[M.Sudoku]

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes on Zdnet benchmarked both operating systems using PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1 and brought the desired results. Throughout the testing the hardware platform has remained unchanged.

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



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.

[Villain]

well of course the 64 bit os is going to be faster. less of a bottleneck.

[xsever]

Why is there a difference between the XP RTM and the regular XP SP3? Aren't they the same with just different release dates? Or am i missing something?

This post has been edited by xsever: 30 April 2008 - 09:35 PM

[Munkypoo7]

Cool! finally, Vista pulls ahead! Go Vista Go!!

[xsever]

Munkypoo7, on May 1 2008, 12:45 AM, said:

Cool! finally, Vista pulls ahead! Go Vista Go!!

I dnt think u can consider that a "pull ahead" bcz if u compare Vista 32-bit SP1 to XP 32-bit SP3, XP is still better. XP RTM and VISTA RTM are also basically the same! So, if u compare apple to apple, XP is still, at least bcz of this chart, ahead of Vista!

[uch_haiden]

I think another brainwashing. What Microsoft is doing right now is clearing their tattered name. I just remember they admitted that XP's performance is better than Vista RTM. The author showed that Vista RTM is better than the old XPs which is contradicting.

Well, think of it. Vista SP1 beating all XPs is of course acceptable but publishing something that contradicts Microsoft's original statement is somewhat idiocracy. What's wrong with the author? Did he read past Micrososft articles? I'd rather say he's a Microsoft fanboy or a paid author.

If I were him, I prefer doing some things that clearly shows what's really going on rather than edit some results.

Yeah, Vista is great, I do like it but, it does not need to publish foolish results to be used. After all, thinking customers (or more advance users who don't exchange beauty with applications) know what the truth is. And oh, Vista SP1 is faster than the RTM. This is the only blog I found claiming the opposite. Lame

[Culprit]

my personal opinion is that vista sp1 is way faster then xp was on my system

[Seventh Surfer]

So if we exclude 64-bit then Vista SP1 is faster than XP SP2, but it's slower than XP SP3?
It means XP SP3 is the winner in 32-bit!

[PenaltyKillah]

For me... MEH.

And yeah... why is an SP slower than the original?

[RickSOLET]

This test is bullsh*t
Vista SP1 is faster than Vista RTM. I can feel the performance!

[SharmanNet]

Quote

Vista SP1 is faster than Vista RTM. I can feel the performance!

"Benchmarks scores such as Passmark don’t translate well into real world performance indicators."

[gpx]

But I notice there was no XP SP3 64-bit, is that not out yet?

[dexhummer1]

Solo, on Apr 30 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

well of course the 64 bit os is going to be faster. less of a bottleneck.

Yeap!!

[TheGreenMan]

Quote

But I notice there was no XP SP3 64-bit, is that not out yet?

XP SP3 is for x86 editions of Windows XP only! There is no official announcement for XP SP3 x64 yet.

[Munkypoo7]

not to mention xp x64 was a total failure, i couldnt stop getting BSOD's on that os... had to use 32 bit, missing out on a gb of ram :S