Benchmarking Windows 7: Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The article doesn't say much but I personaly would have preferred if you chose a 5850 or 5870 as the graphics card. Since you said
Modern hardware and software deserve each other, so we used some of our latest parts to gauge the performance difference of each operating system.
Click to expand...

Who knows,maybe it would have made a difference in the numbers, in power consumption.
 
One of my local television news Komo had a forum and some discussions about Windows 7 over Windows Vista.There were quite a few people who complained about running Vista on their PC.However most of the complainers (and there were a lot of them) had PC's with specifications that just barely met Vista's requirements.
These people had outdated and obsolete hardware (probably owned lame OEM name brand PC's)no wonder that they had problems.Anyway thanks for the benchmarking of 7 vs Vista.The conclusion is rather interesting especially about a game running SMOOTHER and the feel of 7 being 7% to 10% faster than Vista.I like smoother gameplay.
 
Would have been nice to see Windows XP included as well. Just to know how much difference there really is in terms of performance between all 3 O/s's. From the above tests, there seems little reason to move to Win7 from Vista based on performance alone....
 
What matters most is that Windows 7 gives way to what many are really
after, A reliable and efficient Operating System as a replacement to their
Windows XP, which millions and millions of people are still using.
From the DX11 and Shader 5 hype, To Win XP mode to Fast Bootup to
Increased FPS n gaming to strong security features... Well, Its up to
them which versions is which. :)
 
waste of an article especially since they said "While most Tom’s Hardware readers initially resisted the switch from Windows XP"

should have benchmarked it against windows xp (fresh install)

while windows 7 is faster in some areas compared to windows vista, but it has lag spikes which causes CPU intensive tasks which lowers CPU benchmark results.
 
[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]waste of an article especially since they said "While most Tom’s Hardware readers initially resisted the switch from Windows XP"should have benchmarked it against windows xp (fresh install)while windows 7 is faster in some areas compared to windows vista, but it has lag spikes which causes CPU intensive tasks which lowers CPU benchmark results.[/citation]

The article also explains that XP x64 or Windows 7 x86 weren't options. What, you wanted 32-bit XP compared to 64-bit Vista and 7?
 
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]The article also explains that XP x64 or Windows 7 x86 weren't options. What, you wanted 32-bit XP compared to 64-bit Vista and 7?[/citation]

they should have added both 32 bit windows xp and 64 bit (poor drivers and all)

if 64 bit xp was really that unpopular then that means most people sticking with XP will be using the 32 bit version, so benchmark them show the users who stuck with XP what they will gain with going to windows 7

I have the 64 bit version of windows 7 and 64 bit windows vista and 32 bit windows xp installed and compared to all of them windows xp is still the quickest. common things done in the OS especially the menu system and other parts of the OS require less hard drive activity to load, they load pretty much instantly while with vista theres a noticeable delay because it has to load up the eye candy along with the content, this gives the OS a sluggish feel.

gaming benchmarks are lower but actual game play feels around the same since on both xp and windows 7 my frame rate in many games are pretty high that loosing a few FPS wont really be noticeable but it doesn't change the fact that it is slower

so toms hardware, please show the windows XP users what they have to gain if they move to windows 7. comparing windows 7 to vista wont help anyone who decided to stick with windows xp

thats like walking up to a group of people who decided to stick with their small cars instead of upgrading to a SUV and you trying to convince them to get a SUV by comparing the SUV to a M1A1D Abrams tank
it doesn't show the small car owner what they are getting because the benchmark has nothing to do with them

suppose you owned a company that makes makes the zune HD and I walked in to show your company a new mobile CPU for the zune HD but in my presentation I only mentioned how much better the new CPU performs compared to the stock CPU inside of a ipod touch
(I bet security would be dragging me out of the room)
 
IMO, the results for Windows 7 are disappointing. If it can only beat Vista by "7% to 10%", then it must be far less with XP.
 
i really do wish the reviewers include a mid end configuration for their
reviews. thats where you'll see a lot of differnce since there is the
factor of 'threshold' which plays a role.
 
Why there is no comparison with XP..

While doing Benchmark, Test the relative configuration with Low end CPUs like mainstream CPUs, Average RAM etc, which puts the majority of mainstream users relate to the article..

tks
 
Disappointing article. Ive been waiting for benchmarks....and you didnt show xp numbers. Bleh.

So many users still on xp, some benchmarks to show what the difference is in moving to 7 is what is needed.

------------

with that said the vista vs 7 numbers are very disappointing. Seems they have made FAR less progress then the hype surrounding 7 would suggest. Im sure its better then vista, but who cares, vista sucks. Compare to xp and let us know where they are REALLY at.
 
i think microsoft is paying anandtech, tom'shardware and other well known pc review sites to give good reviews because if you really read the charts they show that win7 is worse than xp
 
I had nothing but problems with Windows7, True it looks and feels nice, and i have it installed on my dell e4300 with no issues btw , but if you want stable reliable OS on some what complex setup, Windows7 just isn't ready. I had a lot unexplained problems on my main computer, problems with storage (thing that worked perfect with Vista, and a lot of stability issues, so i am still favor older VistaX64 sp1. As i see it, it all in publicity and how you promote your product, Microsoft did a good job with windows 7. Well you did see the numbers of windows 7. It superiority at this point is some what questionable, but every body like it...why?
 
I am disappointed in this article as it feels like a Microsoft backed study/promo? Benchmarks appear slower but its really faster?
I've been using Windows 7 since Beta and it IS slower than XP and Vista and it FEELS slower, and it loads slower,.. .. ..! This is on a X2 Laptop, core 2 intel and a Quad core Phenom II systems.
As far as gaming goes theres really little to justify DirectX 10 or 11 at this stage so until software supports these so called advanced technologies then the benefit is minimal.
I scored Windows 7 premium for minimal cost so I WILL run it at this stage but not because it better or faster. Because its there!
My primary Quad core is back to Vista x64 (fastest and smoothest machine) and my laptop is back to XP (Smaller CPU but comparable to the Windows 7 machine in feel. - XP appears faster but is really slower - Slower CPU)
Windows 7 will run on the Core 2 and it runs?
 
To all the people that are claiming Windows 7 feels faster than Windows Vista, keep in mind that you have a fresh install of Windows 7, you were probably running a Vista installation that was 1 or 2 years old, if not older. Of course it is going to feel faster. If you had done a fresh install of Vista instead of Windows 7 you would be saying that your fresh install of Vista feels faster too.
 
First thing first, updating to 7 should be done thus:
- backup your data
- format your HDD
- install from scratch.

Second, 7 is 'Vista done right':
- It's heavier than WinXP, but it doesn't have such an overhead that you need an extra Gb of RAM and a dedicated CPU core just to run the kernel and base services
- the interface isn't a mix of GUI dating back to Win3.11 (fonts dialogue) with XP stuff lost in the middle and an unfinished 3D interface, but is indeed licked
- it is able to copy files from one drive to another without mobilizing 2 CPU cores, 2.5 Gb of RAM and switching from '1 minute' to '2 days' in ETA.

So, while I recommended NOT getting Vista before, I don't recommend not getting 7 if it comes with your computer.

I won't buy 7 to install over XP though, as 7 brings me no advantage:
- my OS is already 64-bit
- all hardware drivers for 32-bit are also available in 64-bit
- it can manage more than 4 Gb of RAM (even in 32-bit mode by default)
- it is backward compatible
- upgrade to newer releases is free
- I can install it on more than 3 computers at home with no extra fee.

Mac OS X? No, GNU/Linux ("But can it run Crysis?" Answer: YES! Not very well, but it does).
 
Guys don't forget that windows XP lacks DX10, thus the whole games benchmarks should be done in DX9 if XP is to be included!
It's time to move on, forget windows XP!
 
I'm getting really sick of Toms pushing a particular hardware or software. I miss the days of true comparisons and informational articles....not to mention ads that don't block your view and follow you around
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom