Windows XP SP3 Yields Performance Gains Over Vista SP1
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 24.11.2007
After a disappointing showing by Windows Vista SP1 (see previous post), we were pleasantly surprised to discover that Windows XP Service Pack 3 (v.3244) delivers a measurable performance boost to this aging desktop OS.
Testing with OfficeBench showed an ~10% performance boost vs. the same configuration running under Windows XP w/Service Pack 2.
Since SP3 was supposed to be mostly a bug-fix/patch consolidation release - unlike w/Vista SP1, Microsoft made no promises of improved performance for XP - the unexpected speed boost comes as a nice bonus. In fact, XP SP3 is shaping-up to be a "must have" update for the majority of users who are still running Redmond's not-so-latest and greatest desktop OS.
Of course, none of this bodes well for Vista, which is now more than 2x slower than the most current builds of its older sibling. Suffice to say that performance-minded users will likely choose to stick with the now even speedier Windows XP - at least until more "Windows 7" information becomes publicly available.
Figure 1 - OfficeBench Completion Times (In Seconds - Lower is Better)
Note: As with our Vista SP1 testing, we used the identical Dell XPS M1710 test bed with 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU, 1GB of RAM and discrete nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS video.
Windows Vista = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!
View:
KezNews Discussion - Windows XP SP3 Yields Performance Gains Over Vista SP1source:
exo-blog.blogspot.com
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Windows 7 Search Performance – Superior to Vista SP1 and XP SP3 || .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 for XP SP3 and Vista SP1 || Are XP SP3 and Windows 7 Getting in the Way of Vista SP1? || No More Registry from Vista SP1 and XP SP3 to Windows 7? || Windows 7 Is Here! Don't Give Vista SP1 and XP SP3 a Second Look
Comments(23)
when will bill gates ever learn?
we want speed and stability.not pretty and slow.
boo to vista. stick with xp for now. can't wait to see how sp3 will work on all my
systems.
if most xp users did thier homework. they woould find the important reason to go to vista
and the only reason because vista does blo. windows xp does not support dual core cpu's.
xp supports dual cpu's(as in 2 singlecore cpu's) on a board but not dual core, triple
core or quad core. xp wasnt designed to support these. this also goes with the 64 bit
version of xp. with xp sp2 the problem still exist but basically the features are turned
off so the multicore cpu's will run right on xp. to fix this problem, microsoft would
have to totally re-write windows xp. this is why we now have vista. vista is a fix for
this problem until windows 7 comes out in 2 years. dont you find it odd that it took from
2001 to 2007 to make vista yet windows 7 is out in 2 years? now the kicker. all you people
running your high output cpu's on xp are wasting your money. you are not getting the
performance out of your cpu with xp. you cant. as for this patch and the one from
amd--read...http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/896256
these turn off
certain features of the cpu to make it run stable on xp. so it doesnt matter how many
service packs microsoft makes for xp. if your not running a single core cpu on xp then its
all a waste of money to you. on the 8th day vista was born. it may blo but now you can run
your hardware the way it was meant to. if you wan performance out of vista, download vista
lite and make your own copy of vista. for the skeptics that are going to fire back at me
for this. fire away. take some time and go read. this has always been out there. i beta
tested windows xp 64bit sp2 through connect.. i confronted microsoft about this and i will
post the reply if need be.
microsoft.com home
search microsoft.com for:
connect home
available connections
my participation
invitations
connect
introduction
________________________________________
windows server 2003
service pack 2 home
downloads
product keys
feedback
newsgroups
________________________________________ feedback
windows xp pro 64bit sp2 dual
core cpu drivers. pc crashes extracting large files.
rating
0.00
0 votes
vote now
validation
0/0
(yes/no)
view or add
workarounds
1
workaround
view or add
watchlist
you are
currently watching this issue.
remove from watchlist
________________________________________
type bug id 242936
status closed
(won't fix) access restriction public
opened by blizz26 blocking issue no
opened 12/3/2006 submission language english
resolved 12/13/2006 4:18:21 am closed
12/14/2006 5:45:23 am
________________________________________
description
while extracting large files with winrar 3.61 windows will crash and reboot.
as
with window xp pro, home, sp1 and sp2 32bit editions having to use the amd optimizer, amd
driver and the hotfix (throttle) entry in the registry to enable the hotfix. from what i
understand windows wasnt designed for the dual core processor so these need to be
installed for the amd x2,s to work properly.
the question is? do these also need to
be installed in the all the 64 bit versions running the x2 cpu,s? if so, what about the
sp2 of 64bit windows 64 bit? has something been changed to not need these?
comments
3 comments | post a comment to microsoft
do you have to use amd optimizer, amd
driver and the hotfix with the windows xp pro 64 bit edition with sp2?
posted by
blizz26 on 12/5/2006 at 7:42 am
why did this get closed? i never recieved an answer
to this. do i still need these drivers? why does my computer crash?
posted by
blizz26 on 12/13/2006 at 11:07 am
this is a major problem for the amd x2 dual core
cpu users and this is a legitmate bug that isnt going to be addressed. this is a 64 bit os
and the dual core is a 64 bit high demand cpu that people are buying to use with this os.
as for this to be "closed" and a comment ("wont fix") without some sort or legit
reason blows my mind. people that use this os as it is meant to (working it hard) will
continuously have this problem. it should be stated that this os is only meant for single
core cpu's and not lead the consumer to believe differently as i was at and expense of
the cpu and the os, $1000.00
posted by blizz26 on 1/31/2007 at 7:46 pm
please
list the exact steps we need to follow to make this problem happen.
extract large
files useing winrar 3.61 (4gig- files or larger) windows will crash and reboot after
around 3 minutes of extracting file.
next i extracted the same file, during
extraction i went to task manager, processes, clicked on the winrar process and change the
affinity to use one cpu, cpu0 and file was extracted copletely without problems.
if
your results were unexpected, what did you exect to happen?
yes i expected to see
this happen as i did with previous builds. they arent much mention about amd x2 cpu,s and
previous driver issues with compatibility or if design changes have been made to make x2
cpu,s to work as they were meant to without any special hotfixes,drivers or optimizing
software.
i believe this problem doesnt happen with windows xp pro 32bit with a 64
bit x2 cpu because the x2 or the 64bit architecture isnt being by the os (running in
32bit). it uses the x2 as just one cpu even though it will read it as two cpus. the os
wasnt designed for it and the hotfix,opimizer and driver is just a workaround to except
and make the x2 cpu stable and still not use the architecture of the x2.
i waited
for a new beta release to see if this was going to happen again with a different rc or
refresh.
what build are you running?
rc (build 2825)
this installation
was?
a slipstream clean install
microsoft did not deny anything that was in this bug report. they closed this with the
comment "won't fix". they cant fix it. i hit the nail on the head. as for the people
who dont or wont believe this. so be it. this has been inplanted in your head now that you
read this. tell me how great your $1200.00 intel quad q6600 1066 fsb works on xp. better
off with the extreme p4 on a xp board. why do you think everyone wants them. they work on
xp!
i don't know what u mean. i have both os xp 32 and vista 64 on 1 pc (amd x2 6000, 2x250
gb hdd, x agp ati 1600-256 m, 4gb ram). my xp 32 start and shutdown faster than vista.
mayb xp does not support dual core cpu's but works really faster than one core cpu. u
don't tell me about article u read i tested it in practice - it works great. i've
installed amd optimizer, amd driver and my choice is xp not vista 64. my system s***t
benchmark on vista is funny 5.7 points. when i extracting large files on xp with winrar
windows never crash. u used your pc or only read microsoft site?
don't talk crap blizz26! in the real world xp accomplishes tasks far quicker with a dual
core than a single core.
i upgraded from an athlon 3700+ to an athlon 4200+ x2
and the difference encoding a avi file to mpeg was just over twice as fast, exactly what
one would expect.
vista is an overbloated abortion, that should be flushed down
the pan.
gates has also joined forces with yank/zionist government departments,
and half the code is for monitoring peoples activities.
while it is not true that xp knows the difference between a dual core cpu in one socket
and 2 single core cpu each in it's socket, blizz26 is right when he says xp doesn't
scale well past 2 cores. on the other hand, vista can handle as many cores as you can
throw at it. now ben says his xp boots faster. i believe you, boot time depends primarily
on hdd speed, not cpu. since your drives are identical, this means vista has more to load.
no news there, it comes with more stuff by default. windows defender (can be disabled),
integrated search (has to index the contents of your hard drive, and can also be
disabled), etc.
bottom line: if you like vista, use it, if you don't, stick with xp
or linux or whatever the hell makes you happy, and find better uses for your time
another biased story written by someone with their own blog and people take it for fact.
written by someone to justify his not buying vista.
look at the few blogs he has posted. every singled one of them is anti-vista. this is
utter bullshit.
how can i download it
vista is marketing shit, xp is better. period.
unbelieveable, more microsoft marketing here on keznews to trick and deceive end users as
consumers again!
vista is slower not just because it has more drm, more
unwanted monitoring, more bloatware, but because of design.
vista isn't coded
to actually work with multicore technologies as stated above. prove it...
vista
like all versions of windows are not coded for multicore period. find any microsoft
software, like windows internet browser, outlook, and even office that makes use of
multicore technologies, designed on multicore technologies, etc...
you
cannot...
despite windows xp being available on x64bit, along comes vista, and
still the same issues, as it's sold with 32 bit versions...
the vista x64bit
is not sold as oem, at least to the general public. in fact, it wasn't until many months
later did vista x64 bit even become available, which nobody is supporting much as in
hardware drivers even still!
the longer everyone continues to use microsoft
software, the more your going to be locked in...paying more for less.
the
corporations only care about making profits...
vista cannot deliver, as if it
could, obviously they would be selling the x64 bit versions, as their support faster
speed, and greater ram memory size hands down....
instead, ask yourself, why
are they selling 32bit still?
because there is money to be made selling old
stuff, as most of the industry still is hooked on 32bit...
forget about
multicore, ibm already has in the works a 5ghz cpu.... single core that rocks as compared
to intel dual core...
dual cores are huge memory power hungry with lots of
memory leaks...
apple has done a much better job with multicore technology...
that's a fact, not microsoft from day one.
if your software was written
better, than bloatware, you wouldn't even need a faster cpu... except for labor intensive
transcoding jobs... like video...
most of the end users today still continue to
use the most basic applications like the browers, emailing and so forth...
none
of these applications require faster cpu or even multicore technologies to work...
funny how vista with a huge amount of cost, cannot offer anything better than windows
xp for these types of applications...
using xp, you can watch all types of
videos, listen to any music, surf the internet, send email, play games, which even vista
cannot fully provide, so you think you still need vista, to do what?
multicore?
wrong...
vista = just more cost....
linux = free but requires some
inteligence
xp = most supported by hardware and software
only vista fanboi
types want everyone to think it's okay to spend the most money ahead for vista...
they complain about even xp, so you throw away your paid for investment, over and
over...
i am sure in 2 years, nobody will keep vista when windows 7 or
whatever name they call it then, is sold...
vista is for mpaa and riaa to
monopolize the consumers...
that's why vista has no new features...
that's why vista is slower...
that's why vista has nothing to offer, unless you
consider gui appearence at the cost of performance...
that's why vista has
nothing new, that consumers really want...
ask yourself, your vista fanboi
types, if you were to buy any new operating system, what real features would you want and
expect to have?
vista slower performance? right...
vista monitor you?
right...
vista drm? right again...
vista higher cost, sure thing...
vista
wga? sure...
vista stupid new interface for dumb down types? unless your just dumb...
vista needing sp1 before being sold! again yeah...
and...
vista isn't
supported by hardware drivers, or prior software...
if you really got money to
burn, why was it on vista? sell your stick in microsoft, and start supporting real
innovation, real open source code, and get behind linux, so everyone can share, and
contribute...
solid arguments, tho i use dual single core with 2ghz ram and have never had a problem
with xp sp2 unless i put a totally insane workload on it- had to deliberately cheat to
blue screen it.
u made solid arguments
john, for a guy who spends awfully many words to rehash the same dud arguments that
we've seen countless of times before, you seem to have terrible difficulties spelling
words- such as 'intelligence', and 'you're' as opposed to "your" -correctly :d
...so very sad, and at the same time very amusing
the whole world says: vista is shit! right this is the final argument i will never spend
my money on the piece of shit like vista i will use my xp till windows 7. vista is a pure
whore shit.
john, here's a protip: use windows 98 se, it's faster than xp and you can "watch all
types of videos, listen to any music, surf the internet, send email, play games" too. or
die in a fire, and take your sock puppets with you. don't assume everyone has a 2 digit
iq like yourself.
why is everyone attacking john? you all know he is correct.
vista is crap! it
is a new, immature product that has not had time to develop and was rushed through the
development stage. just like me, is anyone here going to defend me? no, of course not
because it was an interm release by ms and was utter crap! same with vista, it was
released too soon, too under developed, and during it's initial release could only run
something like 300 programs currently on the market, for that time. it was and still is
crap and ms will wash it away with windows 7 like they did with xp to me. so get over it,
vista is crap period.
personally i'm a system 7 guy, it took less than
2.5mb's of ram to run, was stable, quick, responsive, and it worked. yes, oranges and
apples, old world pc's to mac's but the same concept, k.i.s.s. this method is how i
like it!
xp not supporting mp? are you fing stupid? i'm not even going to
comment on that one. just plain retarded.
and for you people complaining about
all the spelling mistakes, you look more like morons correcting others than the people
that made the mistakes, this is the internet, not a novel, grow up and get use to it!
stop looking for spelling mistakes, vista is crap, microshaft s*cks. end of story!
oh and yes 98se would most likely outperform xp in simple office tasks.
damn.....
i think vista does handle multiple cores better!!
ppl wid duo/quad core cpu's try
this... insert a really sratched cd/dvd into your dvd rom and try opening my computer on
an xp machine and a vista machine!!
i dont like much of vista but the multithreaded
explorer is much much better than xp's
i agree tht vista is immature!! so was every other operating system at the time it was
released!!when winxp came out we had the same hardware/software incompactibilities,loads
of bsods,etc
it took them 5-7years,2 service packs & a new operating system for
us to like the much beloved xp!!
so give vista some time
it took me until 2 years ago to switch to xp from 98se. xp was not mature enough in my
eyes for the first 5 years it was out. no lie, 98se in 2005 for me. also newer games
required it and patching doom 3 with hacks for 98se was annoying.
after
switching to xp and installing all the patches (minus service packs) i found it was
finally stable enough for my tastes. now with sp3 out and installed, it is even better!
however, windows 7 being slated for release only 3 years after xp is really
reminding me of when me was launched.
i wonder if the same people from the me
group were the ones who wrote vista?
however, windows 7 being slated for release only 3 years after xp is really reminding me
of when me was launched.
i meant to say "only 3 years after vista", not xp
people!! microsoft started working on vista even before xp was on the market. and guess
what?? it's still the same kernel or maybe changed a bit but i don't think a lot as you
can see with vista's performance.
Vista??? HO HUM.... YAWN
By Area 51 on 25.11.2007 - 12:11