Thursday March 18, 2010 5:17 PM AEST
Skip Navigation LinksPC Authority > News > Not in Australia, the innovative technologies you won't find here: Mobile DTV
Windows 7 the complete guide, part 2: raw performance benchmarks
NEWS

Windows 7 the complete guide, part 2: raw performance benchmarks

by Staff Writers  on Aug 21, 2009

Vista felt sluggish, bloated and slovenly, but has Microsoft made Windows 7 any faster for those who crave the ultimate performance from their PC? Here are the benchmark results.

 

If you've managed to get your hands on the latest copy of the September PC Authority magazine (on sale at your local newsagent), you'll have your own free full version of Windows 7 Release Candidate to install from our cover disc (without maxing-out your download quota).

Many have lauded Windows 7 for feeling much quicker than Vista. From snappy boot times, to judder-free Aero Glass effects, to responsive applications, the new operating system has impressed right from the first pre-beta. But does that feel-good effect translate into measurable performance gains?

How we tested
To deliver the definitive verdict on Windows 7's performance, we've turned to our suite of application benchmarks and tested across Windows XP, Vista, and both the beta and Release Candidate versions of Windows 7. We've also used the same system across all of our tests - a Core i7 920 rig with 3GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon HD 4550 graphics card - to ensure a level playing field.

click to view full size image
As our benchmarks show, gaming performance for Windows 7 does not provide massive gains compared with Vista, though there are other benefits (see link at bottom).



The raw numbers - compared to Vista and XP
A clean install of the Windows 7 Release Candidate scored 1.54 in our benchmarks, compared to 1.8 from a freshly-installed Vista system, and 2.1 from a fully-updated version of Windows XP - although it's worth bearing in mind that our audio encoding tests aren't directly comparable between XP and the other operating systems on test. It's also worth following Microsoft's advice and using a clean installation of Windows 7 RC rather than an upgrade: our system, when upgraded from Vista to Windows 7, scored a mere 1.3.

On the face of it, our results are a pretty damning indictment of Windows 7's performance. But closer inspection of individual benchmark scores reveal that most of our application tests were virtually as quick in Windows 7 as they were in Vista: the 2D graphics test saw Vista scoring 1.95 and Windows 7 outpacing it with a 1.98, with the encoding benchmark returning a similarly close result.

Further analysis of the scores revealed that the slower Office and multitasking results are caused by an issue between Windows 7 and Microsoft PowerPoint. The root of the problem lies within the new Windows Display Driver Model 1.1. The old model duplicated its memory demands across the GPU and system memory, whereas Windows 7 relies solely on the GPU. This means, according to Microsoft's Engineering Windows 7 blog, that the "CPU now has to read data back from the video memory", rather than having it easily accessible in the system's RAM.

The result is a slower benchmark score in PowerPoint, which, accordingly, drags down the Office and multitasking scores when compared to Vista, which uses WDDM 1. In real-world use, this problem will only be manifested in the occasional slide taking a second longer to render. It's really only those using demanding CAD and modelling software that could, conceivably, see performance suffer.

A final note
Despit the less-than-stellar results in this test, it's well known that Windows 7 does perform admirably on low-powered machines - one of the big achievements Microsoft has made with the new OS. In particular, netbooks users will notice much snappier responsiveness compared with Vista, which we'll cover in an upcoming post.

Next up: Boot times in Windows 7 vs Vista and XP.

Also in our series, Windows 7 the complete guide:
Part 1: good news for gamers?

Also see: The 30 Best Features of Windows 7

"I'm amazed that Vista even runs on that relic, spaceracer. :)"
 
Copyright © 2009 Dennis Publishing
APRIL PC AUTHORITY - ON SALE NOW
In our AMD vs Intel CPU megatest we rate 50 of the best on the market - from budget to performance.
15 Internet Security Software packages get a going over in our 'torture test'.
Plus, we look at what works and what fails in MS Office 2010 and tell you how to try it - for free.
Email a Friend Email this
Print Page Print this
Tweet This Tweet this
Feedback Send us your tips


Ads by Google

Comments: 2
Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.
spaceracer
Aug 22, 2009 11:06 AM
I tried the Win 7 RC (64 bit) on my pc... After a fresh install on a clean drive. All was good until I started loading drivers, claiming to be x64 Win 7 compatible (Win7 was written with x64 in mind?).
It crashed repeatedly, especially the graphics driver from ATI. Not far behind in the line was the Logitech webcam driver package. After reading up on forums the last mentioned stated that only the very new webcams will be 7 compatible. Once I uninstalled all the problem causing drivers, I tried some XP programs on it, many failed or would not run. So far I am not impressed with it at all. I gather if one has a CPU that can run virtual OS (thus run XP within 7) and the latest hardware and software it should be similar to the Vista Experience. Also there is no Windows Mail with it, you have to use Live Mail, a tender point for many. I will wait 3 years until the service Packs are out and it has been tested and tuned on the masses and then buy a new rig.
(Tested it on a AMD x64 2200 CPU, Asus A8R32 MVP Deluxe mb, Crossfire x2 ATI radeon x1650 512MB Graphics and 4GB Ram). Happy with Vista x64 Ultimate SP1 , for now... Still looking for my original XP cd...


Comment made about the PC Authority article:
Windows 7 the complete guide, part 2: raw performance benchmarks?
Vista felt sluggish, bloated and slovenly, but has Microsoft made Windows 7 any faster for those who crave the ultimate performance from their PC? Here are the benchmark results.

What do you think? Join the discussion.
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
Aug 23, 2009 3:15 AM
I'm amazed that Vista even runs on that relic, spaceracer. :)
Login or register to submit a comment.
 

Top Stories

Intel Core i3, i5 & i7-800s: the new mainstream range reviewed
Intel’s new mainstream range holds huge potential for 2010, and seriously dents AMD’s value crown
 
Not in Australia, the innovative technologies you won't find here: Mobile DTV
We might be the lucky country, but sometimes we lack the ability to invest in the bigger picture. Mobile free-to-air TV could offer many benefits, so why don't we have it yet?
 
Your new Office: Is Microsoft's free Web version of Office 2010 actually useful?
Microsoft decision to release a free Web version of Office is big news for the 20+ year old software suite. But does free actually mean it's any good?
 


 
1) Nokia E7147 plans 10%
2) Nokia E7228 plans 12%
3) Apple iPhone 3GS 16GB36 plans 5%
4) Apple iPhone 8GB43 plans 10%
5) Nokia N9740 plans 10%
1) Netspace36 plans 2%
2) 37 plans 4%
3) Telstra BigPond30 plans 13%
4) iiNet32 plans 1%
5) Optus41 plans 2%

Mobiles | Broadband | Credit Cards

Haymarket - PC Authority