Convince me !

digitalrurouni · 17 Jun 2009

sup3rsprt said:

I hate to burst your bubble. Take a look at the following comparison. This is only one example.

Wow 3dmark03. Thats really current mate. No bubble bursting here but try running something like vantage and see if you can replicate the results. I would be curious.

There could be n number of reasons why I am not taking your screenshot seriously.

- You are running a NOT RTM version of the OS
- You are probably running a driver that for some reason got a bump in one software but lost some performance in other. That happens quite often.
- 3dmark03 is ancient.
- It could be your current hardware/software/driver configuration could be resulting in something like a 5000 score difference.
- ANd on top of it you really must look to non-syntehtic benchmarks as the final word mate aka games, real world apps. 3dmark is great and all to see if what you put together is in the same ballpark as the other machines out there with similar configurations but thats about it.

dmex · 17 Jun 2009

rehael said:

+10 can someone link to some detailed info about this?

Sure,

I dont think anyone could give you more detailed information than Microsoft's developers themselves

Here are the links to the best videos from Microsoft's developers talking about every architecture change they have made :)

Im sure you will find hundreds of reasons to dump XP after watching these Videos from the developers, Yes some are long but each one contains a fair amount of discussion on new features and architecture changes they made that make Vista and Win7 different to any previous Windows Operating System.

Mark Russinovich is one of Microsoft's top Kernel developers, His videos are the best

He talks about various Kernel changes resulting in better performance handling and so forth in this Video:
Mark Russinovich: Inside Windows 7 | Going Deep | Channel 9

(LOL at the "we aint Microsoft unless were developing a death ray"

)
new audio architecture and handling capability's:
Larry Osterman: Windows 7 Audio - What's New | Charles | Channel 9

This is part 5 of Kernel developer Dave Probert's "Going Deep: Kernel Architecture" talks, You can find the other videos linked on the description

)
Dave Probert: Inside Windows 7 - User Mode Scheduler (UMS) | Going Deep | Channel 9

Services and Controller changes:
Chittur Subbaraman: Inside Windows 7 - Service Controller and Background Processing | Going Deep | Channel 9

DirectX:
Windows 7: Unlocking the GPU with Direct3D | pdc2008 | Channel 9

Graphics Architecture:
Windows 7 Graphics Architecture Overview - Part 1 | yochay | Channel 9
Windows 7 Graphics Architecture Overview - Part 2 | yochay | Channel 9
Windows 7 Graphics Architecture Overview - Part 3 | yochay | Channel 9

Multi-Touch:
Windows 7 Multi Touch Overview | yochay | Channel 9

Taskbar Advanced Features:
Windows 7 Taskbar: Advanced Features | yochay | Channel 9

There are hundreds of Videos from Microsoft available at Channel9, Nearly anything you every wanted to know/hear about from Microsoft's Developers can be found there

Hope it helps

Steven

sup3rsprt · 17 Jun 2009

Real world gaming is slower in Win7 for the most part. So is overall performance of the UI.

The 3dmark benchmark was just an easy way to show the performance difference. 14% is pretty significant IMO.

My experience is that Win7 is not faster than XP. 64-bit is not faster than 32-bit since most apps are not 64-bit anyways.

jackoneill123 · 17 Jun 2009

sup3rsprt said:

Real world gaming is slower in Win7 for the most part. So is overall performance of the UI.

The 3dmark benchmark was just an easy way to show the performance difference. 14% is pretty significant IMO.

My experience is that Win7 is not faster than XP. 64-bit is not faster than 32-bit since most apps are not 64-bit anyways.

well for me, Crysis in faster on Win7 than on XP... both 32bit...

srq2625 · 17 Jun 2009

I should have been a little more precise in my claims of faster performance under Win7 vs. WinXP.

Specifically, Adobe Lightroom 2.3 (64-bit version) the only application running/loaded (not even an email client or browser), converting 100 full sized RAW files from Canon 50D dSLR (each file ranging in size from 20MB to 27MB) to generate straight out of camera (SOOC) JPGs. Running on WinXP x64 and using the same collection of RAW files, timing was approx 1.95 JPGs generated per second. On Win7 x64, Build 7100 (the RC :)), timing was approx 2.15 JPGs generated per second. Not a significant difference, but it is illustrative and, for me, real-world and repeatable.

Time to perform/complete the above described operation was measured using a digital stopwatch. This could have introduced a small error if the run had been done only once. I repeated the run 3 times under each scenario to kind of smooth out that kind of thing.

BTW - all was done on the same machine. The Win7 was installed on and the scenario run completely from a slower drive (the RAWs were copied from a back-up to the intall drive in each case).

sup3rsprt · 17 Jun 2009

jackoneill123 said:

well for me, Crysis in faster on Win7 than on XP... both 32bit...

Faster in XP for me.

srq2625,
Sure, I'd still prefer Win7 x64 to WinXP x64 any day.

My comparison was between WinXP 32-bit and Win7 64-bit. WinXP 32-bit is faster in a lot of things, and that's pretty sad if you ask me.

I'm hoping things will improve when I go dual core on my desktop. But I think they probably won't, because my laptop is already dual core and Windows XP runs faster on that too.

Here's a 7-zip benchmark, Ultra compressing a 200MB AVI file on my Desktop

WinXP 32-bit = 3:20
Win7 64-bit = 3:33

It took 13 seconds longer to compress the same file in Windows 7. And I even used the 64-bit version of 7-zip.

Captain Zero · 17 Jun 2009

This is pretty simple, really.

OP, you need to change your thinking on what RAM is and what it's for. Here's a simple test for you that should 'convince' you.

1 - Install x32 7.
2 - Disable the page file entirely.
3 - ????
4 - Profit!

With 8GB, you could easily run x64 without a pagefile and it's much faster and responsive. No drive thrashing or ridiculous space wasted and not to mention fragmentation!

We're all fans of XP, it was a reliable work horse and stable to the end. But it's time to move on. Consider that 32bit OS' have been around for almost 30 years. There are kinks to work out in 7 but they will be resolved in short order. Get on board now or be left behind.

sup3rsprt · 17 Jun 2009

swarfega said:

XP didn't have multi core support full stop since they weren't around then.

RST101 said:

Processors were still in Mhz rather than Ghz never mind multi core support.

Then could you please explain to me why Cinebench R10 CPU benchmark finishes 4 seconds faster in Windows XP? (btw, my laptop is Pentium dual core and the power options are set to High Performance).

Where are the multicore improvements, because I don't see it.

Dzomlija · 17 Jun 2009

sup3rsprt said:

Faster in XP for me.

srq2625,
Sure, I'd still prefer Win7 x64 to WinXP x64 any day.

My comparison was between WinXP 32-bit and Win7 64-bit. WinXP 32-bit is faster in a lot of things, and that's pretty sad if you ask me.

I'm hoping things will improve when I go dual core on my desktop. But I think they probably won't, because my laptop is already dual core and Windows XP runs faster on that too.

Here's a 7-zip benchmark, Ultra compressing a 200MB AVI file on my Desktop

WinXP 32-bit = 3:20
Win7 64-bit = 3:33

It took 13 seconds longer to compress the same file in Windows 7. And I even used the 64-bit version of 7-zip.

All you've proven is how well 7-zip works between XP and Windows 7. 7-zip is neither Microsoft nor is it bundled with Windows 7, so you've given nothing about the difference beftween XP and 7.

To properly gauge this, use Windows XP Compressed Folders and Windows 7 Compressed Folders to compress the same file. Repeat the test several times to help average out any margin of error, especially if you're using a manual stopwatch.

Then we will see the real difference between XP 32-bit and Windows 7 64-bit. Who knows, you may end up coming to the same conclusion as before. But you might not, either.

At least your result will be more believable if you're talking about testing the performance of Windows 7 and it's features. NOT the 3rd party utilities run on it.

sup3rsprt · 17 Jun 2009

Dzomlija said:

All you've proven is how well 7-zip works between XP and Windows 7. 7-zip is neither Microsoft nor is it bundled with Windows 7, so you've given nothing about the difference beftween XP and 7.

To properly gauge this, use Windows XP Compressed Folders and Windows 7 Compressed Folders to compress the same file.

I don't use the built in compression features (besides NTFS compression) if I can help it, because the performance and lack of features is horrific. I've already found that out by messing around with archives. I immediately installed 7-zip and WinRAR and now much happier. So, I think my test is valid (no doubt most people will be using these same tools).