Performance Changes

One particularly sore point we had with Vista Beta 2 was that its performance was downright poor in some cases, as a result of a combination of beta code, debugging code, early drivers, and other factors that all slowed down the operating system. This is something that needs to be corrected by the time Vista ships in order to make it a worthwhile replacement for XP for most computing enthusiasts, and we're glad to see that some of these improvements are starting to happen.

Note: Vista 5472 shipped with a newer version of Nvidia's ForceWare drivers, 95.61. Since we can't install these on Vista Beta 2, only the tests on 5472 were done with the 95.61 drivers as a compromise to include the performance improvement offered by more mature Vista drivers.

The most immediate change is that the Aero GUI feels a lot snappier; while we didn't find Beta 2's Aero to be particularly slow, now that we've used 5472 there's an obvious difference between the two and only now do we realize just how slow Aero was in places. After running our composition engine test under 5472, the primary reason for this seems to be that CPU usage by the composition engine has dropped significantly between Beta 2 and 5472. While this isn't a perfectly repeatable test, and as a result there is a greater amount of uncertainty than with our usual benchmarks, the drop from 33% CPU usage to 15% clearly indicates there have been some improvements here.

Windows Composition Engine Performance
  Windows XP Professional Vista Aero (Beta 2) Vista Aero (Build 5472)
CPU Usage 49% 33% 15%


Unfortunately, the rest of Vista doesn't show the same improvement. Looking at some of our gaming benchmarks, neither 3dMark 2006 or Half-Life 2 improved with 5472 and the newer Nvidia drivers under normal settings. However the catastrophic performance drop that previously resulted from using anti-aliasing with Half-Life 2 does not occur under 5472, which is great news that in spite of a general performance improvement progress is being made, one that particularly benefits the owners of high-end systems.

Gaming Performance (1280x1024)
  Windows XP Professional Vista Beta 2 Vista Build 5472
3DMark 2006 2749 2533 2540
Half-Life 2 81.46 61.19 61.08
Half-Life 2 4xAA 76.25 49.73 55.72


Last but not least, general performance is up very slightly. As debugging features are removed and optimizations put in, Vista has become slightly faster with non GPU-intensive applications. It's not the significant change we've been hoping for, but a couple more improvements like these will work just as well.

General Performance
  Windows XP Professional Vista Beta 2 Vista Build 5472
Adobe Photoshop CS2 (seconds) 220 243.7 238
AutoGK Encoding (Xvid 1.1, seconds) 1040 1141 1104


Conclusion

Although it isn't ready for a release candidate quite yet, Vista is showing some promising improvements as of this latest build. The UI changes seem minor at best - new themes and Flip3d anti-aliasing do represent and improvement, but they're not really Vista's weakness at this point. We would rather see more work go in to the internals of Vista, but with a large company like Microsoft, the "too many cooks" problem would likely apply. What we have seen of work done underneath so far is promising; the Vista UI is noticeably faster, overall performance is a little higher, UAC is finally becoming more friendly, and Microsoft/Nvidia have solved one of the major problems with gaming under Beta 2, anti-aliasing performance.

However, these changes still aren't enough to shift our earlier conclusions about how Vista compares to Mac OS X Tiger - Vista is still lagging behind Tiger - but this offers some hope that Vista will be able to pull ahead of XP by the time it is released. If Microsoft wants to launch Vista properly, Microsoft must continue working on UAC to make it more manageable, as what we've seen today is a good start but still not ready for widespread use and turning it off entirely is not a real solution. As we said in our Beta 2 preview, it doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to be better.

The second area that still needs to be improved on before the launch of Vista is program compatibility. Build 5472 did not seem to be any more compatible with our testing software than Beta 2 did, and this will be a problem if it doesn't improve by the time the final version of Vista is released. Microsoft needs to make Vista more aware of programs that should be run with higher privileges out of the box, and 3rd party programmers need to better follow Vista's security guidelines so that programs don't unnecessarily need administrative powers.

Last, but certainly not least, performance still needs to improve. Between shedding some of its debug code and drivers maturing a bit more, we saw some respectable performance improvements, but it isn't enough. As far as general performance goes Vista still needs a couple more performance boosts along the lines of what we saw today, and gaming performance needs to pick up a good deal. If Microsoft can't meet this conditions before attempting to launch Vista, then it's going to be very hard to recommend Vista over XP as long as XP is still a viable operating system.

Index
Comments Locked

45 Comments

View All Comments

  • stash - Friday, July 28, 2006 - link

    No it doesn't, upgrade from beta2 to 5472 is supported.
  • RichUK - Friday, July 28, 2006 - link

    Damn i can't remember my MSDN login :|
  • ChronoReverse - Friday, July 28, 2006 - link

    quote:

    We would rather see more work go in to the internals of Vista, but with a large company like Microsoft, the "too many cooks" problem would likely apply. What we have seen of work done underneath so far is promising; the Vista UI is noticeably faster, overall performance is a little higher, UAC is finally becoming more friendly

    What are the sort of internal changes that you'd like to see in Vista? The two items listed here are external items.


    I'd like to know how well the new TCP/IP stack works, what the average overhead of the new driver model is, how much the caching technologies (SSHDs and USB flash boosts) improves the performance and where the breakeven point would be. There are a large number of under-the-hood changes implemented in Vista already.

    Yet I keep hearing about how MS is only making cosmetic changes when people are simply looking at the cosmetic changes. If you're only looking at the surface, of course you'll only see the surface.
  • mlittl3 - Friday, July 28, 2006 - link

    I agree. When are we going to see reviews about Vista's internal workings or what I like to call the actual purpose of an OS. Bundled applications are just there to hurt the competition. We don't need reviews of virus protections, DVD player, browser, media player, etc. What about how drivers are handled, what about support for SATA drives when installing Vista on a blank drive, what about network performance, the registry (if is still exists), etc.

    I remember a time when an OS talked to the BIOS and allowed a user to have a good interface with the hardware of the computer in order to install third-party software. What ever happened to those, browserless, mediaplayerless, viruscanless, bundleless days of the OS.
  • ChronoReverse - Friday, July 28, 2006 - link

    Well, the included applications are a great deal important to an OS.

    For example, when people think about OSX, they think more about the applications that come with rather than the OS itself. The surface is always easier to see and critique.

    That's why I personally don't feel that it's wrong for Microsoft to bundle applications with Windows. It should be expected even. What was wrong was integrating IE so tightly into the OS that it would be difficult/impossible to remove without breaking everything.
  • DerekWilson - Friday, July 28, 2006 - link

    they're still here -- sounds like you'd love Linux
  • AkumaX - Friday, July 28, 2006 - link

    LMK When WinFS comes out ;)
  • Bowsky - Friday, July 28, 2006 - link

    I saw somewhere that WinFS has been cancelled and will not be coming out at all for Vista... looks like we're going to have to wait until Windows 2015 before we get an upgrade to WinFS
  • yacoub - Friday, July 28, 2006 - link

    Until gaming numbers are equal to or better than XP's, gamers have no reason to upgrade from XP aside from the temptation of future Vista-only releases.

    What a shame that all signs point to us having to accept quite atrocious performance hits in gaming if we move to Vista. This just further ups the hardware requirements and thus the cost of PC gaming for all of us.
  • trexpesto - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    the only thing keeping me on M$ O$ is games.
    Not too many releases for linux.
    Otherwise, open office and FTW. Mac is just a non-starter.
    Games and the fact that people always crack it for me :D.
    I can see why Billy Bob retired. What a ffffrieking nightmare they have built for themselves.

    "Whateva, I do what I want"

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now