Benchmark Results: Booting, Shutdown, Hibernation, Standby
The wait times illustrated in the following tests tend to be very noticeable in everyday operation. Keep in mind that the only coniguration difference is the operating system, and that these actions will take considerably longer on a notebook or older PC. The Core i7-920 machine we used is already relatively fast, so it’s all the more striking to see such huge differences.
Our reference test system took significantly less time to boot under Windows 7 than Windows Vista. You’ll have to add a few seconds for the BIOS power on self-test procedure, as we started tracking the time after post. Keep in mind that the time tracking also includes displaying the Tom’s Hardware front page off the local hard drive. Still, booting Windows 7 saves roughly a quarter of the time required to boot Windows Vista.
Putting our fully featured system into standby mode took 15 seconds on the Windows 7 machine and almost twice that time, 24 seconds, on Windows Vista.
Resuming from standby was equally fast, but still quicker on Windows 7: 11 seconds versus 12 seconds on Windows Vista.
Hibernation means copying all of the data from system memory to the hard drive in order to preserve the system and application states before switching off the PC. In comparison, standby doesn’t power down the system completely. Obviously, the hibernation process time depends on memory capacity and speed. The more memory is in use, and the larger the memory capacity in general, the longer the system will take to hibernate. At the end of the day, the performance difference of 15 versus 21 seconds in favor of Windows 7 is stunning.
The reverse process, restoring the system from hibernation, was again much faster on Windows 7.
Lastly, we also tracked the time needed for the test system to shut down under Windows 7 and Vista. This operation was not faster on Windows 7. The process took the same 12 seconds on Windows Vista.
- windows ,
- 7 ,
- performance
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Windows 7 is such a lovely operating system. I agree with everything mentioned in this article. I cannot wait until schools and businesses start to upgrade form boring old XP!
I'd like to see 7 vs vista with an SSD to see how much of an impact TRIM makes. Also more gaming benchmarks where the frame rate is somewhere around the 30 fps mark so that differences could be appreciated in a real life gaming scenario.
It would be interesting to have the same tests compared with XP, simply because Microsoft have really done a good job with 7. You expect with a new OS that it might require a few more resources than the previous one, but to produce a new OS a few years later that runs equal to, or quicker, is some feat. If the same tests with XP have similar results than Microsoft will have done an astounding job and XP users can feel assured that it is okay to upgrade at last.
It would be interesting to have the same tests compared with XP, simply because Microsoft have really done a good job with 7. You expect with a new OS that it might require a few more resources than the previous one, but to produce a new OS a few years later that runs equal to, or quicker, is some feat. If the same tests with XP have similar results than Microsoft will have done an astounding job and XP users can feel assured that it is okay to upgrade at last.
I still prefer XP over Vista and 7. It would be nice to see a comparison like this with XP and Windows 7.
i also still prefer xp over the latest two os and have no intention of upgrading in the near future.However i have tried these two latest os and i dont think its my cup of tea.
Thank you TH this is a very nice article. However I agree with the above two posters, it would be even nicer to see XP measured as well. It would have been amazing to have also ubuntu and OSX, just to get a nice all round OS comparison
I strikes me that, with only a few exceptions, the margins aren't as remarkable as one would expect given the level of hatred of Vista vs love of Win 7. It appears that even the author is guilty of pre-judging Vista, given the fact he claims that a 5% margin constitutes a "glaring" advantage in the Sysmark testing. Yes, it's a win, but I wouldn't go and spend £70 on any other upgrade for the sake of a 5% performance boost.
Don't get me wrong; I think that Windows 7 gets a lot of things right that Vista plainly didn't. I am just not sure that the speed improvement vs Vista is it's strongest advantage. I imagine that against XP one would see that even Windows 7 is somewhat sluggish on a lot of measures. I still believe that in the minds of many Windows 7's biggest advantage is simply that "it isn't Vista".
The inclusion of OS X and Linux benchmarks would certainly make for interesting reading too (although mindful of my comment above about spending, I imagine many people would feel that the money you shell out to run OS X certainly couldn't be justified by the performance gains).
I think you need to re-run the tests on a more mediocre business type platform and then you will see a vast improvement over vista. Vista has always run well on high performance gaming machines it just won't run well on anything else.
I would also like to see comparisons with the most popular OS, XP!
where is winXP ?
OK, fair test, but what was being used? 32-bit or 64-bit? The test system had 6GB of RAM......
wizball is on to something here.. It is better.. But at what cost?? A lot of people bought into vista and are now in a dilemma, they recognize the benefits of windows 7, but is it really worth doling out all that cash just to get a "vista that works"??
Yes spending £80 for a 5% increase over vista is a no go as far as I am concerned, I run Vista 64bit Prem sp2 and I cant find any reason to change TBH. The point about lower end machines is valid and tests should be made using these types of machines and not high end rigs.
A test against XP is a must but I cant see many testers wanting to do that as it might show flaws in W7 new image.
Yes spending £80 for a 5% increase over vista is a no go as far as I am concerned, I run Vista 64bit Prem sp2 and I cant find any reason to change TBH. The point about lower end machines is valid and tests should be made using these types of machines and not high end rigs.
A test against XP is a must but I cant see many testers wanting to do that as it might show flaws in W7 new image.
everybody knows that w7 beats vista
If they brought out windows 8 tomorrow with a 5% increase in performance over 7 would you recommend people who have bought 7 upgrade to that?
5% + dx 11 = worth it if you have a HD5XXX
All the above posts have very good points but in the end if the computer is a few months old and full of 3rd party programs then I would like to see how they both fair then in regards to start up and shut down tests.
When vista was released it was a dog which then set the tone for the rest of it's life but microsoft have fixed but a little late for most users.
Yep, would love to see XP. Since Vista was so universally disliked lots of people skipped it and are now looking at XP vs 7. A range of specs would have been interesting too, dual core, slower quad, SSD etc.