General Application Performance
3dsmax Performance
Our 3dsmax 8 tests are particularly interesting under Vista because they showcase the poor OpenGL performance of current Vista GPU drivers in something that isn't a 3D game:
If we switch to Direct3D for 3dsmax, the performance delta narrows considerably to the point where XP only has a 2% performance advantage over Vista.
Encoding Performance
Encoding Performance using DivX and WME9 are both slightly slower on Vista than under XP, but the difference is negligible.
Application Launch Performance
Similar to our earlier ReadyBoost testing, we timed how long it took to open Adobe Photoshop CS3 and 14 images under the three OSes,
Finally we have a benchmark with Vista is faster than XP, and for some reason Vista x64 is even faster than that.
Office 2007 Performance
Our final two Vista vs. XP tests are from Intel and they measure performance in Microsoft Word 2007 and Excel 2007.
Document comparison performance in Word is about 7% faster under XP than under Vista, while numerical calculations under Excel are about equal under both OSes.
3dsmax Performance
Our 3dsmax 8 tests are particularly interesting under Vista because they showcase the poor OpenGL performance of current Vista GPU drivers in something that isn't a 3D game:
If we switch to Direct3D for 3dsmax, the performance delta narrows considerably to the point where XP only has a 2% performance advantage over Vista.
Encoding Performance
Encoding Performance using DivX and WME9 are both slightly slower on Vista than under XP, but the difference is negligible.
Application Launch Performance
Similar to our earlier ReadyBoost testing, we timed how long it took to open Adobe Photoshop CS3 and 14 images under the three OSes,
Finally we have a benchmark with Vista is faster than XP, and for some reason Vista x64 is even faster than that.
Office 2007 Performance
Our final two Vista vs. XP tests are from Intel and they measure performance in Microsoft Word 2007 and Excel 2007.
Document comparison performance in Word is about 7% faster under XP than under Vista, while numerical calculations under Excel are about equal under both OSes.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
105 Comments
View All Comments
thebrown13 - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
This is TOTALLY false. Microsoft allows content providers to do what they want with their content. Again, THE CONTENT PROVIDERS DECIDE WHAT THEIR CONTENT PLAYS ON. MICROSOFT DECIDES NOTHING.MAIA - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
The architecture is still x86 with 64-bit extensions. The correct naming should be 32-bit x86 and 64-bit x86. Although some vendors use the x64 "slang", this only serves to create more confusion, making people believe it's a different architecture. More, editors and reviewers should use the correct definitions, they also have an educating factor which have to live up by a good standart.Ryan Smith - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
It makes little sense on our part to use something different than Microsoft's own terminology here when talking about Vista. The x86-64/EMT64/AMD64 versions of Vista are all called Vista * x64, so we're going to be consistent on using Microsoft's naming to avoid possible confusion among Windows versions.Myrandex - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Eh I don't know how x64 can get confusing, but x86_64 is pretty typical as well.smitty3268 - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Actually, it is a new architecture that just happens to be backwards compatible with x86. That is why there are twice the number or registers available and not just the same amount doubled in size. You're right that x64 is not the correct name, (it's technically called x86-64) but what does it matter? Everyone knows what it means.Gunlance - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
I wish I could agree about the new installer. My experience with trying to boot windows vista so far is worse than when I learned how to put NetBSD on an Apple G3.In fact I am still trying to get into the Windows Vista setup as I type this comment. I have been up all night :( I simply just don't get it. Every OS I have ever put on my desktop at least boots, and the vista beta's installed fine. Ugh.
The article was great! Heh. It has made me a bit more frustrated though. Because here I am with vista but still only being able to read about.
erwos - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Your OpenGL performance numbers are radically higher than what Tom's has. Could you comment on the drivers and installation that you used?Ryan Smith - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Normally I tend to avoid commenting on anything involving competitors, but...Assuming I'm looking at the right article here, they were using the Catalyst 8.31.100.3.2.1 driver, which was released back in December. We were using the Catalyst 7.1 driver(version # 8.33.something). ATI did not include an OpenGL driver until 7.1(and just barely at that).
ktgktg - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
I'm surprised that the article didn't mention how much ReadyBoost could lower the boot time. A member of notebooreview forums claimed that http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=1...">he lowered the boot time on a laptop (slower HD) from 80 to 43 seconds (including POST) with a 2 GB SD card. Remember that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_memory_...">SD cards are slow compared to USB and CF. Although they're all slow compared to RAM, they have the benefit of storing the data until next boot.SuperFetch seems to be just another reason for using standby mode.
yacoub - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Any word on FireFox compatibility with Vista? That is, does it run just as flawlessly as it does under XP x86 and x64?Just wondering. The comment on the Conclusions page about IE 7+ being the new standard for Safari is what made me think to ask.