XP SP3 vs. Vista SP1 - Which is fastest?
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 28.4.2008
In the TalkBack section on my post looking at SP3 benchmarks, _deitrich asked a really good question:
Adrian, how about a comparison of XP SP3 vs Vista SP1? Oui? C’est possible?
Good question! Fortunately I’ve already done a fair bit of the groundwork in that I used the Phenom 9700 system I have for benchmarking both XP SP3 and Vista SP1.
I benchmarked both operating systems using PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1 and bringing together the results from both tests allows me to answer _deitrich’s question.
Note: The hardware configuration of the Phenom 9700 remained unchanged between the two tests and similar optimizations steps were carried out for each OS.
XP Professional:
* XP RTM
PassMark rating: 1001.4
* XP SP2
PassMark rating: 891
* XP SP3
PassMark rating: 990.8
Vista 32-bit:
* Vista RTM
PassMark rating: 1002.4
* Vista SP1
PassMark rating: 972.3
Vista 64-bit:
* Vista RTM
PassMark rating: 1183.1
* Vista SP1
PassMark rating: 1128.8
source:
blogs.zdnet.com
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Vista SP1 RC Leaves XP SP2 in the Dust, but What About XP SP3? || Microsoft Makes Its Own Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2, Leaves XP SP3 Out || It All Comes Down to Going Either for XP SP3 or for Vista SP1 || Are XP SP3 and Windows 7 Getting in the Way of Vista SP1? || The Vista SP1 vs. XP SP3 part 2
Comments(32)
spyware really slows them down, stick with the original release.
what's wrong with microsoft windows vista?
microsoft's new windows vista
operating system is a giant step backward for your freedoms.
usually, new
software enables you to do more with your computer. vista, though, is designed to restrict
what you can do.
vista enforces new forms of “digital rights management
(drm)”. drm is more accurately called digital restrictions management, because it is a
technology that big media and computer companies try to impose on us all, in order to have
control over how our computers are used.
technology security expert bruce
schneier explains it most concisely:
windows vista includes an array of
“features” that you don't want. these features will make your computer less reliable and
less secure. they'll make your computer less stable and run slower. they will cause
technical support problems. they may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral
hardware and existing software. and these features won't do anything useful. in fact,
they're working against you. they're digital rights management (drm) features built into
vista at the behest of the entertainment industry—and you don't get to refuse them.
drm gives power to microsoft and big media.
they decide which programs you can
and can't use on your computer
they decide which features of your computer or
software you can use at any given moment
they force you to install new programs even
when you don't want to (and, of course, pay for the privilege)
they restrict your
access to certain programs and even to your own data files
drm is enforced by
technological barriers. you try to do something, and your computer tells you that you
can't. to make this effective, your computer has to be constantly monitoring what you are
doing. this constant monitoring uses computing power and memory, and is a large part of
the reason why microsoft is telling you that you have to buy new and more powerful
hardware in order to run vista. they want you to buy new hardware not because you need it,
but because your computer needs it in order to be more effective at restricting what you
do.
microsoft and other computer companies sometimes refer to these
restrictions as “trusted computing.” given that they are designed to make it so that your
computer stops trusting you and starts trusting microsoft, these restrictions are more
appropriately called “treacherous computing”.
drm in vista only works for hd-video(blu-ray ,hd-dvd)
get over it xp has it
own drm so what will you do now ?
go then to windows 3.1 no drm there so it
should work for you "super fast"
and btw the benchmark clearly show
vista superiority over your lovly xp
:p
at guy: look again douchebag!
vista 32 bit sp1 972.3
xp sp3 990.8
the graph states longer is better dumbass! these people here are all retarded! omg!
lmfao!
i'm using vista x64 douchebag. so my vista is faster than your xp.
the graph
states longer is better dumbass!
yes xp is going to be faster on the current pc's
xp was made for older systems
after all
vista was made for the latest hardware...
trying to
compare xp with vista is like comparing apples and oranges...
you clearly have no idea how vista operates, much less how the drm mechanism is designed
to run.
i have hundreds of gigs of pirated software, movies, music, video
games. vista was never unable to open or render a single file, program, or game when i
tried launching it.
drm only affects blu-ray, but the encryption has been
cracked last year or the year before. secondly, a growing number of digital media
retailers have removed drm from their files. this means that vista's drm filter won't
have anything to block, and it will render it in its original fidelity.
lastly,
do you believe that vista tracks your every move, every pirated movie you play, every
keystroke and password, and then sends it to microsoft? can you imagine all the terabytes
of data microsoft would have to not only store, but sift through before reporting you to
the appropriate authorities? i think you'd feel safer using a linux pc while living in a
trailer in the middle of the desert in case the cia is looking to put a price on your
head.
xp does have it's own drm. it's only since the riaa and mpaa started pursuing
litigation against file sharers that drm has come to light. if anyting, xp's drm is more
invasive as it's designed to filter out protected wma and wmv files, and those are more
common now on hard drives than hi-def video files, since it's a waste of hard drive space
to rip one disk. maybe not in the future when 1 terabyte hard drives become the norm.
first of all vista 64 is only going to be running 32 bit programs, so liss any perceived
performance goodbye-and the little pussy vista fanbois here can kiss my ass!
did any of you little pussy vista fanbois hear of the vista incapable trial? thats right.
internal memos prove
that they pushed older hardware, actually motherboards from
their partener intel that was incapable of running many features of vista and called it
vista capable and lied to people. microsoft's appeal to the 9th circuit court of appeals
failed the other day. i hope they roast in hell.
so no, old or new hardware,
vista is garbage, poor programming. that argument wont wash fanbois.
i alpha/beta
tested it for years, trust me, it is.
and youre flat out wrong about vistas
drm, its way different than xp.
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/2105
computerworld magazine:
by any standard, vista’s new drm capabilities hardly
qualify
as a selling point; after all, it’s hard to sing the praises of
technology designed to make life harder for its users.
vista content protection
offspring of ongoing development in windows xp and
remnants of palladium/ngscb/etc
• evolution of xp mechanisms provide the content protection
• offshoots of
palladium/etc and other os security research
work provide the protection mechanisms
attempt to turn a general-purpose pc into a sealed
audio/video jukebox
this
would turn the pc into a record player as far as music is
concerned
— microsoft
research news
• direct opposite of the historically open pc architecture
content
protection mechanisms
end-to-end encryption of all content paths
•
(hd)tv/hd-dvd/blu-ray/internet server
(hd drive)
decoder
renderer
display
content-processing
http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf
most people will use either vista 32 bit or xp pro with sp3...right???
the
graph above clearly shows xp sp3 to be the winner for superior performance in speed and
reliability. unfortunatley vista is a sluggish cashcow designed to line microsft's
pockets with gold, providing little reason to the user to upgrade. xp can do anything
vista can do, faster, better. vista has problems running many software programs tha xp
could. a new os should be backwards compauble with the previous one. vista is not.
hos most god windows
most ppl will still likely use 32 bit....but i dont know why. all cpus made in the last
4 years -maybe longer- have had 64 bit support built in. in fact they dont even
aggressivly advertise the "64bit capabilities" anymore as they are no longer a bonus
they are now a standard feature. 32 bit came out in 95-96! thats 12 years ago! the
shift from dos 16 bit took less time and technology is developing faster now then it was
in the good ol dos days. 32 bit is dead....not dying... 12 years ago 2 lane highways may
have been sufficient -32 bit- but today with the traffic increase -more demanding games
and multimedia- 4 lanes -64 bit- and beyond is the future and the only way to avert the
approaching data bottleneck
just my 2 cents.... my evidence, vista64 pwnd the
entire group! if anythin xp sp3 is an attempt to restore lost performance from sp2 since
the xp rtm blows all other xp incarnations away
realistically how many 64 bit programs do people use? probably about zero. there goes
your perceived performance gain. a myth, a lie to sell 64 bit hardware. it never caught
on, and probably won't for many years, if at all. by then well likely have switched to
something like 128 bit architecture, ;ogically.
i use 64 bit apps over 32s anytime i can get my hands on them cuz they are faster and
designed to be so. running a 32 bit app on a 64 bit platform is slow due to emulation i
agree but 32 bit is not the way it is arcaic and companies are holding to it likely to
avoid having to recompile all their sofware or worse start from scratch....it is always
scary embarking on a new path.... but if its not takin soon then when yer 128bit os comes
out you'll really be doomed having stuck with somethin so old so long... would be like
handing a vista machine to someone thats only seen dos 3 lol
64 bit is a
necessary step and the only way to ensure successful steps beyond...96 bit, 128 bit or
something maybe completly different alltogether
as pointed out by jj apparently nobody except me uses 64 bit apps so i posted my message
up there and got to thinkin about this "lie" this "myth" he and others speak of....and
i in turn have a question: if its all a myth and a lie that puts vista 64 on top then why
is it on top using a 32 bit based benchmark program?! surely if it was a native 64bit
benchie and not an emulated 32bit the results would be even more impressive. so the
"lie" seems to be designed by 32 bit developers to keep the old ways alive...designing
for a new architecture costs money....doesnt make it so it can them be theorized that 64
bit isnt being adopted to boost 32 bit sales,... not what jj said about selling x64
hardware, which as i stated even further above is a standard feature of all hardware these
days and thus mutes his statement
everyone should know by now, that i am full of crap, i just enjoy bashing vista because i
have nothing better to do..
vista vs. xp
mac vs. windows
linux vs. every os
will it ever stop?
honda vs. everyone
whos got the faster car
in my own opinion, i
think our everyday society is like a big competition...
why can't we ever
agree on something?
it's gotta be a big debate or a battle of some sort...
an os is not a religion, so use whichever one makes you happy.
wow i dont know anyone with 64 bit applications...theyre just not commonplace...maybe he
has a point?
what good is 64 bit hardware without 64 bit apps? i mean, cmon, the
industry has had years and years to develop 64 bit apps and they havent...seems like it
only really exists to spur hardware sales and little else. the fact is running 32 bit apps
in a 64 bit os does not give and performance gain period. so whats the point of 64 bit
hardware??????????????????????????? or even a 64 bit os???????????????????????
thats right: running 32 bit applications with 64 bit operating system with 64 bit
hardware equals no real peformance gain over a 32 bit os and 32 bit hardware period. fact.
the only gain is all the cash the pc industry are making hawking 64 bit software and
hardware.....because like no one hardly has any native programs.
using 64 bit is
like fools gold. no real benefit.
ok ppl.... explain how there is no real benefits!!!! take a look at the scores! as i
said the benchie prog used to make the freakin graph at the top is 32 -thirty-two- bit
based!!! vista 64 even emulated in the test still kills all competetors including vista
32 bit because vista was intended to be 64 bit os but had to retain 32 bit compatability
to appease the general public still using 32 bit. vista 32 is almost a blasphemy in this
sense and has no real purpose since all new cpus support 64 bit -someone tell me they're
runnin vista on a p4 1st gen, it is possible just not fun- it is exactly the same as the
xp vs vista war -32 bit vs 64- the old struggling to hold on to what the know \ are
comfortable with and the new pushing the edge of whats possible forward....i think the
general user is lost somewhere in the middle with many questions that start with "what
the f*ck"
this benchmark is rigged.
1. x64 win xp is absent in the benchmarks, why?
2. has anyone else even heard of this benchmark? how about using something like
excel, or word? what about a benchmark everyone has heard of? like sysmark or pcbench?
biased opinion here, not benchmarks
excuse me? in order to get any benefit in a 64 bit os you must run a 64 bit program
right? running 32 bit in a 64 bit os doesnt really give any real gains
i wouldnt
think.
above where is says xp rtm. does that mean xp updated with no service packs installed?
another question: is windows xp fully updated, with no service packs installed, the same
as windows xp sp3? is xp with no service packs installed, but updated, more vulnerable
than xp with sp3 installed?
the answers to the questions you have are in my posts above.... pls read... all will be
clear.... manson yer 32 bit app on a 64 system is covered, the arm, yers is adressed
directly as well and outlander i do agree xp 64 should be in there but i have to beef with
one thing... i have heard of passmark as have many others...i agree that other benchmarks
performed in addition to the passmark test would give a solid result and we would be able
to see how consistant the results are. i from experience in all the configs above -and
including xp64- feel that these results are about right. right down to the rtm of xp bein
the fastest of all and sp3 bein a patch to fight the crippled performance sp2 has been
assosiated with
sorry, i must be missing something. i don't see the answer to my questions above. is
there a link i need to click to your full test/review? i clicked on "windows" "keznews
forums" "source". what should i click on to see a full review?
why is it a trend to go down in performance with each service pack? (with the exception
of xp sp3 which redeems only slightly)
all performance seems to lead downwards.
why is that?
"thats right: running 32 bit applications with 64 bit operating system with 64 bit
hardware equals no real peformance gain over a 32 bit os and 32 bit hardware period.
fact."
did people actually make such assanying omments when the first car
engine was slower than a horse??? i can only wonder. the only reason the 64 bit os is
slowed down is becasue we have to wait for 32 bit code to die get it. can't go full bore
into 64 until retards and the xp and there 3 gig a ram are willing to move on .
d
ont let the facts get in the way of your statement ie the test scores above!
bonehead !
only here can one find retarded rabid fanboys arguing about what piece of software got
the most bullshit marks, and backing it with ridiculous ill-founded arguments.
i
especially like those "i'm a tech god, or i beta tested that for 15 years".
or not
when he says rtm above, does he mean with no updates right off the cd or with updates?
is one less secure with xp rtm, updated, with no service packs than xp sp3 (or
any sp's for that matter)?
i got passmark (version 6.1 1016) as 1358 with dell vostro 1400 (intel t7800, 4g ram,
x3100, hitachi 7k200 200gb) vista 64bit sp1. why this mark is much higher than desktop?
Add a Comment
XP SP3 vs. Vista SP1 - Which is fastest?
By mike on 29.04.2008 - 04:04