# Windows 7 Review: XP vs Vista vs 7 in 80+ Benchmarks



## qubit (Aug 21, 2009)

Which one do you think came out on top?

Enjoy. 

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review


----------



## francis511 (Aug 22, 2009)

Very useful if you`ve just started thinking about windows se7en !


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 22, 2009)

just downloaded win7 professional 64bit fo free off msdn.. lovin it


----------



## ev44o (Aug 22, 2009)

My brother just installed windows 7 32bit on his laptop and he loves it! works like a charm, im glad microsoft came out of the mess they called vista, lol


----------



## Triprift (Aug 22, 2009)

Hmmm one of 50 000 articles about 7 every puter mag tech site if you dont know bout it you have to be living under a huge rock.


----------



## YinYang.ERROR (Aug 22, 2009)

Windows 7 sounds and looks awesome. I will update to it when I build my new PC. (which will be in a month or two)


----------



## EnergyFX (Aug 22, 2009)

ev44o said:


> My brother just installed windows 7 32bit on his laptop and he loves it! works like a charm, im glad microsoft came out of the mess they called vista, lol



What?? 

Vista and 7 are neck and neck on performance spare one of the hard drive tests and FarCry 2 on nVidia.  Stop being such a fud punk and accept that Vista is not a bad OS... no matter how bad you really really really want it to be.

I am currently using 7RC on my main system... and I really don't see any of the specfreakintacular performance improvements that so many people are bragging about.  It looks and feels alot like Vista, acts like Vista, smells like Vista, and performs like Vista.  I will admit that my desktop loads a few seconds faster than Vista, which is nice, and some of the new bells and whistles are nifty.

Personally, 7 is neither better nor worse than Vista to me.  The little things I like about 7 pretty much offset the annoyance of having to get used to a new way of interacting with my computer.

Windows 7 will be a great OS... just like its daddy.  XP is an old fart... deal with it.


----------



## YinYang.ERROR (Aug 22, 2009)

EnergyFX said:


> What??
> 
> Vista and 7 are neck and neck on performance spare one of the hard drive tests and FarCry 2 on nVidia.  Stop being such a fud punk and accept that Vista is not a bad OS... no matter how bad you really really really want it to be.
> 
> ...




While I agree that Win7 is not faster than Vista at the moment, it will be after a service pack or two.

I just don't like vista because it broke on me for no reason, and not even a repair install could fix it.


----------



## EnergyFX (Aug 22, 2009)

YinYang.ERROR said:


> While I agree that Win7 is not faster than Vista at the moment, it will be after a service pack or two...



Very likely that you're right.  I look forward to the day this happens.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 22, 2009)

I have just installed the latest version of Windows 7 on my GF's rig < 64bit and i must say OMFG its running so dam fast its crazy, but i have however installed it on a VelociRaptor so that also helps  Transfering files from a thumb drive is double the speed, just browsing the web has doubled as well. I just cant believe how fast it is running, im realy impressed.

My m8 was running Vista 64 Utlimate and upgraded it to Windows 7 and he said instantly it ran better (so many problems with Vista and his system) 

Just shows you in the bench tests on the three OS's how good 7 is but also how good XP is/still and that Vista is ok but still behind. 

Next test is to see how well it realy goes when running games, thats the next test.

Windows 7 will be my next OS when i build my new rig later this yr or next yr.


----------



## francis511 (Aug 22, 2009)

Anyone noticed how fast file transfer is ? It went up from like 20-40 mb/s on xp to 40-70 on se7en


----------



## Frick (Aug 22, 2009)

EnergyFX said:


> What??
> 
> Vista and 7 are neck and neck on performance spare one of the hard drive tests and FarCry 2 on nVidia.  Stop being such a fud punk and accept that Vista is not a bad OS... no matter how bad you really really really want it to be.
> 
> ...



You have a pretty good computer too, and probably had a decent computer when Vista was released. No wonder you don't complain about it being sluggish. Now people generally has enough power to deal with it,  but that wasn't the case 3 years ago.

Anyhow, if I have the cash I will buy Windows 7. It depends a bit on how well old games run on it though, but it's probably a go.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 22, 2009)

All the tests are against Windows XP Professional and not Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.  It's not fair seeing as Vista and 7 are x64.


----------



## qubit (Aug 22, 2009)

*Perception of performance*

It's interesting to see the different perception of speed between Vista & 7 here.

For me, 7 does feel a bit faster than Vista and is similar to XP and runs really smoothly. Having said that, with all the millions of patches that MS has thrown at it, Vista is no longer slow and buggy and is now a very good, reliable OS and better than XP - it's just that now it's tarred with "it's crap!" (which it was) most cannot get past this old, tired and now incorrect, mantra. That's human nature for you. 

Vista does use a lot more RAM, however. That is not merely an opinion, because Microsoft re-engineered 7 to use half the RAM for each open window.

I've put 7 RTM on my old laptop, which is quite low spec and it runs quickly and smoothly on that. I've also put Server 2008 on it which is Vista, server version and that runs pretty snappily too - I'm talking about the interface only and note that Aero wouldn't activate because the X300 video chip doesn't have the right driver, too old.

Laptop: Samsung P40, 1.73GHz Centrino (32-bit only), 2GB RAM, ATI X300 video, 40GB HD, 1024x768 display.

Thinking about it, I used to think that XP was quite reliable, but I do remember seeing gremlins with it, random faults over the years I used it, that I just chucked down to "one of those things" and didn't really point the finger at XP. However, I started using Vista when SP1 came out and I've seen much fewer gremlins in Vista in the year that I used it (certainly not faultless though, to be fair) so I guess XP wasn't as reliable as it seemed. They use XP at work too (I'm in IT support) and I still see all those little issues, yet the uninformed like to cling to XP...

(I don't mean that work is uninformed, though. The serious amount of hardware upgrades required to run Vista properly and compatibility with certain custom, mission-critical apps are the main reasons for sticking with XP).


----------



## qubit (Aug 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> All the tests are against Windows XP Professional and not Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.  It's not fair seeing as Vista and 7 are x64.



Good point. Makes you wonder if they did that deliberately to make the new OSes look good...

Although, one could argue that XP 32-bit is far more prevalent than the 64-bit version, so they just want to compare it with what everyone was using the most.


----------



## InTeL-iNsIdE (Aug 22, 2009)

Am I being totally blind ? I cant see any benchmarks, just 5 pages reviewing 7 and the features


----------



## qubit (Aug 22, 2009)

InTeL-iNsIdE said:


> Am I being totally blind ? I cant see any benchmarks, just 5 pages reviewing 7 and the features



Serious? You know, when I made my forum post, I had only read the first page and the conclusion - and I still haven't read the rest of it. lol. So, perhaps there really aren't any benchmarks!


----------



## TechnicalFreak (Aug 22, 2009)

I have some questions about Windows 7..
I heard that it doesn't have explorer into it anymore, what does that mean? Is it more like Win95 then, i.e. that it draws less resources? 

Speed.. Is it faster than WinXP (Pro, "Ultimate")? 
To them who have tested it vs. Vista - what do you think? Is it better than Vista? If yes, in what ways??


----------



## qubit (Aug 22, 2009)

TechnicalFreak said:


> I have some questions about Windows 7..
> I heard that it doesn't have explorer into it anymore, what does that mean? Is it more like Win95 then, i.e. that it draws less resources?
> 
> Speed.. Is it faster than WinXP (Pro, "Ultimate")?
> To them who have tested it vs. Vista - what do you think? Is it better than Vista? If yes, in what ways??



I suggest you read the article I linked to. It's got all the answers there...

And what do you mean by "explorer"? *Internet* Explorer or *Windows* Explorer?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 22, 2009)

qubit said:


> Although, one could argue that XP 32-bit is far more prevalent than the 64-bit version, so they just want to compare it with what everyone was using the most.


Vista x86 is more popular than Vista x64.


----------



## qubit (Aug 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Vista x86 is more popular than Vista x64.



Then we'll just go with the conspiracy theory.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 22, 2009)

he is talking about explorer.exe aka the core service for the OS

it does have it.


----------



## Disparia (Aug 22, 2009)

qubit said:


> Then we'll just go with the conspiracy theory.



Or that testing XP64 isn't really testing "XP", but Server 2003


----------



## qubit (Aug 22, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> Or that testing XP64 isn't really testing "XP", but Server 2003



Hmmm, true.

Still, as a proper conspiracy theorist, I'm not gonna let the facts get in the way of the truth!


----------



## KainXS (Aug 22, 2009)

I agree with the article, windows 7 is a worthy successor to windows xp, vista should have been what 7 was at its launch to me, In the longhorn beta testing I and countless others even sent a ton of reccomendations to microsoft, of course they got ignored, but alot of those problems we sent are fixed in 7 not vista, for example, there is a error with aero where if you have a compatible card, but its like a 9800PRO, it won't work period if you have an nvidia chipset and many other aero problems, but it was finally fixed just before 7 got to RC, which made me really happy.

I think I can finally install the release candidate on my older laptop because everything works for it now where as in vista, I get no audio, and aero dosen't work.

EDIT

does anyone know where I can download the RC, I have a key but I forgot to download it last week


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 22, 2009)

KainXS said:


> does anyone know where I can download the RC, I have a key but I forgot to download it last week



http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dd353205.aspx


----------



## strick94u (Aug 22, 2009)

Once again Bill gets in my wallet diffrence is it used to be 90 buck I luked out and got vista ultamit ior 70 when circuit city closed. Now I have download rights through my company to everything but still only version of vista is business which is not bad.7 sounds great I have down loaded it will try it on the new laptop first but my now aging gaming rig shown in profile is still running XP pro think 7 will give it a boost or a bust let me know b4 I do something stupid please.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 22, 2009)

BarbaricSoul said:


> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dd353205.aspx



opps, my bad, looks like it's not avaialble on technet anymore, guess you have to visit the torrents


----------



## Easo (Aug 22, 2009)

I dont need benchmarks, i just know Win7 is faster, i can literally feel it.


----------



## qubit (Aug 22, 2009)

KainXS said:


> EDIT
> 
> does anyone know where I can download the RC, I have a key but I forgot to download it last week



Unfortunately, the RC download period has expired, so there's no legit way of getting it now. Perhaps you have a friend with a copy?


----------



## Triprift (Aug 22, 2009)

Ive seen a number of pc mags here in oz with the rc on the cover disc maybe they might have em in mags where you are.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 22, 2009)

francis511 said:


> Anyone noticed how fast file transfer is ? It went up from like 20-40 mb/s on xp to 40-70 on se7en



Hell yes i noticed it, even over a wireless network its alot faster, im very happy about that and shocked at the same time. Took 6mins to move a 1GB file to my flash drive off XP, but less then 1min to put it on Windows 7, thats just crazy fast


----------



## Melvis (Aug 23, 2009)

Sorry for double post

But i just tested windows 7 in gaming (COD5 Nazi Zombie 1.5) and it runs like ASS, had to set everything to as low as it can go and even then it still ran crappy, on XP i can run it on medium to high not for Se7en tho :shadedshu


----------



## qubit (Aug 23, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Sorry for double post
> 
> But i just tested windows 7 in gaming (COD5 Nazi Zombie 1.5) and it runs like ASS, had to set everything to as low as it can go and even then it still ran crappy, on XP i can run it on medium to high not for Se7en tho :shadedshu



That's interesting, I tried running Fallout 3 the other day and I was getting something like 20fps, regardless of how low I put the settings. On Vista, I was getting around 100fps and on XP even more. Not had time to look into this yet. Perhaps it's some little bug in 7?


----------



## RadeonX2 (Aug 23, 2009)

same here my scores on 3Dmark06 went down by about 1k on 7. I scored over 17k on Vista while in 7 it barely manages 16k. Vantage was fine tho.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 23, 2009)

qubit said:


> That's interesting, I tried running Fallout 3 the other day and I was getting something like 20fps, regardless of how low I put the settings. On Vista, I was getting around 100fps and on XP even more. Not had time to look into this yet. Perhaps it's some little bug in 7?



Mmm iindeed interesting and i agree it might be some sort of bug, since everything else in Windows 7 flies, games are so slow.  I kept the same settings i use in XP and i was barely getting over 20fps, with all settings to low it averaged around 20-25fps and i know a 8600GT can run that game alot better then that


----------



## Easo (Aug 23, 2009)

Strange, there was little to no change from Vista to Win 7 in gaming for me.
Possibly something to do with individual confuguration of hardware and software.


----------



## qubit (Aug 23, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Mmm iindeed interesting and i agree it might be some sort of bug, since everything else in Windows 7 flies, games are so slow.  I kept the same settings i use in XP and i was barely getting over 20fps, with all settings to low it averaged around 20-25fps and i know a 8600GT can run that game alot better then that



Indeed it was a bug. The problem is now solved.  Please see this thread for details. Oh and the fix was really simple. lol


----------



## KH0UJ (Aug 23, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Mmm iindeed interesting and i agree it might be some sort of bug, since everything else in Windows 7 flies, games are so slow.  I kept the same settings i use in XP and i was barely getting over 20fps, with all settings to low it averaged around 20-25fps and i know a 8600GT can run that game alot better then that



I guess were are the few ones whose unlucky on win 7 I had the other HDD that has win 7 installed and ready, im still waiting for the latest driver updates hopefully it can fix the slow mo problems when gaming


----------



## Melvis (Aug 23, 2009)

qubit said:


> Indeed it was a bug. The problem is now solved.  Please see this thread for details. Oh and the fix was really simple. lol



lol o ok i see, im not sure what version im running at the moment, i only installed Windows 7 with nvidia drivers like 2days ago, so unless they have put out new drivers since then? Ill check tomorrow when i wake up and hook up the HDD with 7 installed.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 23, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Sorry for double post
> 
> But i just tested windows 7 in gaming (COD5 Nazi Zombie 1.5) and it runs like ASS, had to set everything to as low as it can go and even then it still ran crappy, on XP i can run it on medium to high not for Se7en tho :shadedshu



I just tried it myself and noticed no real difference in frame rates between  XP SP3 and Win7.  So I have no idea what you are talking about here.  Are you using the RC version and did you install the latest video card drivers for Win7?


----------



## Melvis (Aug 23, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I just tried it myself and noticed no real difference in frame rates between  XP SP3 and Win7.  So I have no idea what you are talking about here.  Are you using the RC version and did you install the latest video card drivers for Win7?



Others are having a similar problem so 

And im running the latest RTM version of 7 and im not sure if i have the latest display drivers i gotta check that today.


----------



## qubit (Aug 24, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Others are having a similar problem so
> 
> And im running the latest RTM version of 7 and im not sure if i have the latest display drivers i gotta check that today.



As I said in my previous post to you, you must be running the very latest video drivers. At the moment they are at version 190.62. This nailed the problem with Fallout 3 completely for me.


----------



## BroBQ (Aug 24, 2009)

ev44o said:


> My brother just installed windows 7 32bit on his laptop and he loves it! works like a charm, im glad microsoft came out of the mess they called vista, lol



Whats wrong with Vista?


----------



## Polarman (Aug 24, 2009)

People are only comparing 7 RTM to Vista RTM when it was written from the ground up and no real drivers where around at the time.

Wake up!! 7 is built upon the same more mature Vista architecture. That's why drivers are better from the start and software is more compatible also. That's why most of these tests are similar.

*If Vista did not exist *and people where jumping from XP to this brand new different OS called 7, all would have bitched about lousy this and poor compatibility that it is.

I purchased Vista 9 months after it came out. That pre SP1 folks! I was very satisfied with the results at the time and never even looked back at re-installing XP. With SP2 now, i more than happy with Vista.


----------



## Cuzza (Aug 24, 2009)

Triprift said:


> Hmmm one of 50 000 articles about 7 every puter mag tech site if you dont know bout it you have to be living under a huge rock.



First review I've read and I learned a lot, haven't been living under a rock, just haven't bothered to read any reviews on it because I had no intention of buying it in the immediate future. They still haven't fixed the 1 thing that piss me off about Vista. And the rest seems largely window-dressing (sorry). So I don't think I'll bother until I get a new rig, which is probably a while away.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 24, 2009)

qubit said:


> As I said in my previous post to you, you must be running the very latest video drivers. At the moment they are at version 190.62. This nailed the problem with Fallout 3 completely for me.



Yea i know, i thought i was, but im running 190.38 (i get them off the node) So iam now downloading 190.62 and will test them out and see what happens


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 24, 2009)

qubit said:


> That's interesting, I tried running Fallout 3 the other day and I was getting something like 20fps, regardless of how low I put the settings. On Vista, I was getting around 100fps and on XP even more. Not had time to look into this yet. Perhaps it's some little bug in 7?


Fallout 3 runs like crap for me on XP x64.  I just leave it to a bad update/DLC--not a good game for benchmarking.


----------



## qubit (Aug 24, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Fallout 3 runs like crap for me on XP x64.  I just leave it to a bad update/DLC--not a good game for benchmarking.



The problem has been solved. I believe you missed my post 38, where I explain it. 

In short, install the latest nvidia 190.62 drivers and the problem disappears.

The game is buggy though, I agree with you there.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 28, 2009)

qubit said:


> The problem has been solved. I believe you missed my post 38, where I explain it.
> 
> In short, install the latest nvidia 190.62 drivers and the problem disappears.
> 
> The game is buggy though, I agree with you there.



Well it must work on other games but it didnt work in COD5 it still runs like crap, better, but crap :shadedshu

Maybe the next ones


----------



## qubit (Aug 28, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Well it must work on other games but it didnt work in COD5 it still runs like crap, better, but crap :shadedshu
> 
> Maybe the next ones



Yeah, fingers crossed. Do you have an ATI card you could try? It really wouldn't surprise me if that ran better in this instance, given the driver mess nvidia made when Vista came out.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 28, 2009)

qubit said:


> Yeah, fingers crossed. Do you have an ATI card you could try? It really wouldn't surprise me if that ran better in this instance, given the driver mess nvidia made when Vista came out.



Ya man i can test my 3850 < on this comp and see what happens as i have heard that ATI drivers are alot more mature then Nvidia is on 7.


----------



## qubit (Aug 28, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Ya man i can test my 3850 < on this comp and see what happens as i have heard that ATI drivers are alot more mature then Nvidia is on 7.



Actually, looking at your system specs, I see that you have two nvidia 8600s in sli. This card isn't very powerful, so I'm wondering if that's the problem?

Now to ask a potentially stupid question: did CoD5 run better on XP/Vista than 7? If so, then yeah, I guess it's crap on 7.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 28, 2009)

qubit said:


> Actually, looking at your system specs, I see that you have two nvidia 8600s in sli. This card isn't very powerful, so I'm wondering if that's the problem?
> 
> Now to ask a potentially stupid question: did CoD5 run better on XP/Vista than 7? If so, then yeah, I guess it's crap on 7.



Well it might say i am running Sli 8600GT's but im realy only running one card at the moment, had to give the other back to my bro  BUT to answer your other question is that this system can run COD5 on XP fine, with settings set to Medium to High without too much problems. I have no idea how it runs on vista i dont use it, so i think its just Windows 7 at the moment with immature drivers.


----------



## qubit (Aug 28, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Well it might say i am running Sli 8600GT's but im realy only running one card at the moment, had to give the other back to my bro  BUT to answer your other question is that this system can run COD5 on XP fine, with settings set to Medium to High without too much problems. *I have no idea how it runs on vista i dont use it, so i think its just Windows 7 at the moment with immature drivers.*



Yeah, that sounds very likely.


----------



## jagjitnatt (Aug 28, 2009)

*win7*

well, i've tried win 7 on around 3 pcs. if you compare on a clock, its barely any faster than vista, but the thing with win7 is that it responds quicker. The startmenu open up as soon as you click like in xp, whereas in vista there is a few milliseconds lag. This lag is present in every aspect of vista, which makes it feel a lot slower than it actually is. With Win7, things have become spontanous, just like it was in the old days. 

It definitely makes it feel a lot lighter, quicker and responsive.
just my 2 cents


----------



## Frick (Aug 28, 2009)

Just preordered Home Premium for £65 from Amazon.co.uk. After sept 1 the price will be like €200, so I think I made a good thing.


----------



## qubit (Aug 28, 2009)

Frick said:


> Just preordered Home Premium for £65 from Amazon.co.uk. After sept 1 the price will be like €200, so I think I made a good thing.



If you would like to use more Microsoft products, or simply have licences for 10 computers _for each grade_ of 7, you might like to try a TechNet subscription (I have one). These offer codes will reduce the cost from £285 inc vat to about £215: TMSAM10 or TMSAM04

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/subscriptions/renew.aspx

You only need to use some of the products before the value for money becomes fantastic.


----------



## Frick (Aug 28, 2009)

Yeah, I know, but I don't think I would use that. Maybe sometime in the future, but atm I can't see myself use it. Also, I don't have THAT kind of cash.


----------

