ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
Home / News & Blogs / Hardware 2.0

XP SP3 vs. Vista SP1 - Which is fastest?

By | April 28, 2008, 4:22am PDT

In the TalkBack section on my post looking at SP3 benchmarks, _deitrich asked a really good question:

Adrian, how about a comparison of XP SP3 vs Vista SP1? Oui? C’est possible?

Good question! Fortunately I’ve already done a fair bit of the groundwork in that I used the Phenom 9700 system I have for benchmarking both XP SP3 and Vista SP1.

I benchmarked both operating systems using PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1 and bringing together the results from both tests allows me to answer _deitrich’s question.

Note: The hardware configuration of the Phenom 9700 remained unchanged between the two tests and similar optimizations steps were carried out for each OS.

XP Professional:

  • XP RTM
    PassMark rating: 1001.4
  • XP SP2
    PassMark rating: 891
  • XP SP3
    PassMark rating: 990.8

Vista 32-bit:

  • Vista RTM
    PassMark rating: 1002.4
  • Vista SP1
    PassMark rating: 972.3

Vista 64-bit:

  • Vista RTM
    PassMark rating: 1183.1
  • Vista SP1
    PassMark rating: 1128.8

Throughout the testing the hardware platform has remained unchanged. 

Graphs

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!

One system, one set of data points. Thoughts?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Hardware 2.0”

Topics

Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Windows Vista SP1, Microsoft Windows Vista (Longhorn), Microsoft Windows XP, Operating Systems, Microsoft Windows, Software, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

181
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

one benchmark
eggmanbubbagee@... 30th Dec 2008
which is not extensive or reliable - there is no agreed upon measure of OS speed - think about it - even getting to the bottom of how many FPS a video game gets on a video card is fraught with difficulties and controversy.

Now people who have written their own benchmark and made recommendations based on it in a major PC rag . . well, you have to wonder. Kennedy gets one result Adrian gets a very different one.

One thing seems clear to me; there really isn't likely a significant difference when all is said and done and this whole craziness about OS speed vis a vis Vista and XP is one giant red herring. That won't stop the XP luddites and the ABM set from beating this horse to death though.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Most Excellent. Thanks Adrian!
D T Schmitz 28th Apr 2008
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Gentoo
fr0thy2 28th Apr 2008
.
0 Votes
+ -
Troll
binaryspiral 29th Apr 2008
.
0 Votes
+ -
yes.. thanks for all the work you put into this...
pcguy777 29th Apr 2008
kudos
0 Votes
+ -
RE: XP SP3 vs. Vista SP1 - Which is fastest?
davidfrye@... 28th Apr 2008
It's a small point, but the question should read, "Which is faster?" The comparison is between two operating systems, not among three or more.
0 Votes
+ -
look again
bmeacham98@... 28th Apr 2008
Huh? He's comparing seven options, so "fastest" is grammatically correct.
0 Votes
+ -
Both can be used
alaniane@... 29th Apr 2008
It's grammatically correct to say, "The east fork is the shortest of the two paths." You don't necessarily have to have more than to two to use the superlative form of the adjective.
0 Votes
+ -
OS's and Versions are NOT the SAME
mustang_z 29th Apr 2008
The comparison was between 2 OS's! ...And the versions of each.

What I think you mean, at least for you, is that more information is not better?!

I thought Adrian did a great job answering the question - not too much info for me.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
Chad_z Updated - 28th Apr 2008
0 Votes
+ -
it's quite a bit about speed
coffeeshark 28th Apr 2008
That's odd, all the complaints before were about how slow Vista was. Now that doesn't matter, it's about 'value'.

Vista, the OS, costs the same as XP OEM. Businesses aren't upgrading the OS's, they're getting Vista on new machines, so there's no added cost in hardware except the normal cycle of replacement. 2gb of RAM doesn't cost anything these days, and any dual-core CPU is plenty of power. DRM doesn't affect businesses much, either. There's also little training, because Vista mirrors XP in most areas of the OS that users access.

If you're a single user, I'd agree, there isn't all that much reason to upgrade yet, unless you use your business machine for home use.

I appreciate the speed because I'm much more concerned with how fast a program launches, how long it takes to print/save/transfer/etc. Now, with Vista SP1 on my older AMD/1gb RAM machine, I'm happy with the speed.

Oh, and if Vista WAS twice as fast as XP, it would absolutely matter in value.
0 Votes
+ -
Business re-image
voska1 28th Apr 2008
Businesses don't get Vista with new machines. Maybe a small business but not enterprises. What comes on the PC in the enterprise is irrelevant as it gets wiped and imaged with the supported OS before being deployed. What's Vista buy these customers? Nothing right now. But in time that will change as software moves from being XP/Vista to Vista only. It happened with Windows 2000 and XP it will happen with XP and Vista as well. When that happens the enterprise will move to Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
It's amazing how many people...
jasonp@... 28th Apr 2008
are completely ignorant of this. Even people who work in companies that do it. Pretty much any company with 50 or more workstations who actually have an IT staff (even if it's just one guy) are set up like this. They buy volume licenses and they either image the machine or they format the drive and install everything clean so that they can control what's going out onto the network. That's just textbook IT.
0 Votes
+ -
Not everywhere
itpro_z 28th Apr 2008
My current organization as well as the last place that I worked order systems preconfigured from the OEM. Why create extra work when it is not necessary?

Laptops are the exception, but the last Dells and HPs that we got in were quite clean, and needed only our custom apps installed. Perhaps you are buying from the wrong vendors.
0 Votes
+ -
Custom Apps, and control... we tried it with OEM and
ItsTheBottomLine 29th Apr 2008
it was a huge failure - two OEMs could not provide the same level of service that our users expect (yes they are very,very picky).
0 Votes
+ -
Pay now or pay more later
voska1 29th Apr 2008
"Why create extra work when it is not necessary?"

I'd ask the same question right back at you. An OEM configuration is unknown and therefore harder to support. That's why they get re-imaged. It's not extra work it takes all of 20 minutes to do and the pressing of a couple of keys. Then you have the base installation with all the software the users need. It's secured as well your policy. There is nothing you don't know that is there which makes help desk calls much easier. You know exactly what version of MDAC is there, Exactly what .NET frameworks are installed, exactly what other services are running. You don't have uninstall a thing.

In the it's a little extra work now for less work later. So it's a pay now or pay more later situation.
0 Votes
+ -
I think wires are crossed
Wallsy 29th Apr 2008
By OEM, you should read CFI... Where the factory burns YOUR custom image, not theirs.
0 Votes
+ -
To each his own...
mustang_z 29th Apr 2008
Some big businesses do the image thing because they do want to control everything the employee can touch on the computer, which keeps problems to a minimum. I worked for such an organization - about the only thing we could add or change was a desktop background.

However, for some large, but mostly medium and small businesses, simply adding the apps they use to new systems makes sense, and may be the most cost effective.

So, each method for those with the need is quite appropriate.
0 Votes
+ -
That's exactly right...~2500 machines here - nt
ItsTheBottomLine 29th Apr 2008
wink
0 Votes
+ -
Poor Chad
itpro_z 28th Apr 2008
Wo-ho. Chad has been proven wrong, and is finding that crow hard to swallow.

All along, you have been ranting about how slow Vista was, while I and others who actually use and support Vista have been saying that it is comparable to XP in performance and somewhat faster at some tasks. Now that you are proven wrong, you are changing your rant to value.

OK, I checked the prices of Vista compared to XP, and guess what? Vista Business Edition is the same price as XP Pro. Not exactly an "exponential price increase." Value is about more than price, though, so let's compare features. Vista has much better security, a better firewall, much better graphics, better multitasking, and DX10 for the gamers. So, same price, more features. Sounds like decent value to me.

But wait, what about software? So far, Vista has ran everything that I have thrown at it, including some apps that people have insisted are not Vista compatible. Some, like old versions of QuickBooks, have issues, and for good reason. Users of those apps have the choice of either upgrading their programs or staying with XP, certainly a viable choice for now. Eventually, old apps do fade away, no matter how much we wish to hold onto them.

So, Vista offers an improved product over XP for the same price. Sounds like decent value to me.
0 Votes
+ -
Ultimate is only $20 more than XP Professional
ye 28th Apr 2008
This cost increase is nonsense. These guys will do anything to bash Vista. The question is: Why?

"Some, like old versions of QuickBooks, have issues, and for good reason. Users of those apps have the choice of either upgrading their programs or staying with XP, certainly a viable choice for now."

My GF uses QuickBooks and unfortunately it's not as easy as just upgrading. She needs to retain several older versions on her system in order to match the various versions used by her clients (she cannot convert their data files into the current version because then they wouldn't be able to use them). However she has all of the required versions running just fine on Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
No Need To Answer This
itanalyst2@... 28th Apr 2008
The consumers all agree Vista is a piece of crap. I'm glad I moved back to XP Pro after 8 months of hell.
0 Votes
+ -
No, the consumers do not all agree Vista is crap.
ye 28th Apr 2008
A few fanboi's on web blogs does not make it so.
0 Votes
+ -
That's Why XP Is Still Around
itanalyst2@... 28th Apr 2008
Brought back as an option through Dell, on new low-end PCs, service extended...

Yeah, a few web blogs are going to make all this change.

Get real.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't deny there are still people who want XP
ye 28th Apr 2008
But the number is blown out of proportion. ANd it's certainly not all.
0 Votes
+ -
Why are the older versions of Linux and Mac OS???
ItsTheBottomLine 29th Apr 2008
because people don't want nor care to upgrade. It's that simple...you need to change your name to itneophite2...
0 Votes
+ -
Why are there older versions of Linux and Mac OS???
ItsTheBottomLine 29th Apr 2008
because people don't want nor care to upgrade. It's that simple...you need to change your name to itneophite2...
0 Votes
+ -
@Basedonreality
alaniane@... 29th Apr 2008
It's not that simple. An upgrade of the OS can contain enormous hidden cost. The off-the-shelf software is the cheapest to replace. Re-writing custom apps to run on the new system for even a medium size company can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example: the company I work for around 5 years ago started to move their system off a Sun workstation to a client/server network. Just the changes made to convert their custom apps cost close to $1 million and they're a medium size company.
0 Votes
+ -
@alaniane: The discussion is about acquisition cost.
ye 29th Apr 2008
Not total cost. What you described would apply to any other OS too.
0 Votes
+ -
@Ye true it would apply to other OSes
alaniane@... 29th Apr 2008
I was replying to the comment about why people aren't eager to upgrade. I'm not saying upgrading to Vista is a bad thing; however, there is more to people's reluctance than just being afraid of change.
0 Votes
+ -
re:it "anal"yst2... what a bogus response
ItsTheBottomLine 29th Apr 2008
"the consumer all agree Vista is a ..." is just total ignorant garbage. But then again I have to consider that source.
0 Votes
+ -
What Nonsense
Cayble 29th Apr 2008
At home I use XP and I find it still does everything just fine. Its a great OS. I use Vista at work and as it turns out it works just great as well. Would I recommend someone move to Vista? Well, if I did, I sure wouldn't recommend doing it with a so called upgrade disk. Since Vista has hit the scene MS has been pushing the so called upgrade option for switching over more then ever before, I guess they love it because it tends to gobble up your XP licence in the process and that eliminates the possibility of it ending up running another machine that they could sell a copy of Vista for instead.

If someone wants to change over to Vista then get a full install disk and go for it, its a great OS. But if your running XP your not going to see much better for the cost of Vista.

One thing is for sure, Vista is not crap.
0 Votes
+ -
You're Right
ssalemi@... 8th May 2008
Vista IS a piece of crap! I have the same experience -- went to Vista, stuck with it as long as I could bear, then happily moved back to XP!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Unless
starcannon99022@... 29th Apr 2008
Unless you already own XP Pro, then the cost of Vista is substantially more, unless of course MS wants to sell me an Ultimate upgrade for $20.
0 Votes
+ -
No it isn't
ajole 29th Apr 2008
You are saying that if I don't own XP Pro, then Vista is substantially more. You are totally wrong; here's the price for full versions at MWave:
MICROSOFT Windows vista 32bit home basic $84.74
MICROSOFT Windows xp home single pack sp2 $84.90

MICROSOFT Windows vista 32bit home premium $97.87
MICROSOFT Windows xp media center 2005 sp2 $115.50
MICROSOFT Windows xp professional w/sp2 $130.59
MICROSOFT Windows vista 32bit business $136.53
MICROSOFT Windows vista 32bit ultimate $169.90
0 Votes
+ -
Poor Chad ... what about ... poor Wayne?
wayne@... 29th Apr 2008
I don't care which OS I use as long as the Aps I use work and work well. Perhaps Vista, with all the latest and greatest patches works fine now. However, my experience using Vista with Dreamweaver CS3, ColdFusion 8, Flash CS3 and .... was that the old Xp machine with half the RAM was loading the app faster and on the older machine, I didn't have file sharing problems (I was the only user on the Vista Machine), but did on the Vista. The only cure was to shut down the machine and do a re-boot.

Xp works fine, and now that I've had to go to the trouble of installing Xp over Vista, I don't have a compelling reason to go forward again. There is just too much at stake (time, money and productivity)

Wayne
0 Votes
+ -
RE : Lipstick
marks055@... 28th Apr 2008
"Where's the compelling value in Vista for the business user".
It will be supported longer and more and more programs will need it to operate.
Same as always, was xp better than 2000?
not really
0 Votes
+ -
Operating Systems have hit a brick wall...
ye 28th Apr 2008
...when it comes to must have features. I haven't really been excited about any new OS release from Microsoft Since Windows NT 3.51. Or Apple's release of OS X 10.0. Though I welcome some subtle improvements later versions have brought there's no "must have" features.

I used Windows 2000 until I bought a new system with Vista on it (I almost bought one with XP but I decided to wait a few months for Vista...I figured why not since it was so close).

I am still using Tiger on my MacBook. And would still be using Panther on my dual G4 had I not replaced it with the MacBook.

I have Windows 2000 Server running on a server in my basement as there's no reason to upgrade.
0 Votes
+ -
Yup, monopolies stagnate
fr0thy2 28th Apr 2008
.
0 Votes
+ -
When did Linux and OS X obtain a monopoly?
ye 29th Apr 2008
And how could they both have a monopoly?
0 Votes
+ -
yup, apple has
JamesDoyle 29th Apr 2008
sorry, but you are ridiculous. MS is way less "monopolistic" than apple.

also the fact that ms has to compete with them means its not a monopoly.
0 Votes
+ -
What I find amusing is the ABMers continue to state...
ye 29th Apr 2008
...Microsoft is a monopoly out of one side of their mouths while telling us how much Apple is growing out of the other.
0 Votes
+ -
yup
JamesDoyle 29th Apr 2008
and love the fact that they admit to the fact that apple locks you into them with NO EXCEPTIONS, and then turn around and accuse ms of not giving the customers choice?

the apple fanboys are more amusing than the ms or linux fanboys only because of the irony.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes... and No
Wallsy 29th Apr 2008
While I agree that there aren't many killer apps any more, you wouldn't seriously expect to be running NT 3.51 now would you? How about USB for the killer Win2k app? Active Directory?

Similarly, how many enterprises do you think run Windows 2000 functional Active Directories these days?

When a new OS is released there is a gap while vendors come up with new ways to leverage the new technology. Vista has had its gap and along with Server 2008 some useful applications will start to appear.

In my humble opinion, anyway happy
0 Votes
+ -
I can speak for two of my clients...
Wolfie2K3 29th Apr 2008
Similarly, how many enterprises do you think run Windows 2000 functional Active Directories these days?

I can think of two of my clients that until recently were using Windows 2000 Server - one with Active Directory and one without. One client's environment even included a Windows NT4 server as the Primary Domain Controller (the one, obviously not using AD)... Their system was compromised by malware.

The other client had a 7 year old Windows 2000 server that was on it's last toe of it's last foot on it's last leg when they got a new box with Windows 2003 server. No option or plans to move to Server 2008 there.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree to a certain extent
starcannon99022@... 29th Apr 2008
I agree in that I think the OS rush is over, the commercial desktop industry should decide which of 2 ways to go, a pay as you go Long Term Support model, with emphasis being made on continued stability and speed increases. Or having a true epiphany, no I don't mean a coffee table computer in your office, yeah I'm sure MS thinks thats cool, and maybe it will be, but I need to get stuff done, not set my ipod laptop down and have it autosynch to someones device, that could suck if people were hacking these things.

Anyway, I agree, the thrill is gone, we have fast processors, the current computer paradigm is fairly mature and well developed. I don't think this means there isn't room for improvement, I think it does mean that its time to go back through the code and work on quality as that seems to have been overlooked in the race to get to market fast.

As for Vista, they really need to look at getting those promised performance enhancements in there, good solid 64bit multi core support, winfs, to name a couple, with out that its a disaster, all the extra system requirements just made this one a dog.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Vista performance enhancements.
ye 29th Apr 2008
What are you referring to?
0 Votes
+ -
Referring to Brickwall post
starcannon99022@... 29th Apr 2008
sorry, these messages get freaky looking after a bit, but follow my branch line up, its the Operating Systems have hit a brickwall.
0 Votes
+ -
I guess I'm just not seeing it (nt)
ye 29th Apr 2008
.
0 Votes
+ -
Makes the most sense...
joe@... 29th Apr 2008
So far your post makes the most sense. Particularly with the code. Apple took a 6502 CPU and squeezed it to a real fast machine. Now look what we have, bloated code on fast CPU's.
0 Votes
+ -
Killer apps
DOSlover 8th May 2008
Absolutely correct! Ye has hit the nail on the head. Does Vista do anything significantly or completely better than previous incarnations of Windows. I haven't heard of one and as a result I will continue with Win 2K, XP and variations of DOS (yes even that 'ancient' OS still does certain things better than Windows).

To make matters worse there have been distinct disclosures that Vista is no better at utilising multicore processors than XP. I can see no compelling case to upgrade!?
0 Votes
+ -
one benchmark
eggmanbubbagee@... 30th Dec 2008
which is not extensive or reliable - there is no agreed upon measure of OS speed - think about it - even getting to the bottom of how many FPS a video game gets on a video card is fraught with difficulties and controversy.

Now people who have written their own benchmark and made recommendations based on it in a major PC rag . . well, you have to wonder. Kennedy gets one result Adrian gets a very different one.

One thing seems clear to me; there really isn't likely a significant difference when all is said and done and this whole craziness about OS speed vis a vis Vista and XP is one giant red herring. That won't stop the XP luddites and the ABM set from beating this horse to death though.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix