , December 11, 2009 8:15 AM
    I ditched XP for Vista as soon as I got my hands on release candidate 1 and never looked back. For me (with the system I have and my presonal taste), I see little reason to switch to Windows 7.

    But, maybe I'm an oddball
  • 4 Hide
    ravewulf , December 11, 2009 8:17 AM
    Herr_KoosYour comparative chart seems to be missing DX10 for Vista and DX11 for Win7...

    But DX11 IS on Vista too. Released October 27 as part of the Platform Update for Windows Vista

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_Update_for_Windows_Vista#Platform_Update
  • 2 Hide
    ravewulf , December 11, 2009 8:21 AM
    amgsoftAfter the installation of Windows 7 I got the expression, that I have got a new PC. Windows 7 cannot be compared to Vista at all. In my case it takes 2 hours to "boot" a vista PC, well the GUI is up and running in 1 minutte, and then it spends 1-2 more hours crunching my harddrive som some reason, even if indexing is disabled and the antivirus does not start scanning. In the mean time my 4 kernels processor reacts like it was the smallest Atom processor on XP. After 3 or 4 hours the system is finally ready to be used by the user. The Windows 7 turned my Q6600 CPU to a real processor.It takes aproximatelly the same time to boot vista and windows 7. The difference is, in Windows 7 case, it can be used immediatelly after, in vista case you have to wait 1-2 more hours. I think that MS should fix problems with start up of vista.Finally I would like to know when MS finally stops with the elevated mode. The only result of the elevated mode is disturbing the user with stupid questions, because every user get used to click on "continue" button as he/she is asked every time he/she is starting any program. I can remember a single incident, when I didn't want to continue, because thats was exactly what I was asking for. Windows 7 is only party irritating.

    You should look into that more. Takes me 5 minutes at worst with indexing and antivirus on full plus loading up Live Mesh.
  • 0 Hide
    Herr_Koos , December 11, 2009 8:25 AM
    ravewulfBut DX11 IS on Vista too. Released October 27 as part of the Platform Update for Windows Vistahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platf [...] orm_Update


    True, but the chart only shows DX9 for both Vista and 7.
  • 0 Hide
    ravewulf , December 11, 2009 8:27 AM
    noob2222boot and shut down times are the main reason I put 7 on my laptop. Vista was getting soo slow, I would turn it on and walk away for 10 mins, and it would still be loading stuff into memory. If i sat there, I couldn't open IE for at least 3 mins from bios post, and 1 min after the desktop was showing.I can run 7 basic on my laptop with all the bells and whistles turned on.On my desktop, windows 7 seems snappier, even compared to xp. Large file games seem to load quite a bit faster on 7, wish it was included in this review. Also left out was the first thing I noticed with 7 vs Vista, IE unloads from memory more than Vista. on a limited system, unloading fully is critical.

    I went to Win7 on my laptop for the same reasons. My desktop still runs Vista though. Only reason I might switch to 7 on that too is for the better support of CableCARD and QAM TV tuners
  • 0 Hide
    ravewulf , December 11, 2009 8:28 AM
    Herr_KoosTrue, but the chart only shows DX9 for both Vista and 7.

    Whoops. My bad. I didn't catch that ^^;
  • 5 Hide
    Herr_Koos , December 11, 2009 8:50 AM
    I've never ever had a BSOD with Windows 7, and I'm still using the RC. Time for a clean install, Mr Space Eagle!
  • 4 Hide
    amgsoft , December 11, 2009 9:02 AM
    ravewulfYou should look into that more. Takes me 5 minutes at worst with indexing and antivirus on full plus loading up Live Mesh.


    Well I did. However Vista is made by a genious man knowing more then us normal mortal people, so instead of showing which program is running, it shows you, that 20 or 30 svchost.exe program are running and on top of it 30 other System images all of them using the harddisk. Sometimes it followed with even more sexy information attached like LocalServiceNetworkRestricted. That kind of information from MS is very usefull. I don't know any other system which show more totally useless information then Vista.
Display more comments