The official launch of Windows 7 is upon us, and there has never been so much hype for a new Microsoft OS since XP was first revealed. To most people, Vista is either a complete piece of junk, or a necessary evil, although I think that is somewhat unfair. To me, Vista is an improvement over XP in every conceivable way, and I really can’t think of any good reason for someone to be using XP in the last 3 years. Many people do though, and Microsoft wasted no time in working on a replacement for Vista.
One thing is for certain though; after using Windows 7 for a few months, I can say that Windows 7 is what Vista really should have been. Although it’s not a revolutionary product compared to Vista like XP was compared to 98, it just does everything better.
But I digress; we’re not here to compare the functionality of Vista and 7, we’re only concerned with performance today. You may be convinced that 7 sounds good on paper, with everyone praising the UI improvements for months. But what about performance? How will it handle the applications that you run every day? Will gaming take a hit? Or will it be improved? Will the touted multitasking improvements be noticeable?
To offer what I think will be the definitive performance comparison of Windows 7 and Vista, I put both versions through dozens of tests, mostly using the programs that people actually use every day. We tested 3 different systems as well:
High-End 8-threaded PC- Core i7 965 with Radeon HD4890
Middle-Range Dual Core PC – Athlon II X2 550 with Geforce 8800GT
Low-End/Outdated Single-Core PC – Athlon 64 3000+ with Geforce 8800GT
The result of dozens of hours of benchmarking and over a hundred charts will answer quite a few questions:
1) If performance is improved, will it be due to improved multitasking and/or multithreading?
2) Can users of old systems (and single-threaded Netbooks) expect a performance increase as well?
3) Will gaming improve on an older CPU with a newer graphics card?
4) Will any gaming improvements be related to driver software (Nvidia vs AMD)?
And probably a lot more!
The system specs were as follows:
| Core i7 965 | Athlon II X2 550 | Athlon 64 3000+ | |
| Motherboard | Intel DX58SO (X58, DDR3) | Asus M3A78-T (790GX, DDR2) | Asus M3A78-T (790GX, DDR2) |
| Memory | 4GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1333 @ 7-7-7-20 | 4GB OCZ Blade DDR2-1066 @ 5-5-5-18 | 4GB OCZ Blade DDR2-1066 @ 5-5-5-18 |
| Video Card | ATI Radeon HD4890 1GB, Catalyst 9.8 Nvidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB, Forceware 190.38 | ||
| Audio | Disabled | ||
| HDD | Hitachi DeskStar 250GB 7200 RPM SATAII (reviewed here) | ||
| OS | Windows 7 Ultimate Edition x64 RTM Windows Vista Ultimate Edition x64 SP2 | ||
I had to keep the results separate, since putting the Core i7’s scores in the same graph as the 3000+ would make it very difficult to compare results. The end result is an astonishing 100+ charts to look at, after which we will know for sure whether Windows 7’s benefits go deeper than just eye candy and UI improvements!
All benchmarks will be shown in this order: Core i7 (red), Athlon II (orange), Athlon 64 (blue). You can hover each image if you lose track (sorry, I’m not used to posting 3 sets of data in my articles, and the charts aren’t labelled optimally).
Dude you need to learn how to make charts that make sense.
If you find that a chart with TWO bars is confusing, well I don’t know how to respond to that.
I think Bob is referring to the lack of labels on the charts. i.e. instead of “Core i7 (red), Athlon II (orange), Athlon 64 (blue)” being put once on the first page and easily missed by anyone just scanning through your article, each chart should be labeled with the appropriate system description.
Yeah, unfortunately I made my charts how I always do them, which means I usually don’t include three seperate charts for each benchmark. I didn’t notice until it was too late, but since you can hover over the image to see the alt tags, I didn’t think it would be a big deal. I’ll mention that in the article.
I find it interesting that every fan website, or website full of ads *cough* like to talk big about windows 7, compared to vista, but where are the XP benchmarks? Only a few websites have posted them, and they are finding that it is truly an improvement over vista, but only sometimes, in certain situations over XP.
So why didn’t you include XP? Oh wait, I see the “windows 7 secrets” ad on the right side of the screen. OK, thank you.
The ads on here are generated automatically based on the content. I get no direct income from writing good things about Windows 7. If Windows 7 sucked, I would write that, and the ads would be the exact same.
The reason I didn’t include XP is because it is obsolete, and many benchmarks wouldn’t have even run on it.
Windows 7 is a definitive improvement over Vista. I’m still using the Win 7 RC (will get my Home Premium this week from Amazon) and it’s light years ahead of Vista, both in terms of performance and reliability.
RE: Windows XP being obsolete.
I disagree. I know many fortune 100 companies are still using XP, as well as many home users. If you google “Windows XP Marketshare” you will see a lot of websites pretty much saying the same thing.
For example I used:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2009/09/04/windows-xp-still-holds-71-market-share/
These were just updated last month.
At any rate, this is a _GREAT_ article with many more examples comparing Vista to 7 than those “other” sites.
I would love to read a Windows XP VS. Windows 7 article that is in-depth as this one.
Windows XP is technically obsolete, since it is no longer being sold nor supported (if not now, it will be soon). People are of course free to use it as long as they wish.
The trouble with benchmarking XP, is that none of the tests that would benchmark multitasking performance (SYSMark, PCMark, WorldBench, HDxPRT), will run in XP. It would basically consist of the simpler single-program tests, like 3D Rendering (which as you saw in this article is CPU limited) and gaming. I may do a gaming comparison later though. But I don’t know why anyone would want to game without DirectX 10 (or even 11 eventually)
Only 36 games support directx10. Gaming has also been problematic in vista with many titles. So far its been even more problematic in windows 7.
Source? Sounds like something you just made up. My personal experience and that of my friends and family doesn’t sync up with that statement. How would 7 be MORE problematic than Vista? They essentially use the same kernel and driver system.
i was going to upgrade to windows 7 until i found out the upgrade price.
i just bought a laptop 3 months ago with windows vista ultimate 64bit and to get the equivalent with windows 7 would cost me a fortune.
plus i dont see the point, i only use my PC for web browsing programming and games,since games are being treated as the bastard child i really dont see the point in the purchase.
i miss the good old days where PC games were light years above console games, now console games are on par with PC games.
look at now, uncharted 2 a 2009 game is on par with crysis a 2007 game.
in 2 years the ps3 has saw uncharted raise the bar than MGS4 than killzone 2 than uncharted 2.
all those in 2 years.
whats the PC had in 2 years?
see what i mean?
i spent 3K building a killer PC with top of the line everything, but boy was that a wast of money.
i thought developers were still pushing out crysis type games today, sadly there not.
and even more sadly im going to have to wait till crysis 2 or RAGE to see the PC improve.
but by then the ps3 would of had another 4 or so games that yet again raised the bar.
im a PC gamer at heart, but the developers are really pushing me away from it.
i can understand why there doing it, because of the piracy which is just as bad on the xbox 360.
another reason being sales are no where near as large on PC as on consoles, but still, i would like to see at least 1 game per year pushing the pc to its limits.
1 crysis per year is not to much to ask, is it?
Well said. I’m a PC gamer at heart too but it saddens me to see all the efforts being pushed into consoles.
One thing though. If you’ve bought Vista after July 09, you are eligible for Win 7 upgrade just for $10, AFAIK
I guess you are talking about graphics here but……uncharted 2 is on par with crysis?? Have you even played Uncharted 2? Its like 10 years above crysis (in graphics).
You dont need a killer PC, with a PS3 its enough (you can have the power of the CBE) ;)
sorry i meant 5 months ago.
bought bought my laptop in may this year :(
just my luck.
anyway, i work in the IT industry, so if my company decides to get windows 7 (highly doubt it) i can get a copy through them.
Ouch, tough luck m8 :(
I upgraded to Windows 7 from Vista.
There is almost no any improvements!!! Except larger buttons.
In Windows7 is REMOVED good things what was in Vista. I have feeling like downgraded OS!!!!
Missing:
1) In Start menu cannot access anymore recent applications!! My most often used applications ir replaced with Paint, Solitare, etc.. what I do not use!!!! They suggest that I should now manually add my often used links to TaskBar. In my mind it is less comfortable, take more my time and leave feeling of downgrade.
2) In Vista, Windows Internal Backup software was doing weekly backups of my computer to my Buffalo NAS. It worked very well in background. Now after upgrade from Vista Home Premium to Windows7 Home Premium, it does not work and in help is written that I should upgrade to Professional, etc!!!
In my mind this is robery!!!! I payed 80 GBP for upgrade and now by Backups do not work and I need to purchase some more software!!!!
I hope Microsoft will change their mind and will stop this robbery of Vista customers!!!
How about comparing to XP Pro. SP3? :(
WOW – I for one appreciate the time and effort that went into the testing, analysis and write up of the comparison study.
Unless I read it wrong, after reviewing your findings, Windows 7 appears to be missing the two improvements I really wanted – a new way to access and work with my information, and a killer boost of speed.
[Rant begin]
I am reminded of WIndows 98SE here. Back then, they (MS) made improvements, but at least then, they didn’t claim to be releasing a new OS. This time around, Windows 7 is looking a lot like VistaSE.
The recipe to a best selling OS is there for the taking. So many great suggestions daily on the web from MAC, Linux and Windows users. So many tiny utilities that boost the functionality of any OS with much needed usefulness. Why doesn’t somebody just put the ideas together in one package?
I spent an hour in a store yesterday REALLY wanting Windows 7. But (in my opinion), after you turn off most of the eye-candy features (which is what really slows you down anyways), it’s no different functionally than XP. How sad, after so many years of development that MS seems stuck in a rut. How un-innovative, how un-inspired … how un-impressive. And, it’s not like they don’t have the resources and great minds to do the job.
I want a new way to work, not more desktop gadgets, prettier icons, 3d effects and the ribbon bar.
Hate to say it but I’ll bet the only way we ever see any real changes in Windows is if somebody else does it and MS copies them. But who – MAC and Linux? – don’t see too much different over there in terms of a new way to work.
[Rant over]
W.
I agree having making XP benchmarks is a hassle. If you noticed all these benchmarks and os’ us 64bit and 64bit XP is utter crap. There would be no point in comparing 32bit XP because there becomes the problem if only being able to use 3GB instead of 4GB like these machines were using and other differences affecting the results.
[...] 49 EUR unmetered Dedicated Servers fast setup fast connectivity fast support Dedicated Server OffersWindows 7 vs Vista Performance Comparison Windows 7 vs Vista Performance Comparison is also a nice resource.IT [...]
It seems pretty obvious that for the extra money one has to spend, Windows 7 is a waste. Of course, I’m one of those rare creatures that actually understands Vista and how to use it correctly and effectively, unlike the general populace that whines and snivels constantly about how that outmoded and crappy XP OS is better. Go figure.
Personally, I’ll wait 6 months before I decide to format & re-install windows 7 myself. I’ve already partaken in beta testing it on its initial release and was not impressed enough to run out and buy it on the day of its release. lol
Plus, If we’ve learned anything from all the previous OS’s, and Microsoft’s history… its that no matter how much they beta tests there OS’s, there never tested enough!!
Once the bugs have been ironed out a little more, and some of the openly known vulnerabilities have been fixed, I’ll consider buying it & installing.
By then it should drop @ least another $100 starting online… And I say this simply because they’re asking an outrageous amount for an OS they should be giving away right now to Vista license holders.
I’m not one for copyright infringement, but I do foresee the torrent network being used a lot, and many more people will lean towards a hacked version vs a legit license if they don’t pull there heads from there arses and drop the prices a little.
I also want to give props and kudos on a fantastic thread, job well done with sharing your benchmarks! I am sure this has answered many questions for many people, as it’s answered a few performance ones I had myself.
Thanks,
HighOnTek
You can’t see why people would use XP over Vista? And you call yourself a tech expert? Yeah, ok…
it’s about time some good tests came out i thought i would have to do it… sence every one all ready knows windows 7 in almost all cases the same or up to 20% faster then vista and the ones that were less perfroance it is because most of the software is made for vista not windows 7
i would love to see some xp versus windows 7 compariosons so people can look at it and upgrade
but in all means if you have anything less the a dual-core and 1GB of ram DO NOT UPGRADE KEEP XP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I look at it this way.. Microsoft really has no intrest in making a OS that performs well with games due to the fact they have moved into the console market. With them pumping out games for the XBOX 360.. which I would rather play my PS3.. they have no need to make a great OS to play games on. I just did some work on 3 computers last night.. 2 x Vista’s and 1 xp, Vista..ewwww.. sucks.. reminds me of when I had Win98se and they came out with WinMe. I havent seen Win7 But I will wait a long time before I switch any of my stuff over..
This is a very useful article giving real-world benchmarks on a number of individual applications. However, the real problem with Vista is not the speed with which it runs individual apps, it is the ridiculous wait times experienced by users navigating the operating system, the rotating “wait” mouse cursor is ubiquitous, the frustration escalating. Vista is one of the least productive computing environments I have ever experienced.
I wish I had a scientific way of benchmarking “OS UI response”, but I don’t. However, I have installed Windows & dual booted with Vista, and I can tell you that on a frustration scale of 1 – 10, Vista is a 9 – virtually unusable as a productive environment. Windows 7 is only a 4 – a vast improvement. That said, OS X is maybe a 2.5 and Ubuntu a 2 (lightning fast).
Still, if you need to run Windows apps, Windows 7 is a reasonable successor to Windows XP.
Try installing it on anything other than a toaster, may be you will get more favourable results with WIN 7.
I just wonder, is this test with Vista SP2 and the DX11 platform update?
I know that the DX11 platform update is supposed to add better support for multithreading, so if it isn’t included in this test, I guess that Vista should perform a bit better with it
I would recommend switching to Windows 7 because it’s much better, faster, works better with applications and more compatible with hardwares.
[...] is RSS?) PostsCommentsTagsArchivesLinksNetflix Coming to PS3, Using BD-Live Technology UPDATEDWindows 7 vs Vista – Which One is Faster?The Definitive Windows 7 vs Vista Performance ComparisonSony Announces 250GB Playstation 3 Slim For [...]
vista was fine is your pc exceeded the minimum system requirements. can anyone really explain the major fault with vista?
“The reason I didn’t include XP is because it is obsolete.”
The majority of us using PCs are not generating 3D computer graphics for the entertainment industry or spending EITC money on new hardware to play the latest games while living in our mothers’ basements. XP works just fine for the mundane, but necessary, multitasking environment of the average business or home. The OS exists to support the hardware and software that makes a computer useful. Microsoft has apparently forgotten that fact.
I have WIN XP and I find it 100 times better than vista..
Excellent article. The biggest thing I took away from it was the multithreading performance.
Personally, I still like XP though I havent had the time to really sit down with windows 7 but so far I definitely think it is better than vista.
However, for my users, I think vista/windows 7 is better for the userfriendly factor (the indexing search while having quite the overhead, is nice for the more computer illiterate and people that just work with lots of files)…which is what I dislike about it. Extra menus and panels that do organize operating system components better, but just take longer to drill through to get to what I need. I have no doubts that XP is faster than vista…vista is noticably smoother, but slower. Windows 7 seems to have the best of both worlds. I be guessing that windows 7 would be faster than XP because of multitasking.
History is repeating itself…this is no different than when windows 2k came out and the hype was centered around active directory and ease of driver installation. But windows 2000 was clearly unfinished and people noticed. Microsoft scrambled to finish it up and released XP shortly after which was a huge success. Vista/Windows7 is the same thing Vista= unfinished Windows 7.
I’ve noticed that everyone wants an XP benchmark, yet don’t understand the hours of work that have went into testing just the 2 OS’. Why don’t we just get all geeky and compare ‘98 as well? We don’t because it is out dated and there is no more support for it. Quickly is the fate of XP as well, as we are seeing Vista specific programs already. I would like to thank Carl for his efforts and attempts to show the world that Win 7 is a more complete os.
i like this lab but i have stell one qshachan. is windows better of linux
i like windows 7, it runs smooth. absolutely has improvements over vista and is faster. if u have vista, upgrade to 7. if u have xp and a slow computer, stay with xp. as simple as that.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with vista.
1 – Vista runs smoothly and loads files and browses through the C:/ drive or other drives very quickly.
2 – Great search system in the start menu
3 – No problems running ancient or new games (going to properties and checking administrator mode or compatibility mode is not a big setback)
4 – Quick start-up/Restart with fast file transfers and great multi-tasking capabilities (i simultaneously can have a game running in the background and search the web while chatting on msn, and my computer is average/low @ $750 worth)
5 – Easy access of information through the control panel and nice look.
The only bad that i find is:
1 – takes a while to start-up large file installations
The computer does not stop functioning so i’ve learned to do other things while i wait, i’m sure other people can too, its not everyday that you have to install something thats 2-4 gigs.
2 – annoying “widgets”
Widgets can be closed and permanently deleted so not a big problem…
So tell me, whats so bad about vista?
Where are the charts and benchmarks. Is there a link?
The charts are all there
I don’t find the charts either Carl. Everything I clicked on was an advertisement. The Permalink you listed above next to “The charts are all there” took me right back to this page!
Are you sure? They all load for me. They all start on page 2 of the article. What if I link the image directly?
So, what is the real answer? Which one is better? Taylor thinks that Vista is probably just as good. I can’t understand the rest of the graph and all of that stuff. Which is faster? Which runs better?!