Hardware

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Who will win the Benchmark? UpDated results....

0 helpful
60 replies

by ---tk---

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

After seeing the POST about configuring Vista to look like XP, I got my inspiration. I decided that it would be very interesting to run a non biased benchmark test, on each OS. I like each OS for different reasons, and I really doesn't matter to me who wins, I just thought it would be something fun to test out.

The OS's that are going to be ran are Vista sp1, VXP sp1, XP sp1, and XP sp3. The benchmark software that will be ran is Passmark. I have used their software before, and it seems solid and stable. If I finish with time left over I want to throw a couple Linux Distro's in also, just for sh**'s and giggles. Ubuntu 8.10 and PCL2008...

The test is going to be ran on the same PC, and the exact same hardware. I will not run the benchmark until all the drivers are properly installed and the proper updates are installed. After each OS is updated I will run one defrag, reboot and thats it. Then I will run the Benchmark.

System Specifications: Duel socket Xeon's (32bit, 3.06 Ghz, hyper threading enabled), 3.2 GB of OCZ RAM (Clocked at 2-3-2-5 @ 2.8V), AGP ATI 3850 Graphics card, 1 36 GB raptor drive.

I Plan on completing all the installs and tests over the weekend and they should be ready on Monday.

I am leaning towards VXP. So who do you think will win the benchmark test?
-------------------------------------------

I wanted to get the results posted sooner than this... but work has been keeping me a little to busy. Also, at the current time I was unable to get the results of Ubuntu and PCLOS08... They don't seem to like my graphics card, so its going to take a little more work than I expected. So here are the results.

VXP SP1 - 587.4
Vista SP1 - 565.2
XP SP3 - 572.3
XP SP1 - 428.9

I thought for sure that XP SP3 was going to stomp Vista SP1... but who knew it would be so close...

60 replies

by nicknielsen

My prediction, fastest to slowest (speculating only, since I have only heard the horror stories and have no direct experience with Vista )

Ubuntu
PCLOS 2008
WinXP SP1
WinXP SP3
VXP
Vista

You're going to be busy this weekend, but I'm looking forward to the results. :D

by ---tk---

The hardest part was the Linux Distro's... I got hung on Ubuntu, if it wasn't for the damn white screen of death I would have been ok... LOL I knew I should have installed ENVY first thing... O well... **Sigh** live and learn lol... I am going to keep at it though.

by forum surfer

What benchmark will you use to compare m$ to *nix?! I've never benchmarked my suse box, nor any other *nix box. The bench test will have to be the same to have any sort of viable results, like a pi test.

For reference though, when I built my current pc I did similar tests. 3.2 ghz c2d (oc'd from a 2.66), 8gb gskill ram (ddr2 1066 5-5-5-15), veloci-raptor 160gb (dell vendor supplied, different size than commercial untis for some reason)sys drive and a 9600 gt gfcx card.

I tested xp sp3 vs xp64 vs vista business 64. I lost my results I saved somewhere along the way after a 4th format and os install. I was utterly shocked to see that Vista business 64 trumped the others. I used sysmark2004se, sysmark and 3dmark03/06 as well as the pi test. The pi tests were all similar, but there was a noticeable gain with vista versus the others. I settled on running vista64 business. No issues to date other than the lack of cisco vpn support, but we use a cisco asa at work and i connect through anyconnect.

by ---tk---

try a couple tests on linux, once I got it stable... I was going to try running it under WINE, and see how that went... but I have not been able to get to a point where it would be an accurate test. I am going to continue to work on it though....

by forum surfer

I ran a a desktop benchmark on my sql server before I deployed it. I had a huge app that was sql based and ran huge databases with mapping files. It's on the verge of needing to be an oracle solution, but sql handles it just fine. It's a quad amd quad core box with 64 gigs of memory. It literally sucked the paper off of my bench and it got stuck to the intake on power up. :) I've never seen results like that before! It was off the charts! Of course I doubt they were accurate, but it was just for sh!ts and giggles. This beast sits in production now and utilizes between 30 and 60% memory on average.

by jamesrl

2 Xeon processors running at 3.2 (plus hyperthreading), 4GB of RAM (3.25 recognized), a Radeon 4850.

I have two partitions, one for Vista Home Ultimate SP1(32 bit, only sees one processor) and one for XP Pro SP3 (sees 2 Xeon processors).

I don't know all the things in the Passmark benchmark, but I do know that 3dMark is faster in XP than in Vista, but that networking (downloads) and startup are considerably faster in Vista. So for average surfing, I find Vista faster, for gaming, XP.

James

by jamesrl

When I was researching Vista, I came across a chart that said that Vista Home Ultimate was multi CPU capable. What it meant was multi core.

I would upgrade, but since I'm already using XP for gaming, and it cost $200 for the upgrade, I am waiting.

James

by jamesrl

Open GL isn't really used in most modern games, its practically all Direct X.

DX9 is just more efficient than DX10, and while DX10 does have some cute eye candy, gamers crave speed. My kill\death ratio goes up everytime I buy a faster card.

James

by forum surfer

http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_9/

There are a few relatively newer games that have opengl modes as well as dx modes. Quake and the half life series have open gl modes. I'm told Far Cry does, but I can't back that up as I'm not sure. Cooincidentally, that was the game that prompted me to get back into gaming and replace me old celeron clunker.

From what I've seen open gl just can't provide the eye candy of dx9 or 10, but again I'm no expert. While the half life series was great with excellent graphics...compare that eye candy to the eye candy seen in games like bioshock and the crysis series and you can notice an inherently better quality.

by ---tk---

I would do the same if I was in that situation... I was going to hold off on Vista, b/c of windows 7 just around the corner. But a couple of my friends said how stable it was getting. So I decided to give it a shot... I do admit that its alot better than what I expected...

by oz_media

Isn't holding out for yet ANOTHER flavour of Windows just a pipe dream though?

I downloaded the Win7 betas, its OK, but too early to really tell.

But MS has oen thing that always rings true with its OS's since day one.

When released, EVERYONE complains about hardware support, need for upgrades etc. After SP2 or 3 comes out, the next MS flavour is on the shelf and everyone complains about THAT version instead.

Do you remember whan nobody would touch XP?
Unresourceful, poor hardware compatibility, required more RAM, stupid lookign interface, couldn't find anything (learnign curve), insecure as hell, etc. People were downgrading to Win2K and saying they'd NEVER trust XP for business, but today it seems to be the people's choice.

Surf the big wave alone, don't follow the ripples into shore, it takes too long for them to catch up.

And once again, thank you for taking the time and for posting your results, good work.

by ---tk---

this time around the "media" or advertising people... everyone was saying their product was "Vista ready" even before MS released the hardware requirements... kinda left me a little confused...

Do you think that was a result of XP's release?

No problem, I like doing stuff like that... Gives me motivation vs. thinking it, and never doing it...

by oz_media

I've seen the same benchmark tests done before, I think it was Tom's Hardware Guide (only XP vs Vista though)that used Everest (one of my favorite benchmarking tools).

While XP won marginally in most areas utilizing OpenGL (which isn't supported in Vista anyway)for teh most psrt, on most normal copy and write tests, Vista came out on top, but only by a narrow margin.

However it does answer one key piece of BS thta XP fanboys pass around, it isn't WAAAY faster than Vista at all, in fact the speed difference is barely noticable as you are actually using it.

Now add to that that Vista offers some great benefits over XP, breadcrumbs navigation (my fav by far), proper dual/quad core process management and greater security and indexing (which DOES work despite the fanboy negatives).

But you do prove one thing, Vista is not the lame duck naysayers pretend it is. in fact if you compare it to the same SP1 level as XP, it walks on XP.

As you have proven, a little tweaking will speed it up beyond XP, and you gain the added Vista benefits.

I just saw an ad on Craigslist this weekend for a guy with a brand new compaq with a quad processor and 1GB RAM. He's ;looking for someone to back up ALL of his data and licences (which I don't think he actually owns, has downloaded Office 2007, Adobe Master Suite etc.) and install XP.

I didn't bother offering a quote, guys like that aren't worth my time. But he fails to notice that he's bought an off the shelf retail notbook and is trying to run some of the most robust, resource dependant software with only 1 GB RAM!

I was compelled to send him an email and tell him to just add ram, but guys lkike that will never get it, he's obviously just listening to what some XP fanboy has told him to do.

His loss. Thanks for taking the time to test and post the results! Good work.

by ---tk---

when Vista was first released, I can understand that move.... but not now its a different story.

I am uploading the tests, so anyone can use it for arguing sake.... the only down side is they were exported as .txt (which can be argued it was tampered with) except for one file... I exported it as a passmark file (noob move)... so that one cant really be debated... I have better things to do than tamper with that stuff... Plus I can always run the tests again...

Are they putting quadcores in lappys yet? other than the Precision Dell models... the min you get is 2 gigs of ram on top of that... (last time I checked)

by oz_media

I don't really pay that much attention to retail hardware these days, sorry, wouldn't know if it is supported or not.

Nobody here is going ot accuse you of tampering with your text file, its a pretty adult group (though we like to be kids a lot of the time too).

And re your bio: just a trivia tidbit.

Did you know that Edison didn't invent the lightbulb?

by jdclyde

Ok, so we get a process down to 1/2 a second, where before it was 3/4 of a second, who is going to notice the difference? (numbers made up, but you get my point)

All people really see is how long they wait to turn on their computer, how long it takes for an application to load, and if there are any [b]NOTICEABLE[/b] pauses during the use of that application.

Just about everything else is subjective, in a time of our society where microwave popcorn takes to long..... ;\

by dumphrey

or I missed in your post, is much better memory management over XP. Or at least it seems that way to me. I don't have a copy of CS3 I can install on my laptop and check times. But programs loaded faster in Vista then on XP.

by oz_media

I did mention that the process management for Dual and Quad core processors is good in Vista, while it was not a conideration for XP it seems.

It's nice ot see the BS textbook Vista rants being proven wrong, there is always so many people with no information who are slagging Vista, that when people start actually using it, teh tides turn.

Of course the earlier naysayers will continue to say it works NOW, but didn't before. :)

Oh well, there are many benefits, you just need to use it to find out what you will benefit from.

by oz_media

There is a class action suit out against MS, though it was set up wrong and they don't stand to win.

They advertised Vista Capable, people complained that they couldn't run Aeroglass etc. However CAPABLE was defined on their website as offering the minimum abilities of Vista, meaning it will run the core and security advantages.

Then there was Vista READY, a little different but again not optimal, according to the fine print.

They did however underestimate hardware requirements but quickly updated them when it was released.

There's a lot of crap slinging at Vista and really that's all it is, crap slinging. Most of it has no merit at all, such as a four page article written by a so called computer guru who ranted on about DRM (rights/copyright)management and how Vista blocks and reduces quality for such materials, completely false and unqualified indeed.

Just go with what you want and what works best for your needs, hardware. I am learning to like Vista more and more everyday, but I still really miss Win2KPro, which I feel was the best OS to datel.

by oz_media

Didn't think i'd seen any OGL games for a while. I thought maybe it was being used as a hidden engine behind/with DX or something.

by ---tk---

I was wondering when someone was going to call me out on that... I think it was Joseph Swan... 2 or 3 years prior. from what I remember.

I just like the Quote... Edison's life really fascinated me for quite some time. It always amazed me how company's (back then) really messed with each other, almost like a gamble/game.

by oz_media

It was an Englishman (Frederick DeMoleyns) in 1841 that came up with the first vacuum bulb patent. Then it was American Starr in 1845 that also patented a vacuum bulb.

by forum surfer

It had a riser card and a pci-x16 expansion card slot. If I had more time, I intended on bringing an nvidia 9800GTX from home and trying some processor intensive games out like Crysis Warhead.

by bryanlockyer33

putting xp pro 64bit in with that test? i tested mine this morning and on 3 seperate boots it ranged from 18 secs with msi config set to original, and upto 22 secs with progs loading as well. programs being: avast, comodo, msn, voip phone, sound effect system, nvidia cp and expert vision for 19" monitor. Pc was ready in 22 seconds. like to see vista get even close to it!!!!!
PC specs....AMD 64 4600+ (overclocked to 2.7x2), 4.0 gb ram, WDC 320gb h.d.d, nvidia 8600gts graphics.

by ---tk---

I wish... I like to stay a couple years behind technology. Its a little cheaper, but it has its down sides.

by jamesrl

My Dell with 2 Xeons from late 2004/2005 is 64 bit - so the chipsets available at the time for dual Xeons could support 64.

James

by john3347

I never used Windows XP SP1....I stuck with Windows 2000 until XP SP2 had been around for a while. Having said that, XP SP3 is CLEARLY much slower than XP SP2. I would imagine that SP2 would smoke everything. I wonder why you skipped back to SP1 without including SP2 in your test. SP3 is bomb on my mid-range machines and I am gradually stepping back to SP2. (SP3 certainly came from the same "cubicle" in Redmond as Vista.) I can count in seconds (one Mississippi, two Mississippi seconds) how much longer it takes SP3 to open certain applications compared with SP2.

by jdclyde

It was an attempt to be unbiased.

Take the first version of each, and then the latest/greatest of each. Got to limit the scope somehow, right?

I had also waited for SP2. :D Will probably wait for VistaSP20 B-)

by ---tk---

I should have tested SP2... but I was more concerned with SP1 vs SP1 and "latest/greatest of each" (like you said)

by ---tk---

because a poster on the VXP debate, said vista SP1 was light years beyond xp SP1... I thought that would be a fair test, and I was interested...

I can test XP SP2 in the next few days.. I am curious to find out that result too.. :)

by oz_media

your test was about as fair and informative as any unpaid, home benchmark test can hope to be.

You offered a lot more than most others do by simply saying XP runs faster on my old box than Vista does, therefore Vista is sh1t.

These fanboys will have you run in circles and reiterate your tests over and over again and will never be satisfied, however they will not take the time to do so themsleves and offer contradictory test results.

"So how about testing XP while singing the Russian national anthem with a tinfoil hat on? I am sure it is better than Vista while singing the Chinese anthem and wearing a paper hat"

by ---tk---

***the gerbils are cranking it out....***

No I'm not positive, to be honest... I never really gave it a second thought. hm... time to do some research...

by bryanlockyer33

my partner has an e-machines 2110(?), it has a 3.06 dual core p4, 768mb ram, 96mb onboard intel 3-d graphics, it will cope with a 64bit O.S, doesnt like it much but it does run it, even tho admittedly i have reverted to a 32bit O.S for the time being, mainly due to the low ram its carrying. again around the 25 secs to boot, dependent on running progs, with a 64 bit O.S, it only gained abt 2secs max to boot.

by oz_media

That should be considered a base, absolute minimal system for Vista, with less than 1GIG RAM, I'm surprised it boots!

by jdclyde

Otherwise some pinhead somewhere would say "but if you install MS234234-3445235-23423-3333 patch XYZ will happen...." :0

The one thing that will keep me from moving to Vista is that it won't run on the existing hardware.

THAT is a test for you, take a two year old system and try the same tests and THEN tell me Vista runs as fast/faster than XP..... B-)

by oz_media

To offer an accurate comparison there, take XP and install it on a P3 (oh yeah, can't do it) or an entry level P4 built pre XP using an LPT1 dot matrix printer (with drivers written during the initial releae of XP, if you can find any.)

That was the key issue behind MANY people not adopting XP at the time, it wouldn't run on their older hardware either.

So if you are willing to see a test of Vista on incompatible hardware, then you should have the same for XP.

by jdclyde

it shows there is no upgrade path, and only a replacement path.

And yes, you can install XP on a PII.

I would say about 1/3rd of our XP systems are PIII's, with 512m ram. For email, word processor and terminal emulator, it does the job just fine. There are even a few PII 400's running XP.

Other than our CAD operators or Marketing that need to have flashy presentations run for customers and trade shows, they get the job done.

I just got off myself of a Celeron600 last year when it burnt up (and only because it burnt up), and never had a reason to get off of it till then. The most system intensive packages I run are Lotus Notes and FireFox. The rest of the time is hyperterm in the servers and routers.

And I only said from a FEW years ago, not 6. A two year old system should be able to handle any OS our there that is compatible with the architecture.

2 gigs of ram to give the receptionist a word processor is stupid.

by rob miners

I was having trouble finding the link. I really wish that these pages would refresh when you click on refresh.

by oz_media

So you run XP in a limited manner on older boxes.

But when people are bitching about Vista its that it is slow and buggy while running Aeroglass etc.
The base system requirements are minimal too, but just like XP, in order to benefit from the real OS features, you need a better box.

Whether or not you can run XP on a 386 is completely irrelevant. If you are trying to say that Vista is junk because it doesn't run well on slow machines, you are still out of touch.

Vista clearly states the minimum requirements to simply run the core processes and benefit from improved security. Failure to meet those requirements means that testing is not conducted properly.

You are being one of those people who thinks Vista Capable means it should run like a tweaked XP on a P4 with a gig of RAM.

Yes, if you degrade hardware enough you will prove that Vista doesn't run well, but that's hardly benchmarking for a new OS.

You can do the exact same thing for ALL previous Windows versions, lets see XP outperform Win2K on an old machine, with the bloatware turned on. Or even Win2K outperform Win98 on an even older box.

When you are ready to compare apples and apples you'll see the reality; until then you are just farting in a strong headwind.

Such comments are useless and don't prove anything other than older operating systems will run better on older hardware, I don't think MS has ever indicated otherwise and I don' tthink any user or tech would expect anything else.

I would even accept running WinXP on a base system, as per MS minimum requirements, with everything turned on (like that stupid XP interface designed by Fisher Price) compared to Vista on a machine fitting the minimum requirements.

But saying that an older OS runs better on older machines is just dumb, of course it does.

by bryanlockyer33

like i said, it didnt like it too much, but it did run it. kinda forced to revert to a 32bit as vista kept corrupting itself!! dunno what that was abt, poss a ram issue. besides vista just too bloated, i dr'd xp pro with extra bmw photos dressed into desktop, ccleaner added, vista sidebar and mozilla. that takes abt 25 secs to boot and auto cleans temp files.

by ---tk---

I don't mind... its hard to argue facts. but hey they can go ahaid. I am always open to new ideas... or other factual information. :)

by oz_media

So while your system doesn't meet teh minimum requirements to use Vista in its most BASIC form, no aeroglass etc. YOU still feel it should run better on hardware that doesn't meet the minimum requirements?

Perhaps you and JD should start a new PC club. "Old boxes that run XP but not Vista, proving Vista is useless" LOL

YOu know that just like with XP, you can shut down the "bloatware". That's the first thing I do with XP too, turn off the Fisher price looking interface and run it like a PC instead.

When you get into higher end machines, even entry level machines use Dual Processors now, Vista has FAR BETTER memory and process management, XP doesn't even know what to do witha dual core processor, no hope for today's quads.

by jdclyde

That is all the other MS fanboys that are slamming Vista, not I.

My point was, for a smaller company, there is no upgrade path. As such, there is not a business REASON that can justify moving to the new OS while the old OS and hardware investment is still performing the job required.

Is that really unreasonable of me? Where is the ROI on moving to Vista?

And no, we don't use AD, and our servers are SuSE linux.

I am not anti-Vista, I am pro-viability/profitability. If you spend the money, it is the same as if you never made it in the first place.

What is the business argument to tell a company to throw away all existing computers and get Vista?

People will move to it, as their old hardware dies out, but with a down economy, the normally slow migration will be even slower than normal.

by oz_media

I agree, unless buyign new hardware, there is no reason to upgrade, just as there wasn't when XP replaced Win2K, thank God they extended support for Win2K becaue nobody wanted XP.

It just seemed that you were being firm that Vista wasn't as good as XP, just like the old broken records all over the internet, my mistake.

by the scummy one

Good criteria, run a test on each of them with their recommended or minimum requirements and see just how well each performs in it's native HW.

by oz_media

You did mean that you were going to do this test, right?

Actually it isn't really an accurate test of anything at all. It simply shows which runs better on its minimum hardware requirements, but still irrelevant as far as comparing the two OS's as far a which is better.

Which parts of each OS should rightly be disabled? IE. Vista runs at a minimum but not with aeroglass, sidebar gadgets etc turned on. Now how do you make that equal for XP? Classic interface, then you'd have to classic Vista too.

by oz_media

Same link page 9:
"Just like Windows XP, Windows Vista does not contain an OpenGL ICD "in the box." "

So it just doesn't come in the box but is available as a download. I just remember people bitching away about that when Vista first came out, I haven't followed up on it recently.

Thanks!

This discussion is closed to new replies.