Vista 64 v.s. WinXP 32

[j@cko]

Some basic info of my setup. E8400 o/ced to 4.1Ghz and equipped with 4GB of memory.

What: I mainly do gaming and photo editing on this machine.

Question: I see that Anandtech nowadays use Vista 64 Ultimate as the standard OS for all benchmarking. I was wondering that should I choose Vista 64 Ultimate over WinXP 32? I am always under the impression that WinXP is considerably faster than Vista 32 and 64.

 

[Cygnus X1]

XP all the way, I think Vista sucks.

 

[ViRGE]

In contrary to Cynus's opinion, I'd recommend Vista. Being able to use all 4GB of your memory is a good thing (especially if you can open enough photos to use it all) as is being able to use DX10 for gaming as more and more DX10 enabled titles come out. Performance wise the OSs are rather close these days, but it also depends on what you're doing. AFAIK for what you want to do, there's no advantage to using XP when it comes to performance.

 

[toadeater]

XP 64.

Btw, Dell announced they'll continue to sell XP past June 30th. XP is not going away.

 

[Rebel44]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
In contrary to Cynus's opinion, I'd recommend Vista. Being able to use all 4GB of your memory is a good thing (especially if you can open enough photos to use it all) as is being able to use DX10 for gaming as more and more DX10 enabled titles come out. Performance wise the OSs are rather close these days, but it also depends on what you're doing. AFAIK for what you want to do, there's no advantage to using XP when it comes to performance.

I agree.

 

[Mem]

Vista x64 HP is what I'm using ,to be honest my XP PC is no longer needed for gaming or general use,70 plus games installed and no stability or driver issues so I can't complain at all.

No matter how long people think XP will stay around, Vista will still be supported after XP has gone.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
XP all the way, I think Vista sucks.

+1 vista performance is pathetic, especially in games

 

[nerp]

Vista is faster than XP on my boxes. Games run nice and fast. Load almost instantly. Love it. Go Vista.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
XP all the way, I think Vista sucks.

+1 vista performance is pathetic, especially in games

Its faster than XP on my desktop, or close enough to make the difference negligible. Plus, I can use all of my 4GB of RAM.

Vista gets a bad rap, and most of it is baseless FUD, nothing more.

 

[Hurricane Andrew]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
XP all the way, I think Vista sucks.

+1 vista performance is pathetic, especially in games

Its faster than XP on my desktop, or close enough to make the difference negligible. Plus, I can use all of my 4GB of RAM.

Vista gets a bad rap, and most of it is baseless FUD, nothing more.

Co-sign. Though I'd add that using 4GB may be nice, but using 8GB is just awesome

 

[gizbug]

Xp is dated. Go Vista. A lot of games coming down the pipe that are DX10. XP can't handle that, so you'd be at a loss. Also, support for XP is about to hit "non existence" so why put an aged OS on your system.

Been running vista 64 since day one, and have had NO issues.

 

[Narse]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
XP all the way, I think Vista sucks.

+1 vista performance is pathetic, especially in games

Thats not really true. I have been running Vista 64 for over a year and while this was the case earlier, Vista is now almost identical in performance with XP. You get better security and DX10 not to mention the ability to use more than 4gb RAM

 

[deepinya]

It would be nice to see updated benchmarks since all of the oder ones favor XP by a good margin.

 

[j@cko]

Originally posted by: deepinya
It would be nice to see updated benchmarks since all of the oder ones favor XP by a good margin.

ya. it's funny to read how some people are making subjective and baseless claims.

 

[bryanW1995]

Who has a dual boot vista x64 and xp 32 system? This could be really easy to solve...

 

[apoppin]

From my extensive testing over a year -here is my Summary:

1. Vista-32 is just as fast as XP-32 for gaming [period]

2. Vista 32 is more-or-less equal to Vista 64
- possibly 64 is slightly slower for 32-bit games .. it is a tiny FPS difference

3. Vista 64 blows all else away for about 3 or 4 [FC/Hg:L/LotRO] 64-bit games .. the rest are all 32 bit; eventually all new games will be 64-bit; in 3-5 years or so

My conclusion:

Go for Vista 64 if you have all new HW/SW

i can link you to my tests .. they were performed from last May and finished about 2 months ago .. they are extremely consistent with each other
Vista is a hellofalot better OS for gaming than XP
-from those of us who know - the XP lovers are vista haters

 

[myi4u]

It's always good to try out new operating system when you have all the latest hardware. Vista in my opinion is faster than XP because it optimizes the hardware better. However, due to compatibility problems, most users experience problems with Vista. However, if your hardware and software are new, you should not face much problems with vista.

 

[Tempered81]

nov 06 til sept 07

xp 32 still faster than all versions of vista even 11 months after release:

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...mance_update/page8.asp

Theres a reason crysis isn't in that review (done by a vista supporter). [correction] Crysis not released until oct. 26th. review done in sept, sorry.

I'm looking for a recent review (spring 08) that is comparing the two os'es...

Nov. 07 review of crysis xp vs. vista:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=102401
xp: 36 fps, vista: 20 fps

What an "awesome" OS, lol.
http://digg.com/software/Windo...a_in_benchmarking_test

64bit compared here:
http://forums.slizone.com/index.php?showtopic=19460
"Oooh - that's about a 17% penalty. I'm thinking Crytek needs to practice a bit more at 64-bit engines."

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...wzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

part 2:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...wxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
"We recently published an article comparing framerate performance in XP versus Vista on NVIDIA hardware. Our readership wanted to see what ATI could do with the same task so that we could see if Vista was really to blame for what we saw."

Vista-32 is just as fast as XP-32 for gaming [period]

not really... but throw up a link if you can support that claim.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
nov 06 til sept 07

xp 32 still faster than all versions of vista even 11 months after release:

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...mance_update/page8.asp

Read the entire Article, you'll see that there are cases where XP is slightly faster and cases where Vista is slightly faster. In just about every case, the differences are minimal either way. At 1920x1200 XP, Vista32 and Vista64 are all within one and a half FPS of each other. At lower resolutions XP is sometimes 1 to 4 FPS faster, which is pretty much nothing.

Theres a reason crysis isn't in that review (done by a vista supporter).

Really? Maybe it's because the Article was written in September while Crysis was released in November.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: jaredpace
nov 06 til sept 07

xp 32 still faster than all versions of vista even 11 months after release:

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...mance_update/page8.asp

Read the entire Article, you'll see that there are cases where XP is slightly faster and cases where Vista is slightly faster. In just about every case, the differences are minimal either way. At 1920x1200 XP, Vista32 and Vista64 are all within one and a half FPS of each other. At lower resolutions XP is sometimes 1 to 4 FPS faster, which is pretty much nothing.

Theres a reason crysis isn't in that review (done by a vista supporter).

Really? Maybe it's because the Article was written in September while Crysis was released in November.

I really wish jaredpace you stopped posting FUD about Vista,as to the FiringSquad article it goes to show how close Vista was last September,now bear in mind Vista has had 8 months of futher driver updates plus SP1 since that review ,which means if anything Vista is in a better performance state then it was when that article was written.As to your other very old benchmarks ,what about trying to get something this year rather when Vista was new.

Gaming wise I can't tell the difference with my 70 plus games installed in Vista x64.


Some more Vista v XP benchmarks below


Link. Does XP win them all?...Obviously not ,even with SP3 on XP.



XP SP3 vs Vista SP1 again you can see how well Vista does.

The data speaks for itself. At the top of the list is Windows Vista 64-bit, while at the bottom is XP SP2. In the middle we have XP RTM, XP SP3, Vista 32-bit RTM and Vista 32-bit SP1 fighting it out. However, benchmarks scores such as Passmark don?t translate well into real world performance indicators. Later on today I?ll publish my gaming benchmark results which will pick up on a post I made in February. Stay tuned!

SunSpider Java script benchmark XP SP2 v Vista SP1 again you see how well Vista does.
Btw mine are dated March to end of April this year , not last year .

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Vista-32 is just as fast as XP-32 for gaming [period]

not really... but throw up a link if you can support that claim.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...key=y&keyword1=Vista32

who gives a crap .. anyway .. XP is with Win2K .. a relic now

Vista is DX10.1 .. who cares about the primitive crap that "is ALMOST as good"

get real

grow up guys .. XP is on the way out; i don't need to defend Vista to haters

bye-bye


one more Vista 32 vs XP32

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...062057&highlight_key=y

- my post Number 5 .. a LONG post number 5

 

[Jax Omen]

I'm currently dual-booting Vista x64 and XP x86.

The only non-aesthetic differences I can tell between them are:

A) Vista loads my programs drastically faster (superfetch, I assume).
B) There's no Vista x64 driver for my EMS USB2 Playstation->USB converter.
C) Vista supports DX10
D) I get to keep my last .5GB RAM



I'll be wiping my XP install fairly soon, probably put Hardy Heron on there

 

[Tempered81]

Mem, op says he does mainly gaming & photo editing. since I posted gaming benchmarks, and you posted this:

"However, benchmarks scores such as Passmark don?t translate well into real world performance indicators. Later on today I?ll publish my gaming benchmark results..."

Please explain how I'm spreading fud.

Also, in the link you posted here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1775&page=2

The fastest version of Vista WITH SP1 is still 15% slower than XP SP3 in Crysis. I would call this 9 hour old benchmark "fairly current".

He never asked about Passmark or how fast Javascript loads. Vista LOSES. Your point????

Since I am on topic posting FACTS based on the benchmarks that both you and I have linked to, please do not accuse me of spreading the FUD.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
Please explain how I'm spreading fud.

Sure thing... Just one example...

Theres a reason crysis isn't in that review (done by a vista supporter).

You claim that it wasn't there because the author was a vista supporter when the article was, in fact, written a month BEFORE Crysis was even released.

 

[Tempered81]

true, I took his pro-vista attitude with this quote from the article:

"NVIDIA?s release highlights for ForceWare 163.69 is a little more cryptic, only mentioning ?Improved compatibility for The Way It?s Meant To Be Played? game titles: BioShock, Crysis, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Hellgate: London, and World in Conflict? as well as ?Improved compatibility and performance for NVIDIA SLI? technology on Microsoft® DirectX® 9.0c and OpenGL® 2.1 applications.?

but crysis wasn't out until oct. 26th to be benchmarked. My bad. Still the gaming benchmark that Mem posted speaks for itself. Vista SP1 is slower in 7 out of the 10 games compared to either XP SP2 or XP SP3. That article was written today.