Overall Vista Performance: XP vs. Vista vs. Vista x64

Benchmarking in Vista is an extremely difficult task, thanks to features like SuperFetch designed to improve performance at the sacrifice of repeatability. We're in love with SuperFetch as a feature, but it does make our jobs a bit more difficult as we have to be very mindful of what has been cached into main memory and how that impacts the performance of our benchmarks. Testing difficulties under Vista are compounded by the fact that our major test suites don't work under the new OS. SYSMark and PC WorldBench simply won't run and thus we have to rely on individual application tests and home-brew scripts to measure performance.

Our goal for this article was to find out if Windows Vista, on modern day hardware, continues to be slower than Windows XP as it has been in previous beta and RC versions. The secondary goal is to look at x64 performance to see if it too has changed behavior, to the point where you no longer need to worry about losing 32-bit performance if you move to the 64-bit version of Vista. We ran a handful of application tests to compare the three OSes (XP, Vista and Vista x64), and later on we'll focus on gaming tests as well to showcase graphics performance.

PCMark '05 Performance

Despite looking quite synthetic, PCMark has grown into a nice lightweight alternative to the big application suite benchmarks like SYSMark. It was also one of the first benchmarks to get official Vista support, although it remains a 32-bit only test.

OS Performance - XP vs. Vista

OS Performance - XP vs. Vista

OS Performance - XP vs. Vista

OS Performance - XP vs. Vista

OS Performance - XP vs. Vista

Performance under PCMark is fairly close between Vista and XP, with XP generally holding on to a 1% - 4% performance advantage in most of the categories. The only exception to the rule is the graphics score of PCMark which has XP at around 35% ahead of Vista, but we'll address graphics performance shortcomings of Vista later in the article.

The difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista are hardly pronounced, with the two being evenly matched across the board. Once again, remember that PCMark is a 32-bit benchmark so it is running in Windows on Windows (WOW64) mode. That it can remain competitive is good news, but whether that's because WOW64 works well in all cases or it is merely optimized for PCMark05 remains to be seen.

3DMark '06 Performance

We chose to include 3DMark '06 performance here instead of with our game tests to look at the gaming performance of Vista on a system level rather than a GPU level:

OS Performance - XP vs. Vista

OS Performance - XP vs. Vista

OS Performance - XP vs. Vista

OS Performance - XP vs. Vista

Overall XP is about 6% faster than Vista, although the 3DMark06 CPU score is nearly 13% higher on XP than it is on Vista. As a 32-bit benchmark, it's once again good to see no negative performance difference between the Vista x86 and x64 versions.

Threading and Searching General Application Performance
Comments Locked

105 Comments

View All Comments

  • FireChicken - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link

    I liked the old article title better..
  • grzemaz - Thursday, June 24, 2010 - link

    What should you do if the readyboost pendrive had been lost? How turn readyboost off when you do not have your old pendrive and you want to turn readyboost on with another one???
  • ghd nz - Monday, January 7, 2013 - link

    http://www.ghdplanchas-baratas.org
  • lordcatalien - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link

    I'm curious for you to perform the same test above with Adobe Illustrator. My performance didn't seem to be affected even with a 3GB ReadyBoost in place.
  • Ikem64 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    > Vista's auto-_tuning_ system is designed to surpass XP's scaling system

    Typo.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now