Vista SP1, XP SP2 performance overall comparison

There have been a lot of tests on the performance of Vista SP1, XP SP3, and the "Mikael" from Futuremark's official forum contrasts Vista SP1 with XP SP2.

First look at the test platform:

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.2GHz (400mhzx8)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3

Memory: 8GB ddr2-800 4-5-4-15

Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB

Radiator: Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme

Power: Pirate Ship hx520w

Hard disk and operating system:

West Count Caviar SE16 250gb-windows Vista home Premium 64-bit SP1

Samsung Spinpoint T166 320gb-windows XP Professional SP2

The test project and results are as follows:

1, file copy--from the Samsung hard drive to the west to copy the 6.3GB ISO image file

Vista sp1:2 minute 48 seconds

XP sp2:3 minutes 07 seconds

2, File decompression--use winrar decompression "crysis" patch Package

Vista sp1:14 sec

XP sp2:13 seconds

3, the file decompression--use winrar decompression 3.9GB rar compressed Package

Vista sp1:2 minute 16 seconds

XP sp2:2 minutes 22 seconds

4, the file decompression--use 7zip decompression 1.7GB ISO image

Vista sp1:2 05 seconds (64-bit version 7zip)

XP sp2:2 minutes 18 seconds (32-bit version 7zip)

5. Application Loading

Vista SP1:

Adobe Photoshop cs3:2 seconds

openoffice:1.5 seconds

"Crysis": 26 seconds

XP SP2:

Adobe Photoshop cs3:8.5 seconds

openoffice:6.5 seconds

"Crysis": 33 seconds

6, Photoshop CS3 retouch Artist Benchmark

Vista sp1:30 sec

XP sp2:29 seconds

7, 3DMark06

Vista SP1:

3dmarks:11297

sm2.0:5227

sm3.0:4942

cpu:2772

XP SP2:

3dmarks:11706

sm2.0:5391

sm3.0:5150

cpu:2869

8, "Crysis" GPU Test (1280x1024)

Vista SP1:

High, DX10, 64-bit:35fps

High, DX9, 64-bit:37fps

High, DX10, 32-bit:35fps

High, DX9, 32-bit:36fps

Very High, DX10, 64-bit:20fps

XP SP2:

High:39fps

9, "Crysis" CPU test (800x600, quality set low, physical effect set high)

Vista SP1:

DX9, 64-bit:54fps

DX9, 32-bit:60fps

XP Sp2:69fps

10, finally add a point: Vista also added a new feature called SuperFetch, is an upgrade of XP prefetch, the main role is to use the free system memory as a cache, temporary storage users often need to access the data, so that when used again quickly enabled. Many people think that the function is useless, and wasted memory, this is clearly wronged Microsoft's painstaking. And look at the test as follows (in per second):

It can be seen that superfetch can greatly shorten the startup time of the application, and its characteristics also determine the longer the system is used, the more obvious the effect. In fact, Vista's memory management efficiency is much higher than XP, even if the free memory can be fully utilized, and in XP, free memory is idle, consumed power and useless.

Summarize:

It has been proven that the many upgrades that Microsoft has released since the Vista RTM release have significantly improved the performance of the new system, while the performance of the SP1 upgrade package has been more pronounced. In daily application tests, Vista SP1 is generally faster than XP SP2, even though the gap is slightly slower.

It is important to note that although XP and Vista are installed on different hard drives, this can also affect test scores, but Vista's west-digit hard drive is relatively slow, so it should be quicker to convert vista.

Vista's SuperFetch technology is a must in terms of application loading time. Even though Photoshop and OpenOffice have just been used a few times, Vista remembers them and loads them quickly. "Crysis" is not cached, but the load speed is still faster than XP.

Let's talk about the drawbacks of Vista next. In the 3dmark06, Vista score than XP low 3-4%, "Crysis" is more obvious, DX9 under the 5-8%,dx10 and less 1-2fps, to the CPU Test XP incredibly can lead more than 15%! Obviously, Vista has a unique advantage over DX10, which is something that gamers don't want to see.

It is also noteworthy that the author uses 8GB of massive memory, and we know that 32-bit XP SP2 is unable to take full advantage of so much memory, but also to some extent affect its performance, but also implied: Vista does require large memory.

In general, the performance of Vista is indeed commendable, especially the SuperFetch caching mechanism is very obvious. Vista has been no less than XP in everyday applications, and has surpassed the latter in most cases. Although the performance of Vista game is not optimistic, but after all, there are DX10, and now is the transition phase of the system is an inevitable phenomenon, in the future will gradually improve, as in the year of XP.