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

[razor512]

[citation][nom]The-Darkening[/nom]Anand compresses docs and txts. Toms compresses pr0n [/citation]


well space is limited these days so when you have porn that you are not actively viewing regularly, it is good archive it in a compressed format to free up some hard drive space which will be useful in the future when when doing a benchmark to see which NAS can transfer the most porn in 20 minutes.

 

[Thor]

As always the strength of Microsoft is not making good products, but to be a master in marketing.

Many people tried Vista release, was an inadequate machine.
A CPU with one heart, 2 GB memory etc..

But in 2009, these same people are equipped with new machines much more powerful.

And these people think that Windows 7 is wonderful.
But this is not the case. Windows 7 is just Vista updated.

And as you can see in these tests, Vista is "good" as Windows 7.
This is quite normal with new machines.

But Microsoft are the champions of Marketing.
And also, they do excellent work to free bêtatesteurs.
Who are all happy to work for nothing, and then make free advertising for Microsoft.

Yes, Microsoft really is one of the best companies in Marketing.
But their products are common. While their prices are insane themselves.

Pay between $ 100 and $ 300 for an upgrade, no sense.

But with all the gifts that Microsoft gave to journalists, Windows 7 will sell well. And Bill will be able to do even 10 billion in profile.

 

[mgdcrown]

We have built computers for over 10 years I have been running 7 for a couple months with no glitches or problems on my quad core. I put the beta version on a single core P4 3.0ghz with a gig of ram and it out performed XP. It is a problem getting older video drivers most vista drivers work fine with it but they didn't write drivers for most of the older stuff on vista either so you about have to upgrade your video cards other than that I have no problem with the beta version. As long as they don't screw it up between beta and retail windows will once again dominate the market.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]Thor[/nom]But with all the gifts that Microsoft gave to journalists, Windows 7 will sell well.[/citation]

Really? Where's my gifts? WHAT AM I MISSING OUT ON??? OMG I can barely pay my bills, WHERE'S MY GIFTS?

 

[MonsterCookie]

"Vista was the first Windows OS to mainstream its 64-bit versions,"

 

[MonsterCookie]

[citation][nom]MonsterCookie[/nom]"Vista was the first Windows OS to mainstream its 64-bit versions,"[/citation]

these are statements, which are not holding up, but hey, someone has to sell this thing too (just as some ppl sell vacuum cleaners)
I normally read the articles at TH, but this stopped me on that very moment. Next time please write something, which is at least 30% true.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]MonsterCookie[/nom]these are statements, which are not holding up, but hey, someone has to sell this thing too (just as some ppl sell vacuum cleaners)I normally read the articles at TH, but this stopped me on that very moment. Next time please write something, which is at least 30% true.[/citation]

You're lying so leave now and never come back. We don't need your kind here. The statement was 100% true, and you have provided zero evidence to back up any assertion otherwise.

 

[azz156]

viva la vista, xp is crap comparison

 

[aelerz1337]

I want to call bunk on this review of the operating systems. Over on anandtech, they are showing a demonstrable difference. I think there are too many variables in the test. For one, you are using a processor that has an aggressive turbo mode. Maybe, WIN 7 is more threaded then Vista and XP causing it to lower its clock and skew its scores. In anandtechs' review, they used 1366 i7 and a 1156 i5 to balance the scores, and they included a comparison to xp pro which it handily spanked. Why don't you go for the fair and balanced approach. These results of yours seem strange.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]aelerz1337[/nom]I want to call bunk on this review of the operating systems. Over on anandtech, they are showing a demonstrable difference. I think there are too many variables in the test. For one, you are using a processor that has an aggressive turbo mode. Maybe, WIN 7 is more threaded then Vista and XP causing it to lower its clock and skew its scores. In anandtechs' review, they used 1366 i7 and a 1156 i5 to balance the scores, and they included a comparison to xp pro which it handily spanked. Why don't you go for the fair and balanced approach. These results of yours seem strange.[/citation]

I can't think of anything more fair than not caring which product wins.

 

[MonsterCookie]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]You're lying so leave now and never come back. We don't need your kind here. The statement was 100% true, and you have provided zero evidence to back up any assertion otherwise.[/citation]

Are you braiwashed by M$, or are you even payed by them?
Anyway, have fun, and give all your money for a new OS alone, not even talking about the HW. Just because most guys did not used anything else in their entire life except XP and Vista, it does not give them the right to call me a liar. But hey, we all have the right to have fun and stay ignorant

 

[zelannii]

A: XP was not in the comparrision, which is actually the crux of the argument, "is 7 finally worth leaving XP over?"

B: NO PRODUCTIVITY BENCHMARKS??? Adobe, Office, web page load, c'mon!

C: No comparrison of what was/was not rendered due to lack or DX11/10/9 compatability (important in the XP comparrison you did not make).

D: File xfer comparisons, backup performance, defrag performance, nothing?

E: were these defaults, or a reasonably tuned system? Were these run with common apps loaded on both systems as well (AV, AS, common programs)?

waste of an article. Tells a user nothing about comparing the real performance, only game performance which we expected would be much the same...

 

[wildwell]

I agree, a follow-up benchmarking 7 against XP is clearly needed. I understand it's 32bit against 64bit, but that's the real-world comparison everyone wants to see.

 

[Dogsnake]

Sad to say, like almost every other comparison/review I have seen, the testing is between Vista and windows 7. It was clear Visa was slower than XP in most ways that matter to gamers and high end users. One relevant question to the many XP users is if the new OS is faster the XP. Vista is a dog. MS knows this as shown by the fact of how quickly their flagship OS was dumped for 7. There are significant numbers of private and work related users of XP 32. Give us a thrill and do a comparison.

 

[Dax corrin]

I'm still dual-booting XP and now Win7 64 bit instead of Vista 64 bit. I got 7 for free as a launch party host, otherwise I'd still not have it. Ooh, DirectX 11? I barely use DX 10.

 

[arrigob]

[citation][nom]wildwell[/nom]I agree, a follow-up benchmarking 7 against XP is clearly needed. I understand it's 32bit against 64bit, but that's the real-world comparison everyone wants to see.[/citation]


Heck, they could use XP 64bit to compare to, that would be fine by me.

 

[superherosforhire]

I think it's hard to pinpoint the difference in performance between windows 7 and vista. Since windows is proprietary, you can't really look at the programming architecture of the OS and its technology. What we need to know is what they (microsoft) do differently for windows 7 than windows vista to the very basic architecture of the OS in order for us to run accurate benchmarks. If course, that's trade secret and MSFT won't share

 

[yannifb]

Im hoping a new 5xxx series card will work better with 7, since this review was a bit dissapointing

 

[geminireaper]

I have been running win vista 64 and win 7 for quite some time now. Hard to see a real difference. Then again ive always liked vista even when everyone hated it. Why is that? because I had a decent rig. The problem with vista was it was being pushed out by OEMs in rigs that had no business running vista. No offense but people running windows xp still really need to get with current times. Who really uses less than 4gigs of ram now a days. My newest rig is running 12gb of DDR 3 ram..lets see win xp run that.

 

[PLATTERMAN]

[citation][nom]arrigob[/nom]I hope that you were not meaning that you run 8GB RAM on a 32 bit vista. Did you?[/citation]
I installed 8GB of ram with better timings than the OEM 4GB for the switch to Windows 7 64bit. In both cases it will only use 3GB to 3.25GB in Vista 32bit. The price was right less than $100 after rebate at Newegg DDR2 800MZ.

 

[Guest]

Where is XP? I have read many reviews since win7 release online that go both ways, but most of the reviews that include XP for gaming state overall XP is still the best for speed and stability.

Vista has a few fps increase in certain games with certain cards, but overall XP still seems to be dominating.

Since these (windows 7) results are very similar to Vista, we can conclude that XP is still faster then Windows 7 and Vista... Unless they were to post numbers somewhere. Did they state why not? I do see windows 7 ads on the webpage, is that related?

 

[arrigob]

[citation][nom]PLATTERMAN[/nom]I installed 8GB of ram with better timings than the OEM 4GB for the switch to Windows 7 64bit. In both cases it will only use 3GB to 3.25GB in Vista 32bit. The price was right less than $100 after rebate at Newegg DDR2 800MZ.[/citation]

I figured so. Good deal on the RAM.

 

[Dogsnake]

Another thing to consider for the existing XP users is that there is no direct upgrade to Windows7. My practice when installing any major changes to the OS is a clean install. Do I want to put in the time and effort needed to go XP to Windows 7 and not have a clear performance benefit? When I see proof that it is in my interest and not Microsoft's to upgrade I will.

 

[iamjames]

[citation][nom]geminireaper[/nom]No offense but people running windows xp still really need to get with current times. Who really uses less than 4gigs of ram now a days. My newest rig is running 12gb of DDR 3 ram..lets see win xp run that.[/citation]

Score:-5, Flamebait

 

[iamjames]

[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]

Why not? Although to be fair they really should benchmark 32 bit with 32 bit and the idea that they "weren't options" is silly since most people upgrading will upgrade from XP 32 to Win 7 32 since there is no upgrade path from 32 to 64 without a clean install.