Windows 7 And Windows Vista: Performance Compared
Table of contents
- 1. How Much Better Is Windows 7?
- 2. Windows History
- 3. Hardware And Test Details
- 4. Test Setup
- 5. Benchmark Results: Synthetics
Despite lots of innovation with SuperFetch and ReadyBoost, Windows Vista wasn’t popular. In fact, many users avoided upgrading from Windows XP to Vista altogether. Though the operating system was the first version of Windows with 3D animation, and it offered many new features, it didn’t deliver enough compelling reasons to replace XP, which can now be considered really mature (if not over the hill).
Indexing updates could be retrofitted to Windows XP, and Vista turned out to be more hungry for resources than previous Windows versions. Windows 7, however, has been out for a few weeks, and feedback has generally been great. We decided to revisit our first look at testing these two operating systems head-to-head and directly compare Windows Vista and Windows 7, to see if the reported benefits are really noticeable.
What is Performance at the OS Level?
Most people think of application performance when they talk about performance in general. However, the operating system plays a major role in the process chain that creates everyday computing experiences. The OS is what switches a processor between power-saving and fast operating states (or even intermediate active states that determine performance in Intel's Turbo Boost mode via P-states). The OS, or to be more precise its dispatcher, distributes threads across available processor resources, and Windows 7 is more aggressive about using thread headroom for the sake of performance.
However, performance also has to be defined by the user experience during ordinary operating system actions, such as system bootup, standby, application launching, hibernation, or shutdown. If the OS were a bit quicker on applications but consumed several minutes during start-up or shutdown, you’d probably want to ditch it. Hence our second round of testing not only includes benchmarks and application tests but also a look at these everyday operations.
- windows ,
- 7 ,
- performance
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Latest Software News
Latest Software reviews
- 17/01 – In Pictures: Dear Developers, 15 Games Worthy Of A Sequel
- 09/01 – Nokia Lumia 710 Review: Windows Phone 7 On A Budget
- 06/01 – Web Browser Grand Prix VIII: Chrome 16, Firefox 9, And Mac OS X
- 06/12 – Star Wars: The Old Republic: PC Performance, Benchmarked
- 11/11 – Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: PC Performance, Benchmarked
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.