Tech Analysis: Windows Vista Sucks Performance

Printer-friendly version Email this CRN article

Windows Vista is Microsoft's next-generation desktop operating system. But does it provide next-gen performance on today's PCs vs. its predecessor, Windows XP?

The CRN Test Center set out to compare Vista's performance against XP's. The result: You might not want to move off XP just yet.

Vista is a resource-hungry operating system. Its minimum hardware requirements of an 800 MHz processor, 512 Mbytes of memory and a 20-Gbyte hard drive prove the point. New systems running Vista are heartier still, typically having a dual-core processor of around 2 GHz and 1 Gbyte of memory.

Regardless of the platform, Vista takes a long time to boot compared with XP. That's probably why Vista's shutdown button has been moved from the familiar XP location and replaced by a sleep button. By encouraging users to put systems to sleep rather than turning them off, the systems will seemingly boot much faster. If a system running Vista takes longer to boot than one running XP, could the Vista system take longer to do other tasks as well?

The Test Center decided to check it out. A new system sent to the lab came loaded with Vista. The system, made by Polywell, contained an Asus M2 NBP-VM CSM motherboard with a 2.2 GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ dual-core processor and 1 Gbyte of memory. Engineers benchmarked the system using PassMark Software's PerformanceTest benchmark, which can be used free by anyone for up to 30 days.

The PerformanceTest software runs multiple tests on the CPU, graphics subsystem, memory and disk drives to generate composite average scores for each category. The composite averages are then used to generate an overall PassMark rating for the entire system. The latest version of PerformanceTest is compatible with Windows XP and Vista. PerformanceTest results can be saved as image files, and links are provided here for the results of the two tests (click for Vista performance results and for XP performance results).

Running Vista, the Polywell system earned a PassMark rating of 391.3. Next, engineers wiped the system and loaded Windows XP Pro (version 2002 with SP2). Running XP, the system earned a PassMark rating of 468.3; that's 16.4 percent faster than Vista, not an insignificant difference. Race car drivers will go to great lengths to shave a few tenths off their elapsed times but rarely perform upgrades that hurt performance. Yet upgrading to Vista can lessen a system's performance by as much as 58 percent, depending on what's being processed.

The news was not all bad, however. The PerformanceTest benchmark ran 24 individual tests, and XP was faster than Vista in only 18 of those tests. In six of the tests, Vista came out on top. More specifically, Vista beat XP at CPU string sorting, 2D graphics shapes, simple 3D graphics, medium 3D graphics, memory writes and random disk seeks.

For CPU string sorting, XP processed 2064.8 thousand strings per second, while Vista processed 2080.1 thousand strings per second. For the 2D graphics shapes test, XP processed 29.2 thousand shapes per second, and Vista processed 30.4 thousand shapes per second. For the simple 3D graphics test, Vista processed 125.8 frames per second, and XP processed 134.0 frames per second.

In the medium 3D graphics test, XP processed 16.0 frames per second, while Vista processed 18.6 frames per second. For the memory write test, XP processed 950.5 MBps and Vista processed 954.6 MBps. And for the random disk seek test, XP processed 2.91 MBps, while Vista processed 3.88 MBps. Except for the random disk seeking, the difference between the other five tests is negligible.

But the bad news was bad. Of the 18 tests in which XP beat Vista, the difference in seven of them was significant.

For the 2D graphics lines test, Vista processed 76.3 thousand lines per second, whereas XP processed 138.3 thousand lines per second. For the 2D graphics rectangles test, Vista processed 39.7 thousand images per second, and XP processed 94.3 thousand images per second. That's a difference of 58 percent.

In the 2D graphics fonts and text test, Vista processed 115.2 operations per second, while XP processed 172.7 operations per second. For the small block memory allocation test, Vista processed 1349.3 MBps and XP processed 1861.6 MBps. For the large RAM memory test, Vista performed 127.2 operations per second, and XP performed 229.2 operations per second. For the sequential disk read test, Vista processed 32.4 MBps, whereas XP processed 65.4 MBps. For the sequential disk write test, Vista processed 39.4 MBps and XP processed 60.6 MBps.

The significant differences in these individual tests resulted in significant differences for the overall 2D graphics mark and overall disk mark. For the overall 2D graphics mark, Vista scored a composite average of 289.0, while XP scored 466.7. And for the overall disk mark, Vista scored a composite average of 273.4 and XP scored 466.1. The differences in those two main categories greatly contributed to the 16.4 percent overall difference between the two operating systems.

NEXT: Vista Vs. XP In .Net Performance

Printer-friendly version Email this CRN article