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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]alterecho[/nom]i really do wish the reviewers include a mid end configuration for theirreviews. thats where you'll see a lot of differnce since there is thefactor of 'threshold' which plays a role.[/citation]

They really should have included a PC with the typical specs when Vista came out, some lowly core2duo with 2gb ram and video card from 2005, to see how it'd work for the typical upgrader or
someone buying a $300 Walmart computer.

However a Core i7 really is a "mid-range PC" now days, with Dell offering them for $700 or Core i7 laptops for $1,000:
http://www.dell.com/content/product...2~~,us~en~29~desktop-xps-730x_anav_1~~&~ck=mn
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/core_i7_systems/fs.aspx?refid=core_i7_systems&cs=19&s=dhs
 
I would like to see how many great "legacy" games will play on Windows 7 Home Premium. I want to know which ones I'll have to give up if I upgrade. Sure, I could buy the "Premium" version for it's "XP" feature, but come on now, when I buy a 3-user home family pack, you can bet some of those are going on kid's computers, and what's it worth if some of their games won't play anymore?
 
[citation][nom]programit[/nom]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?[/citation]

I can't agree with you for the simple reason - on my PC it is just opposite. I've tried the first beta and I was amazed to see that for MS this is better than a final product.(Again for MS! :) )
But it was test and I was back on Vista for a couple of moths. Then I decided to upgrade my main board and add some RAM. Next steps - you know fresh Vista and etc. But for some reason even after fresh install Vista started hanging on my new hardware. I thought that this is hardware problem and just before going to return the MB I gave a chance to Win 7 beta 2 instalation - and - YAY It was working without any problem! A'm still on it and the filling is : stable, comfortable, faster. I still work on XP on my work and I can tell you I hate it now. XP was great 1 or 2 years ago but now... I miss so much easy functions from my win7 in home.
My personal opinion - Win 7 is better than XP and vista may be not by bench marks but by its usefulness. This make it fell fast and way better than XP and vista.
 
Hello,
Kinda missed the boat here. The real problems I observed with Vista were in the Disc I/O dept and the Network I/O dept. Compatibility issues were pretty much sorted out thru a lot of pain already.But the I/O issues made Vista unusable for me and I could never recommend a company use. These issues appear to be resolved in 7.
 
"geminireaper :
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."

Your condescending statements do not bring validity to your argument. Your saying that "it's the thing to do," but you are not showing that it is needed. I still do not see why I need to upgrade a computer that works. I play all of the CURRENT games just fine, and none of my "desktop" or school programs broke the day windows7 came out... So do we need to upgrade? No.

Now if someone has a valid, unbiased argument with numbers to back it up, then I think more people would be willing to listen. Gamers upgrade our machines because hardware reviews show us evidence, with FPS numbers in games that are usually popular, and on computers that the majority of hardcore gamers run. So where are the numbers? Oh that's right, they didn't post any. *cough*
 
"geminireaper :
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."

Your condescending statements do not bring validity to your argument. Your saying that "it's the thing to do," but you are not showing that it is needed. I still do not see why I need to upgrade a computer that works. I play all of the CURRENT games just fine, and none of my "desktop" or school programs broke the day windows7 came out... So do we need to upgrade? No.

Now if someone has a valid, unbiased argument with numbers to back it up, then I think more people would be willing to listen. Gamers upgrade our machines because hardware reviews show us evidence, with FPS numbers in games that are usually popular, and on computers that the majority of hardcore gamers run. So where are the numbers? Oh that's right, they didn't post any. *cough*
Click to expand...

My Rig: P4 1.7ghz, 384mb sdram, 7600gs agp, 320gb hdd

Friend's 1 rig: athlon x2 3800+, 1gb ddr2, 160gb hdd, 6150se onboard graphics

Friend's 2 rig: athlon x1 2.8ghz, 700mb ram, onboard graphics that are unknown to me

My schools average PC: athlon x2 4200+, 1.5gb ram, 80gb hdd,
as for the majority of the machines. Single core VIA CPUs, 512mb ram, No HDD space individually (networked machines)

As for people running less that 4gb ram....mhm probably about 85% of the PCs on this planet (estimate). People that only have a single core machine...I'm giving that a 40% average (estimate). Those numbers are from my friends and me so don't flame me for it. Just my point on this topic and the proof that I have established as fact.
 
I am surprised that there is no comparison between XP and Windows 7. Vista is, was and always will be a crappy OS. Not much checking needed.

XP versus Windows 7 we want.
 
[citation][nom]megabuster[/nom]Why are we still testing W7 vs Vista SP1 when SP2 has been released for a while now?[/citation]
Because... $even is vi$hta sp2 with some lipstick.
[citation][nom]Razor512[/nom]should have benchmarked it against windows xp (fresh install)[/citation]
Do you want micro$uxx to feel really bad? All those millions, spent on face lifting and ads, to be for nothing?
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]The article also explains that XP x64 or Windows 7 x86 weren't options. What, you wanted 32-bit XP compared to 64-bit Vista and 7?[/citation]
To justify an "upgrade" it surely would be useful, at least to be able to take a wise decision.
Of course that would've been just another epic fail for micro$uxx... and devoted fankiddies won't ever do that.
Crashyboy, you're just getting dumber with every iteration of the gamer/drm o$. Now you're speaking in the third person of your own "masterpiece"?

All the hype is dead in the water - if you've been lured by m$ on the vi$hta trip once, maybe you'll fall for it a $eventh time: wintarded m$ fankiddies for $ure.
Sounds like a real huge incentive to "upgrade" from xpire... NOT.

Just another TH beancounter style article.
 
I finally got my copy of Windows7 yesterday and did two types of installation. the first was an upgrade from Vista Ultimate(64Bit)to the 64Bit Windows7. the second was a clean installation(64Bit also).(two different hard drives,both"WD" 1TB) well while the upgrade installed pretty much trouble free i noticed that after I installed all of my upgrades for my hardware(Motherboard and the like) that when I rebooted it took forever to do so. Once it rebooted I again rebooted to see if it was just that it was installing my updates as it was rebooting. That was not the case! My upgrade was and continues to be sluggish. On the other hand my clean install works like a champ(Love it).What I would like to know is if there is anybody out ther that can tell me why this is? My vista was completly up to date with all the upgrades and so on. So again I ask why the difference in performance. By the way what I'm getting at is that if this is going to be the case then I feel that Microsoft should offer those of us who spent a millon dollars on Vista Ultimate should get a copy of "7" for free or at least at one heck of a discount. What's your feeling about this guys?
 
You need to measure system footprint and start times and performance of OS specific tasks... I think it is bad form to present only workload benchmarks since most of those are hardware bound anyway and no big surprise that they are not that different between vista and XP.
 
You need to measure system footprint and start times and performance of OS specific tasks... I think it is bad form to present only workload benchmarks since most of those are hardware bound anyway and no big surprise that they are not that different between vista and XP.
 
I had an interview at Staples and the manager interviewing me was going on and on about how much faster Windows 7 was.

I had no idea what he was talking about until I remembered where I was.
 
drewnix,the point here is that the upgrade is slower than the clean install. same programs on both installs different run times,(opening and closing of programs, trying to run more that one application at a time. there is a tremendous difference in lapse time,period! Why? Because Vista is not up to par!! I've been using both "Vista" And "7" since they came out(meaning from beta to final release) and can say that vista never did live up to it's expectations and still doesn't when trying to upgrade to"7". As such I would recomend that anyone thinking about "Windows7" do a clean install to get the full potential of what it has to offer as oposed to "Vista". This is why I think that Microsoft should offer "Vista ultimate" owners a Free copy of "7" or one heck of a price cut.
 
Almost all my games ran much smoother on 7 than XP (DX10 effects enabled in 7).Also,it seems to use the system resources more efficiently especially,if you're using an intel core i7 (I am usinng AMD pII 955 BE so,there's a less but tangible difference between XP and 7 that seems to increase notably in games)
 
@jfbetel Upgrading Windows has always been a bad idea, really only there for newbies who fear a fresh install. If you're able to do a clean install you should, that's true of all version of Windows. I've read about people doing upgrades and it all went fine but I can imagine a major downside, even if it does go ok is the fragmentation it causes. I suspect that's one reason for the sluggishness.

I'm still having a blast in 7, haven't felt the need to optimise anything, no disabling of services or being careful what starts up with 7. I've got a big dollop of stuff that starts up and makes 7 more usable and it doesn't seem to affect the performance at all. I can even drop into games without quitting programs. That would have been unthinkable in XP for me. Of course much of this is because I'm using a quad core system now with plenty of memory but I did run 4gb under XP64 and I still couldn't be as carefree about what was running as I can in 7.

Bottom line. Anyone that isn't getting 7 because of reason X,Y and Z, good luck to them. From my point of view they are missing out on some great stuff. I take their negative comments with a pinch of salt as my own experience is showing 7 is best OS I've used since Win2K.
 
windows 7 runs better on my laptop and p4 than xp... xp was fine on my core2duo desktop but boring as hell to use since it is so ancient. all 3 have windows 7 now.
 
In addition to faster printing over the network, the boot-up and wake-up time is significantly decreased. I'm sold on Windows 7.

The benefits of staying with XP and some of the improved interface features of Vista seem to be refined in a more secure package with Windows 7.

It's good.

The upgrade option is also good from Vista to Windows 7. There are a couple of wizards that will tell you if your hardware is compatible with XP mode and what applications or drivers won't work in Windows 7. But I upgraded my basic HP AMD 64 laptop and it worked as expected with what seem to be no leftovers from the upgrade process that we've seen in the past.

Upgrading from XP is different, though. They ask you to copy all your files to an external drive, run the upgrade (almost like a clean install), then re-install all your apps. Because of this, I am putting off upgrading my XP PCs.
 
Look like ALL of the tests would fall in a 10% margin of error which would imply to me that there is really no significant difference in performance.

DX11: Yeah, there was the same hype for DX10 & SM4 and look at what that got you: not much. DX9/SM3 still is the primary target. This seems to be more of a marketing ploy to me than anything else, although GPU mfgs would still sell more hw w/o it as long as their newer gen GPUs had significant performance increases above their prior generation(s).
 
It's interesting just how divided opinion is. Some see features as more important than raw speed, others its all about how fast it benchmarks. I suspect the vast majority are just more interested in that it just works, runs their stuff and came with the PC.

Maybe a good way to look at it is to say Windows 7 is to 3D Mark 06 as Vista is to 3D Mark 05. You can even shoehorn XP into it by relating that to 3D Mark 2001. It's only natural that the newer 3D Mark will run slower than the last one as its doing more.

I think we can safely say that 3Dmark 06 is a more modern benchmarking tool than 05 and conclude it is better, with a small caveat that older hardware won't run the benchmark as well.

Now apply that paragraph to Windows.
 
One more comment from me on Windows 7...

Benchmarks are all valid, but for me the main reason to go to Windows 7 is it really reduces the annoyance factor by a lot. Vista is just annoying. There are a lot of things in Vista that are so screwed up that they work incredibly slowly (wake from sleep, boot up, printing, saving files).

Vista is really the Windows ME of today.

I can't believe any businesses actually installed Vista as part of their infrastructures.

I upgraded (not even a clean install) to Windows 7 from my HP laptop that came pre-installed with Vista.

I am still amazed at how quickly all the services load. I am not kidding when I tell you just the boot up process used to take somewhere between 3 and 5 minutes. With windows 7, I am to the login screen about 15 seconds from power up and it takes an additional 15 seconds after login and I'm surfing the internet.

Saving files and printing were even clunky in Vista. There used to be an unusually long pause (5-10 seconds) when I would save or print a document after clicking the save or print button just to bring up the save or print dialogue. Then after making entering the specifics, there would be another strange pause while the PC was performing the operation.

This is gone with Windows 7. The little annoying details that would tick me off aboout Vista are gone with Windows 7. This is an OS I would recommend for business. It seems incredibly stable.

For reasons other than speed, I would upgrade from Vista to Windows 7.

Now the only reason I would upgrade an XP machine is when MS drops support for it.

 
A few more comments from me on Windows 7...

Benchmarks are all valid, but for me the main reason to go to Windows 7 is it really reduces the annoyance factor by a lot. Vista is just annoying. There are a lot of things in Vista that are so screwed up that they work incredibly slowly (wake from sleep, boot up, printing, saving files).

Vista is really the Windows ME of today.

I can't believe any businesses actually installed Vista as part of their infrastructures.

I upgraded (not even a clean install) to Windows 7 from my HP laptop that came pre-installed with Vista.

I am still amazed at how quickly all the services load. I am not kidding when I tell you just the boot up process used to take somewhere between 3 and 5 minutes. With windows 7, I am to the login screen about 15 seconds from power up and it takes an additional 15 seconds after login and I'm surfing the internet.

Saving files and printing were even clunky in Vista. There used to be an unusually long pause (5-10 seconds) when I would save or print a document after clicking the save or print button just to bring up the save or print dialogue. Then after making entering the specifics, there would be another strange pause while the PC was performing the operation.

This is gone with Windows 7. The little annoying details that would tick me off aboout Vista are gone with Windows 7. This is an OS I would recommend for business. It seems incredibly stable.

There are also some interface additions that are cool because they don't take getting used to, they just make you want to take advantage of them (ie comparing code or data side by side in windows).

For reasons other than speed, I would upgrade from Vista to Windows 7.

Now the only reason I would upgrade an XP machine is when MS drops support for it. I will be sad the day they do this.

 
I was also hoping to see Windows XP in the benchmarks... the sad reality is that XP is still dominating in gaming performance.

Going from XP -> VistaSp1 there is about 30-40% framerate hit
Going from XP -> Win7 there is about a 20-30% framerate hit

These are just my personal benchmarks and I would like to seem them validated in one way or another. There is simply not enough DX10/11 support at the moment to convince gamers to give up framerate from XP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom