Latest Forum Posts
Latest News Posts
- EVGA Introduces GeForce GTX 780 with New ACX Cooler
- Enermax Launches Five New Fan Models
- Xbox One Follow-up: Always-on, Achievements & Used Games
- Ultimate Ears’ UE BOOM the First ‘Social Music Player’
- Microsoft Reveals the Xbox One, Aims for Complete Media Integration
- NVIDIA’s Tegra 4i Might Not be Out Yet, But it Just Became 50% Faster
- AMD Plucks Marketing Manager Sean Pelletier from NVIDIA’s Crew
- GELID Releases Rev. 2 GX-7 CPU Cooler, Features Stacked Heatpipes
- More than 100 Hours of Video Are Uploaded to YouTube Every Minute
- Futuremark Announces PCMark 8 – Includes Battery Tests and Native App Benchmarks
Social
Windows Vista Beta 2 Performance Reports
by Rob Williams on June 14, 2006 in Windows
Windows Vista is system intensive, as we knew it would be. We set out to find out just -how- system intensive it is. We run a slew of benchmarks and gaming runs on both the 32-Bit and 64-Bit versions to see how they compare to XP.
Testing Procedures, CPU Benchmarks
|
|
To perform the testing, I used a formatted 160GB Western Digital hard drive. In between each new operating system, the drive was reformatted. Only one operating system was installed at a time. In usual reviews that require benchmarking, unneeded services are closed down before testing. However, since this is a direct comparison to a new OS, all of the processes and services that are pre-installed, were left alone to give a more accurate view.
- Test System
- CPU: AMD Venice 3200+ @ 2.0GHz
- Motherboard: DFI Ultra-D w/604BTA BIOS
- Memory: Corsair 2GB PC3500LL PRO
- Video: eVGA 7800GT 256MB
- Sound: Chaintech AV-710
- Storage: Seagate 7200.10 750GB 16MB
- Odds and Ends: D-Link WiFi PCI Card
- Etcetera: Windows x64 Professional (Nvidia 84.21), Windows Vista 32-Bit (Nvidia 88.61), Windows Vista 64-Bit (Nvidia 88.61)
Generally, nothing major was done to the operating system after the install. As I do with all my Windows installations, I select the “Classic Start Menu” mode, which effectively makes the start menu smaller than default. It also places your “My Computer” and other various icons on the desktop. In Vista, the Sidebar was disabled. These are the only modifications done to either OS installation.
- Synthetic Benchmarks
- Cinebench 9.5
- Futuremark 3D Mark 2003
- Futuremark 3D Mark 2006
- Futuremark PC Mark 2005
- HD Tach RW 3
- HD Tune
- Lavalys EVEREST 2006
- Nero Recode
- Sciencemark 2 32-Bit
- SiSoftware SANDRA 2007
- Super Pi 1.5 Mod
- Gaming Benchmarks
- Battlefield 2
- FarCry
- Half-Life 2
- Serious Sam 2
I will be splitting up the results into three categories: CPU, Memory and Gaming. Performance based on these factors will be the true deciding factor on whether anyone should upgrade right away. Let’s get underway with a look at the CPU benches.
CPU Benchmarking
Because SANDRA would not function in the 64-Bit version of Vista, there are obviously no results from there. Comparing the 32-Bit version of Vista to the 64-Bit version of XP is surprising. While x64 takes the crown with the Dhrystone, Vista storms ahead in the Whetstone result.
The multi-media test is vice versa. Vistas Int result is far better than what x64 could muster, although x64 performed better in the Floating-Point result.
While the end result of a PC Mark run doesn’t explain much, the higher the number, the better. Although x64 scores 8% higher, I had actually expected the difference to be larger. All of those extra running processes in Vista don’t hurt the overall CPU score here that much.
|
|
