Mikael at the Futuremark Forums ran a few benchmarks of Windows Vista SP1 (presumably the latest RC Refresh) vs. XP SP2 with some surprising results. It seems that having 8GB RAM with SuperFetch enabled doesn't hurt...
I just reinstalled Vista Home Premium 64-bit and thought I'd run some tests. These are just a bunch of quick benches I did to satisfy my own curiosity, but I thought I'd share them with you guys. The test config is as follows:
Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.2GHz (8*400)
8GB DDR2-800 4-5-4-15
GeForce 8800GT 512MB (stock)
Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB <--- vista home premium 64-bit sp1
Samsung SpinPoint T166 320GB <--- windows xp professional sp2
Some excerpts from the conclusion:
- The general usage tests are either faster or equal to XP. However, Vista is on the slower drive (the WD), so it only makes the results even more impressive.
- Crysis was almost certainly not cached into RAM during the test, but still loaded faster than in XP.
- The horrendous file copy performance has been fixed. Performance is definitely higher than in XP. Also gone is the sometimes irritatingly long file delete times. File deletion seems instantaneous now, just like it's always been in XP.
- Crysis: Performance is down 5-8% when looking at DX9 32/64-bit benches and DX10 is even worse off. The CPU test is also curious with a WinXP performance lead of 15%! This was definitely unexpected and something that would be interesting to research further.
- Loading the image for the Photoshop test was about twice as fast in Vista compared to XP and it was the first time that file was loaded so it couldn't have been cached.
- Gaming performance is still a let-down and it seems we'll have to live with it.
- SuperFetch has a very large impact on program load times.
Windows Vista, Windows Xp, Service Pack, SP1, Vista SP1, SP2, XP SP2, Performance, Review