June 29, 2008 at 9:08 pmXP vs Vista: which is faster on top-end hardware?
Today an entertaining topic slipped through , in the comments to which there were allegations that Vista is faster than XP on top configurations.
A couple of months ago I asked the same question - is it faster? An experiment was conducted, XP was compared with the latest updates at that time, and Vista with just released SP1.
The configuration on which it all worked: Gygabyte P35-DS3P / Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 3000 / 4Gb DDR2 800 / 2xST3500630AS / GF 8600GT. The drivers at the time of testing were also the latest.
The test was published in my LJ, so it turned out that it is divided into three and a half parts:
Part one: tests of single and multi-threaded applications.
Part two: copy speed.
Part Three: synthetic benchmark, the impact of Aero on performance.
Part three and a half. Work with a flash drive.
The results were unexpected, if not slightly shocking. Their reality, as far as possible, is illustrated.
In short, in computing applications, Vista performed worse. Somewhere - within the limits of measurement error, somewhere - by a quite tangible percentage. But working with data in Vista was faster, and faster so much that it really surprised me. Apparently, Vista uses memory more efficiently ... however, it is interesting to get acquainted with other opinions.
A couple of months ago I asked the same question - is it faster? An experiment was conducted, XP was compared with the latest updates at that time, and Vista with just released SP1.
The configuration on which it all worked: Gygabyte P35-DS3P / Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 3000 / 4Gb DDR2 800 / 2xST3500630AS / GF 8600GT. The drivers at the time of testing were also the latest.
The test was published in my LJ, so it turned out that it is divided into three and a half parts:
Part one: tests of single and multi-threaded applications.
Part two: copy speed.
Part Three: synthetic benchmark, the impact of Aero on performance.
Part three and a half. Work with a flash drive.
The results were unexpected, if not slightly shocking. Their reality, as far as possible, is illustrated.
In short, in computing applications, Vista performed worse. Somewhere - within the limits of measurement error, somewhere - by a quite tangible percentage. But working with data in Vista was faster, and faster so much that it really surprised me. Apparently, Vista uses memory more efficiently ... however, it is interesting to get acquainted with other opinions.