Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
Windows Vista Performance Guide
Windows Vista Performance Guide
Date: February 1st, 2007
Topic: System
Manufacturer: Microsoft
Author: Ryan Smith
Buy the Microsoft 66G-02690 Vista Home Basic
Blank
 PC Connection $107.36
 MacMall $114.99
 Amazon $98.99
 
 

Networking Benchmarks

Just to get a quick idea of what these new features can do, we ran our usual networking benchmark suite on a pair of ASUS P5B-Deluxe motherboards using both the on-board PCI and PCIe connected gigabit network controllers (Marvell 88E8056 and 88E8001 respectively). We used two tests for this, a multiple small file transfer test consisting of about 450 files totaling 600MB, and a large file transfer test consisting of a pair of ISO images totaling 3GB. In order to keep the load on our D-Link Gamer Lounge router consistent, we also had the WMV-HD version of Terminator 3 streaming in the background. We tested Windows XP SP2 for a base score, followed by Vista with Compound TCP switched on and off.

Networking Performance

Networking Performance

Unfortunately for Vista, neither test is particularly favorable. Compared to XP when Compound TCP is disabled, Vista is anywhere between 25% and 50% slower than XP in terms of the total time required for these tests. Without the ability to separate Vista's networking stack from the drivers for our NICs, it's impossible to tell if this slowdown is the fault of the networking stack being worse for this situation, or if the Vista drivers for this line of Marvell NICs are not quite as tuned, so as a comparison to XP this test is inconclusive. Either way, for this particular setup Vista ends up being slower at file transfers than XP.

The one bright spot however is that when enabled, Compound TCP is clearly having some effect even on our low-latency network. The 5% or so boost in Vista's low scores won't bring it back above XP, but it clearly proves that Compound TCP does have a real-world effect on performance. This will be something we will be able to talk more about as Microsoft perfects this algorithm set for the release of Longhorn Server later this year. Hopefully, the relatively slow performance we're seeing right now is being caused by drivers rather than by Vista's "new and improved" networking stack. We will definitely keep an eye on networking performance over the coming months, as most of the people we've talked with expected Vista's networking performance to be faster than XP's.

Threading and Searching   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

102 Comments - Last by nishzone, 545 days ago
Username:
Password:
Just a thought by Spoelie, 1023 days ago
I haven't read the article yet (am doing so in a minute) but just a thought by having a first look at the article index: I was wondering what impact Aero would have on power consumption. We know that it runs the UI on the graca, so the graca would be in use all the time. Is the load on it high or low? You can collect a lot of data on such a thing (power consumption while idling, moving windows around, ... on vista with aero, without aero, on winxp...)

It could be that it gets a mention in the review, it's just not apparant from the index. I'll apologise beforehand if it does.

Reply
RE: Just a thought by FireChicken, 1023 days ago
I liked the old article title better..

Reply
Memory Address Limitations by Jedi2155, 1023 days ago
Is there still Memory Address limitation with the 32-bit version of Vista?

Like say, I had a SLI board (eVGA 680i in particular), and I wanted more than 2 GB, would I still hit the 2.25 GB wall due to address bus or does Vista gets around this and is actually able to address the 4 GB if I had that installed? Or is my only option is still go with x64 version of Vista....

Reply
RE: Memory Address Limitations by JarredWalton, 1023 days ago
It depends on motherboard and BIOS as well as the OS. AFAIK, you can't get more than 3.5GB (and often only 3GB) of accessible memory with any 32-bit OS on x86. The top 512MB is reserved. Perhaps it is OS dependent and you can get closer to 4GB, but for MS operating systems I think it's always been 3.5GB max. Whereas in XP you needed to use the /3gb switch for the OS, on Vista you use:

BCDEDIT IncreaseUserVA [size]

Or something like that. I don't know if the maximum is any different on 32-bit Vista than 32-bit XP, but I would bet it's the same.

Reply
RE: Memory Address Limitations by Ryan Smith, 1023 days ago
You're almost right. It's possible to get all 4GB(and more) on a 32bit system when using Physical Address Extension. However most consumer level boards don't implement this at the hardware level past what's required to support the NX bit(which also requires PAE), so most people can not get all 4GB in 32bit mode. With XP and Vista, you can get all 4GB as long as PAE is fully supported, however actually using PAE to get 4GB+ brings about some compatibility/performance problems, which is why 64bit addressing is a cleaner solution.

The /3gb switch is an entirely different thing, it adjusts the 2/2 split between user processes and the kernel so that user processes can go up to 3GB by taking some memory from the kernel's space(which also can cause problems, oy).

Reply
UAC by creathir, 1023 days ago
I cannot stand it... it does drive me nuts...
Will most users not use it? I highly doubt that. Turning it off is not as easy as "1...2...3... OFF!"
It does involve some tinkering to get it to turn off...
The problem is, this is how things should have been from the beginning, but we have been spoiled by the lack of security. I really do not find that it gets in the way or anything like that.

quote:

It's as if Microsoft spent a good portion of the past few years working on an enhanced security design that nobody will actually use.


I'm not sure if I would QUITE go that far... given the vast majority will have NO CLUE on how to turn it off…

Just my thoughts.

- Creathir

Reply
RE: UAC by JarredWalton, 1023 days ago
Easy as 1-2-3, or just get it from Microsoft. My feeling is that most people will *want* it off, even if they don't know how to shut it off, and I'll reword that sentence appropriately. :)

Reply
RE: UAC by Aikouka, 1023 days ago
Jarred's right, it's actually very easy to turn off. Although if you turn it off, Windows will bug you to no end in their protection center to turn it back on (which you can turn that off too :P). I ended up turning it off when trying to install drivers for my Realtek ALC888 codec on my Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6, because at first, the driver install kept looping and asking if I really wanted to install unsigned drivers. I kept hitting yes, they kept going back and prompting me. After Vista said the driver install failed and asked if I'd like to run it in a higher privileged mode, I did so. Then the install told me that I needed to be <b>ON VISTA</b> to install the drivers. I ended up installing a different set of drivers that I didn't even expect to work with the ALC888-DD.

Also, to add in with drivers, UAC caused a weird issue with the 100.54 drivers from nVidia. When UAC prompted you, the screen fades into a B&W gray-ish hue ( kind of like when shutting down XP ), but when you're running DualView on Vista and you hit a button to close the prompt (being it accepting the action or whatever), the other screen literally freaks out. It goes to some weird graphical pattern for a second and then goes back to normal. Although the problem doesn't stay, it's quite noticeable out of the corner of my eye.

Reply
RE: UAC by Locutus465, 1022 days ago
http://vistasupport.mvps.org/turn_off_user_account_control.htm

One of the many links I found by going to start and typing into the new Windows Search box located there in Vista :)

Search is going to be one of the biggest selling points, works much better in Vista than it did in XP (I've used it in both).

Reply
Article makes me a bit sad by archcommus, 1023 days ago
The article makes me a bit sad about Vista. It made me realize - wow, yeah, it really IS a shame that Vista doesn't totally smash OS X Tiger given how long it's been in development and how long Tiger has been out for. I guess they just got in such a rut of catch-up that not many new revolutionary features could be developed.

In particular, I'm disappointed with how similar (and ugly) certain aspects of Vista look compared to XP, for example the quick launch area, system tray, clock, and the overall taskbar. With the exception of the Start buttion being replaced by an "orb," it looks EXACTLY the same as XP, and this could have been and should have been revamped to improve productivity. Quick launch is just...stupid, and ugly. All it is is additional shortcuts, and they waste taskbar space. I think a small menu that appears and disappears on the fly would be nicer. I'm not sure what improvements to suggest for the taskbar, all I know is, with how pretty the rest of the OS looks, the application blocks down there just look out of place. Same with the system tray icons.

Explorer is better though and the transparency is great. It's too bad x64 performance and drivers aren't up to snuff yet.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 11

We Buy Laptop and PC Memory! Sell to Us!
Min of 25 pieces required. Call us today at 239.354.1230.
Unlicensed Software at Your Last Company
Anonymously Report Unlicensed Software with Our Form Now. Get Up to $1 Million.
Earth-Friendly Supermicro Servers
Energy Efficient Earth Friendly High-Density Reliable Servers At Lowest Prices.
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Free Forrester Risk Management Report
Demystifying Enterprise Risk Management. Download Free With Registration.




Latest news by
DailyTech

 November 20, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 November 19, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
more System Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2009 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information