How many people have 1 Gig of memory..???
Anyone with one gig of memory, does not have
64 bit capability...
You should have compared 2 gig, and 4 gig
machines, this would have given real world results...
Thanks for the effort, Please keep testing,
this information is helpful...
Windows 7 build 7048 vs. Windows 7 beta 1 vs. Vista vs. XP performance shootout - which is best?
by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes | March 10, 2009 7:26am PDT | Image 1 of 2
Previous | Next
AMD Phenom Win 7 benchmark results
Just In
I found both test runs - 4GB RAM and 1 GB RAM - worthwhile. Interesting how well Windows 7..7048 does with only 1 GB of RAM.
My job is working on systems for multiple companies, in multiple locations, and even for individuals all over. MOST of my clients have 1GB or memory or less. So if you want "real-world" he hit it right on the mark. I think the high and lows were well picked. You really need to get out more!
I totally agree with "results are worthless". There must be a realistic baseline for comparison. Many users are still using PC's that are 3 to 5 years old and are not in a position to upgrade to the latest and greatest. I would like to see a comparison on how my older Dell D600 will run the new software. Upgrading hardware is costly and that does not even take into consideration buying new software due to compatibility issues.
I hate to tell you this... but... Operating systems and the current equipment is not made for people who cant afford to keep their machines up to date....
It is for the race car machines that eventually with their technology allow the normal folk to drive their Mini Vans and Suburbans.
I liked this test... told me a lot... partly... they need to look again at 7000 and see why it is slower than the newest...
Which is actually not up there yet... My machine has 2 gig of ram and about to make it 4. Also changing to the quad cores. So again...
Remember... Everything is written for the hard core fast gaming people who wont buy it if it is made for the average client.
IF it works for us... then when you do get around to upgrading yourself... you will get the sp2 or 3 and it will work soooo wonderful on your older machines...
What you all don't realize is 7 is backward compatible to all the old stuff.... all the other windows have only gone back to the last or second last ... and our older favorites we miss from 93 and windows 95 can now be played again.... or so I am told *wink*
Atheena
It is for the race car machines that eventually with their technology allow the normal folk to drive their Mini Vans and Suburbans.
I liked this test... told me a lot... partly... they need to look again at 7000 and see why it is slower than the newest...
Which is actually not up there yet... My machine has 2 gig of ram and about to make it 4. Also changing to the quad cores. So again...
Remember... Everything is written for the hard core fast gaming people who wont buy it if it is made for the average client.
IF it works for us... then when you do get around to upgrading yourself... you will get the sp2 or 3 and it will work soooo wonderful on your older machines...
What you all don't realize is 7 is backward compatible to all the old stuff.... all the other windows have only gone back to the last or second last ... and our older favorites we miss from 93 and windows 95 can now be played again.... or so I am told *wink*
Atheena
The question is comparing the minimum requirements for all of the OSes. The 3 to 5 year old equipment may not meet the recommended or even minimum standards needed to run Windows 7 (which I expect needs the strongest hardware of the OSes). I suspect that the 1 GB of memory is at the lower limit for Windows 7.
If I had a major complaint with the test, it would be that XP's 64 bit version was not tested.
If I had a major complaint with the test, it would be that XP's 64 bit version was not tested.
The results are totally worthless for older machines I would agree. I'm not sure it matters. How many would upgrade a machine with 1 GB of RAM to anything? The machine is financially worth less than the cost of an upgrade O/S retail package. The basic issue of how many will upgrade at all is maybe the bigger question. When you tally those numbers old hardware users will not be high.
I really think that the number of upgrade users is low even if the O/S can print money. Comparing reasonable current machines means an organization might go for it if the return can be shown. Upgrades are about what you get out of the box. No one is sending kids to college on profits from upgrading old gear. Sometimes folks with old gear just use it and are happy it's paid for.
I really think that the number of upgrade users is low even if the O/S can print money. Comparing reasonable current machines means an organization might go for it if the return can be shown. Upgrades are about what you get out of the box. No one is sending kids to college on profits from upgrading old gear. Sometimes folks with old gear just use it and are happy it's paid for.
For one thing, you can't even use 4GB with Windows unless you have the 64bit version.
2GB is becoming the norm, but most netbooks (the fastest growing segment) come with 1/2GB to 1GB typically.
I would argue that the tests should focus on 1GB and 2GB, not 2GB and 4GB, but if the tests are run in 1GB, then this tests what they can do in suboptimal configurations, which is actually more useful to me.
2GB is becoming the norm, but most netbooks (the fastest growing segment) come with 1/2GB to 1GB typically.
I would argue that the tests should focus on 1GB and 2GB, not 2GB and 4GB, but if the tests are run in 1GB, then this tests what they can do in suboptimal configurations, which is actually more useful to me.
Someone has a lot of time on their hands! Good benchmarking. Thanks for taking the time to test and report the results.
Looking forward to my FREE copy of 7. OK so I can dream can't I!
Looking forward to my FREE copy of 7. OK so I can dream can't I!
Does he ever look around to what is commonly packaged at stores like BestBuy? Certainly out of touch.
Right now it looks good, and it should do well in a net book.(the wave of the future)The question is when it's release, how will function in the real world. Also with the speed will it come at a performance/feature price. I guess we'll see.
I think the results should have been weighted according to how much faster a task was completed. If Windows 7 opens a large file faster than XP by less than one second, who cares. If, however, that margin is ten seconds then we really have something to be excited about.
Which system will require me to replace all of my software, and which system will allow me to run the software that I have been using, and has served me well, for years?
The scores from the 'real' benchmarks do provide some
interesting data on the improvements that MS have made
for the latest Win7 build, they also highlight how
much of a dog Vista is (was). A few scores did strike
me as odd though - I have NEVER seen a Vista system
that can outperform XP on Network file transfers no
matter what the spec!
A more useful set of benchmark for the 'real' world
would be to show similar results from a Linux distro
and an Mac using OSX. Let's see how well it performs
then eh?
Paul - UK
interesting data on the improvements that MS have made
for the latest Win7 build, they also highlight how
much of a dog Vista is (was). A few scores did strike
me as odd though - I have NEVER seen a Vista system
that can outperform XP on Network file transfers no
matter what the spec!
A more useful set of benchmark for the 'real' world
would be to show similar results from a Linux distro
and an Mac using OSX. Let's see how well it performs
then eh?
Paul - UK
Everyone knows that Linux and OSX have superior
performance then Windows XP/Vista/7. The point
is that Win7 is better then previous version of
Windows.
performance then Windows XP/Vista/7. The point
is that Win7 is better then previous version of
Windows.
Sorry but theses results can't be true. They show Vista faster than XP and the whole community says the opposite (including myself thad downgraded from Vista Home Premium to XP Professional MCE 2005).
Regarding the new OS, Windows 7, I'll do what an old system analyst tried to teach me: never upgrade to a new OS before the release of a minimum of 2 patches (SP).
Now I've learned the lesson. Vista has serious compatibility problems and it's slow. Now that I downgraded to XP Pro, my PC if flying (I'm even afraid of receiving a ticket).
Adir Meirelles
Brazilian Federal Police Forensic Expert
Master CNE/CNI
Regarding the new OS, Windows 7, I'll do what an old system analyst tried to teach me: never upgrade to a new OS before the release of a minimum of 2 patches (SP).
Now I've learned the lesson. Vista has serious compatibility problems and it's slow. Now that I downgraded to XP Pro, my PC if flying (I'm even afraid of receiving a ticket).
Adir Meirelles
Brazilian Federal Police Forensic Expert
Master CNE/CNI
You're making a huge assumption here - that most people in the community have actually tested what they're claiming and aren't just parroting what some blogger wrote.
The fact is that in all of the tests presented here, Vista SP1 is more or less the same as WinXP SP3 *for the tasks tested*.
Most of the 'Vista is slower' comments came from benchmarks that typically didn't test real world use.
Where XP really has the advantage, such as it is, is that it can fit into less RAM than Vista can. But give XP and Vista 1GB or more of RAM and that difference kind of goes away.
On the other hand, clearly, Win7 has had some performance tuning done as it significantly does better than either XP or Vista in these specific tests.
The fact is that in all of the tests presented here, Vista SP1 is more or less the same as WinXP SP3 *for the tasks tested*.
Most of the 'Vista is slower' comments came from benchmarks that typically didn't test real world use.
Where XP really has the advantage, such as it is, is that it can fit into less RAM than Vista can. But give XP and Vista 1GB or more of RAM and that difference kind of goes away.
On the other hand, clearly, Win7 has had some performance tuning done as it significantly does better than either XP or Vista in these specific tests.
And this shows that vistcrap is no better than XP on the second Intel MenchBark, which is more like what eveyone's got.
You ought to have tried one of these on a Macbook Pro using Bootcamp.
You ought to have tried one of these on a Macbook Pro using Bootcamp.
I just want to stick with XP and never wanted anything more, this vista thing is awful. I have tried it and want to stay with XP and hoped 7 would inprove this whole thing, I don't see that coming out easy.
Thanks. This helps a great deal. I am no expert on anything and hate change - I am a ldie-hard user of and love XP. As a tech I find these test result comparisons to be GREAT. Keep hammering away on this junk from Micorsoft and publishing the results. It is a great help when moving on toward the inevitible and unavoidable. Unlike Vista, I hope that W-7 receives good application support.
Great post as usual, this is information we (I) are very eager to hear about. Would it be possible for you to also include the latencies of each of the tests? If the scores are all in seconds for example, it could allow a very nuanced comparison (% difference, etc). I'd be very grateful for inclusion of such an additional chart..
I would rather stay with XP as MS stuffed up Vista. Hopefully, instead of rushing Win - 7 out into the real world, they will take their time and fix all the holes before the hackers find them.
Yep, I will stay with XP until it has been tested in the real world and most of the holes are patched.
Another point of concern is, who will be able to upgrade to new hardware when people are losing their jobs left right and centre?
If Win 7 does work on my 3 year old m/c, then I won't be upgrading for awhile.
Yep, I will stay with XP until it has been tested in the real world and most of the holes are patched.
Another point of concern is, who will be able to upgrade to new hardware when people are losing their jobs left right and centre?
If Win 7 does work on my 3 year old m/c, then I won't be upgrading for awhile.
It's a good try but clearly flawed. A high-spec Vista x64 column with 3 or 4 cores and 4 to 8 GB RAM should have also been present.
vista is crap
I constantly working on my daughters pc because vista is bad
I constantly working on my daughters pc because vista is bad
what good are benchmarks when they are still poo let me know when u get a beta ver. that works.
I would be happy to try
I would be happy to try
Yes, the benchmarks make Win 7 the "best"; but only for those machines doing that exact same test. When using different criteria, e.g., instead of Word documents, use Lotus' WordPro to conduct the test, you are likely to arrive at different 'number' results.
Only by doing a matrix of all these results for each of these additional tests, can a clearer picture emerge; though not at certainty. Also keep in mind that even when talking about an OS, things like hardware do come into play (case temp., cooling system, etc.).
My conclusion: the benchmarks provide 'relative' benchmarks, not 'absolute' ones. The proverbial salt thing.
Only by doing a matrix of all these results for each of these additional tests, can a clearer picture emerge; though not at certainty. Also keep in mind that even when talking about an OS, things like hardware do come into play (case temp., cooling system, etc.).
My conclusion: the benchmarks provide 'relative' benchmarks, not 'absolute' ones. The proverbial salt thing.
I see people responding with " these are worthless as who has a system with 1GB of ram is going to upgrade to anything.....?"> Well, in the here and now, quite a few people, much more so than when Win '98 was out. Back then, adding RAM was almost Voodoo. Now, I can talk my father-in-law over the phone to do it.
So making an older system run a new OS, isnt the issue it was years ago.
I hope, this means Win 7 will give new life to older systems, meaning it runs on slower CPU's and less memory than XP and Vista, yet gives a performance boost and features to make the upgrade viable
Now, the only downside, IF this was a reality, PC sales would have to drop, as older systems are now given a service length more like a car, 4-6yrs,longer in a top of the line current build, instead of 2-3yrs, and "oh crapola, better get or build a new computer" again.
Waiting to see what is going to happen will be the hardest part.
So making an older system run a new OS, isnt the issue it was years ago.
I hope, this means Win 7 will give new life to older systems, meaning it runs on slower CPU's and less memory than XP and Vista, yet gives a performance boost and features to make the upgrade viable
Now, the only downside, IF this was a reality, PC sales would have to drop, as older systems are now given a service length more like a car, 4-6yrs,longer in a top of the line current build, instead of 2-3yrs, and "oh crapola, better get or build a new computer" again.
Waiting to see what is going to happen will be the hardest part.
vista=126
xp=146
(lower is better as per post)
This means these observations are biased
and "NOT BELIEVING IS BETTER"
xp=146
(lower is better as per post)
This means these observations are biased
and "NOT BELIEVING IS BETTER"
OK, Now that every computer journal, magazine, tech paper and everyone else has concluded that MS has built the perfect OS I guess I'm just going to have to buy it. It's so nice to know I'll no longer need Acronis, Perfect Disk, TuneUp Utilities and all that other software to make up for MSs inability to make competitive anything other than an OS. I can now just sit back and Windows 7 (Wista) will do it all. Simply amazing, maybe MS went through a 12 step program or something because they've obviously become a new and different company than the MS I know.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
