Windows 7 Comparative Compile Performance Test: Windows 7 vs. Windows XP with Visual Studio

[Ed Dixon]

Ran a simple compile performance test tonight on XP and Win7 32 bit.

Win7 XP
Medium size Program 1.30 1.31
Large size Program 3:15 3:00

Tool was MS Visual Studio 6.0, the C++ parts.

Win7 not showing any improvements, and for the large case, slower.

Ed

 

[Ed Dixon]

This is 32 bit, not 64 bit. The the install process went smoothly for it. I dont think this has anything to do with media.

Have you actually run any performance tests for comparison?

Ed

 

[Ed Dixon]

I ran a few more tests this morning and what I'm seeing are inconsistent results.

=================== Win7 64======== Win7 32 =========XP

PcPitStop.com ............................. 2882 ............................3065 ............................. 3600
PassMark 7.0 ............................... 669 ............................ 585 ............................. 522

Large compile/link ....................... - .............................. 3:15 ............................... 3:00


Ed

 

[Radenight]

Some interesting results Ed.. Though there are alot of benchmarks out there showing Windows 7's improvement over Windows XP and Vista..

It's a two sided story though.. Even though Windows 7 is a vast improvement in many areas there will always be areas in which it does not beat out the previous OS.. It's the same with any OS when you stop and think about it..

Good work Ed..

 

[Ed Dixon]

For the normal things I do, like development, Win7 seems slower. Win7 64 seems slower still.

However the larger issue is unsupported hardware and software. I come from the school that says when you are upgrading software, you should act likes doctors: First do no harm. Win7, so far, is not scoring very highly on this factor. Now maybe this will inprove in the coming months/years, like it did for XP.

Ed

 

[cybercore]

For the normal things I do, like development, Win7 seems slower.
Ed

Which programming environment you use and in a few words what and how slower does it do ? Cause to me VS 2008 looks the same compilation speed as in Vista.

Edit::

I ran a few more tests this morning and what I'm seeing are inconsistent results.

=================== Win7 64======== Win7 32 =========XP

PcPitStop.com ............................. 2882 ............................3065 ............................. 3600
PassMark 7.0 ............................... 669 ............................ 585 ............................. 522

Large compile/link ....................... - .............................. 3:15 ............................... 3:00


Ed

Not to doubt or argue, 3:15 IS faster than 3:00, but by how much - less than 5 %. If it takes hours to compile, then it'll sure be a boost.


How about Windows Server 2008 that [URL="http://wastingtimewithmikeandari.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/windows-server-2008-10-faster-and-uses-23-the-ram-of-vista/"]Windows Server 2008 10% faster and uses 2/3 the ram of Vista[/url] ?

 

[Ed Dixon]

Not to doubt or argue, 3:15 IS faster than 3:00, but by how much - less than 5 %. If it takes hours to compile, then it'll sure be a boost.?

I use MS Visual Studio 6.0 and C++ for most things. I also have the 2005 version but use it less.

The figures for compile/link are how long it took. So for Win7, 3 min 15 sec and for XP, 3 min. So slightly slower in W7.

So far, the only thing that seems noticeably faster in W7 is shutdown processing. Have not measured it, but seems maybe half of XP. Most else, including boot time, are mostly a wash, or slightly different. Vista was noticablely slower on all levels, so W7 is clearly a boost for Vista from my view.

Ed

 

[cybercore]

I use MS Visual Studio 6.0 and C++ for most things. I also have the 2005 version but use it less.

You had mentioned this just a couple posts above, sorry I didn't notice.

The figures for compile/link are how long it took. So for Win7, 3 min 15 sec and for XP, 3 min. So slightly slower in W7.

So far, the only thing that seems noticeably faster in W7 is shutdown processing. Have not measured it, but seems maybe half of XP. Most else, including boot time, are mostly a wash, or slightly different. Vista was noticablely slower on all levels, so W7 is clearly a boost for Vista from my view.

Ed

Yeah, 7's faster than Vista but slower than XP. There are sure advancements in 7, I wouldn't disagree. Yet talking about certain boosts you've mentioned (like the boot time) you're right and I think so too if I measure them with a software, but in real life I can hardly feel them. 7's deffinitely faster because it has less software installed than in one's vista, like install all those Neros, Adobes, Offices, etc. and see if 7 stays as fast.

 

[loathe]

For the normal things I do, like development, Win7 seems slower. Win7 64 seems slower still.

However the larger issue is unsupported hardware and software. I come from the school that says when you are upgrading software, you should act likes doctors: First do no harm. Win7, so far, is not scoring very highly on this factor. Now maybe this will inprove in the coming months/years, like it did for XP.

Ed

Im sorry you have had a poor experience with 7. I have had none of your problems. Perhaps you could detail your test system for us and provide more information on your testing procedure as these number mean little without.

For me I have found x64 7 to be leaps and bounds more productive than XP with my hardware and only slightly faster or on par with Vista. This is a real world experience and not a conclusion taken from benchmarks.

 

[SIW2]

My real world experience is similar.

Cannot notice any increase in speed/performance 7 vs Vista.

Bit less disk activity and less disk space used by 7, that's all.

I suspect it would be different on an average laptop.

Here are some more tests, if you like that sort of thing :

Link Removed

 

[jws2346]

I've never had Vista anything. ATM I have WinXP x64 on a Q6600 G0 desktop and WinXP x32 on an older 1.73 Ghz Dell D610 laptop. I have Win7 x64 on another Q6600 G0 and Win7 x32 on an ancient 1.8 Ghz nc6000 laptop (easy breezy install, everything recognized outa' the box). The Q6600's have 8 GB's DDR2 PC 6400 RAM and the Dell D610 has 2x GB's of DDR2 533 RAM. The nc6000 laptop only has 768 MB's of DDR1 PC 2700 RAM.

Both Q6600's are water cooled and pretty much identical (same clock, same amount and type of RAM, etc). The D610 is 1.73 GHz and the nc6000 is 1.8 Ghz. The nc6000 has a Intel 855PM chip set mobo (Carmel) and the D610 has a Intel 915GM chipset mobo (Sonoma), so my observations are probably skewed and inaccurate (just real world, no scientific measurements).

In my humble opinion the older nc6000 is much more responsive now. The nc6000 had WinXP x32 Home on it previously and I had sound driver problems when I first installed the XP, with Win7, I had no problems at all, Win7 recognized everything right outa' the box I don't see much difference in the two Q6600 G0's (one had WinXP x32 and the other still has WinXP x64) . Both were DCing 24/7 before the summer heat made ACing and DCing too expensive (AC' electric bill). They both got about equal results DCing When my pre orders come I'll install Win7 x32 on my D610 and see if I think I see any noticeable improvement. I'm gonna' keep WinXP x64 on one Q6600 G0 and replace the Win7 x64 RC with the Win7 x64 GA on the other Q6600 G0 when I get it.