News >> Browse Articles >> Microsoft
News >> Browse Articles >> OS
Windows 7 RTM Gets Benchmarked, Results Are Mixed
Featured Author:
DailyTech
DailyTech is a leading online magazine for a well-educated, tech audience. Its readers enjoy hard-hitting and up to the minute CE, PC, IT and information technology news. DailyTech’s fast-moving content also reaches out via news syndications, public portals, and forums.
Jason Mick/DailyTech
August 05, 2009
While Windows 7’s requirements (a 1 GHz
x86 processor, 1GB of RAM for 32-bit or 2 GB for 64-bit, and support
for Direct X 9) are similar to Windows Vista, its install footprint
is leaner (16 GB for 32-bit versus 20 GB in Vista, 20 GB for 64-bit
versus 40 GB in Vista) and its memory usage is tighter (some users
have run the release candidates on systems with less
than 1 GB of RAM). All of this adds up to significant
improvements over Vista and a modern OS capable of running on most
netbooks.
Great graphical looks, touch functionality, and
new UI options make the package even sweeter. However, no
matter how nice the ride looks, it’s always good to look inside —
for example, the snazzy OS X Snow Leopard may look slick, but is
incapable of playing most games and will only run (officially) on Mac
hardware. With that in mind let’s look at a recent
benchmark by CNET of the Windows 7 RTM
build.
Interestingly, the results were mixed. Boot
times, despite dedicated tweaking from Microsoft, were slightly worse
than in Vista SP2 or XP SP3 (by over a second). Shutdown times,
though, showed much improvement over the slow XP, and even some
improvement over Vista.
Interestingly, between the 7600 build
and the 7100 build, Windows 7’s performance in Microsoft Office and
iTunes actually dropped. Nonetheless, it manages to still beat
Vista and XP in the Office benchmark and tie with XP in iTunes (but
slightly behind Vista). In a final Cinebench benchmark, Windows
7 performance improved between the 7100 and 7600 builds, moving it
ahead of Vista and just behind XP.
Gaming results should be
coming soon, which should provide more interesting analysis of the
new OS’s true performance. In the meantime, though, the verdict
seems that despite mixed performance against XP and Vista, Windows 7
holds its own.
As the experience and feel are much
smoother than the previous two OS’s, the standstill in performance,
normally a bad thing, probably will be sufficient for Windows 7 to
see great commercial success. Windows 7 completes Vista’s
ascent into a OS X level of user interface polish, while holding its
ground in performance, something that has placed Windows ahead of
competitors Linux and OS X.
© 2009, DailyTech
rjh
3 months ago
12 comments
The benchmarks in this article imply XP better than Vista, and Windows 7
XP verses Windows 7 result implies a 39% performance hit.
Vista is widely acknowledged performance mess in Corporate America.
I stand by my “Windows upgrade performance hit statement”. Every new Windows release required buying new significantly enhanced PC hardware to get decent performance out of the new OS. Vista performance stinks compared to XP Pro
MS is a great marketing spin machine.
SweetXcomputers….Are you sure your 64bit? … How do you know?
Example: No 64bit Flash is even available!...See
http://www.appscout.com/2009/08/no_64-bit_surfing_in_windows_7.php
Are you possibly running 32bit apps in a 32bit virtualized environment?
Take a look at this Windows Secrets article...
http://www.windowssecrets.com/
2009/07/16/01-Some-versions-of-Windows-7-worth-it-others-not
Specifically….Quoting Windows Secrets…
“Run in Windows XP Mode. In theory, this feature lets you run Windows XP programs — unaltered — on a Windows 7 Pro PC. This version includes a fully licensed copy of Windows XP and Windows Virtual PC….”
BTW…An “old app” compatibility problem occurred in XP. Turns out there was/is a compatibility switch that you can set on an individual application by application basis to fix the issue.
If my comments JUST help people plan and protect themselves a little, then I’m pleased!
MurphysLaww
3 months ago
12 comments
The only thing that Microsoft should be worrying about is if Business will like it. Pretty much everyone I know is running vista now, but my company doesn't use it. I think the numbers I read were that there was only 10% of corporate buy in for vista, which must have been a disaster for Microsoft.
SweetXcomputers
3 months ago
4 comments
RJH That's not true, all my computers are 64 bit, except my laptop, I have not had to buy ANYTHING that's specially 64 bit but Windows Vista itself. I have noticed some testing applications that have to be 64 bit or they don't work right.
rjh
3 months ago
12 comments
Enjoy buying all new SW if you go to 64 bit. Doesn't ANYONE know that MS has lied about "perfomance improvements" all the way back to Windows 3.11? PT Barnum was right...there's a sucker born every minute
SweetXcomputers
3 months ago
4 comments
I also think you need to test with 64bit Vista & Windows 7
HernanJV
3 months ago
38 comments
So what makes Windows 7 better than Vista? It looks to me that Windows 7 still requires more resources than Vista. I thought Microsoft was going to make it leaner than Vista.
cab26715
3 months ago
40 comments
CNET only benchmarked the 32-Bit versions of Windows 7, Vista, and XP.
What about the 64-Bit versions???
I read an article a while back where Microsoft estimated that around 75% of Windows 7 Beta users were running the software on 64-Bit machines.
I bet if CNET redoes the benchmark using the 64-Bit versions, they will see that Windows 7 is better in all aspects over XP and Vista.