Windows 7 Speed test !!!!!!

[Thomas]

SPEED !!!!!

I always like to see for myself and found a benchmark that would run under all o/s

Windows 7 32 bit is the fastest out there and I did compair appwls to appels

Windows XP Pro 32 bit verses Windows 7 32 bit using 3Dmark03 Windows 7 blew Windows XP Pro away and that in alfa stage.

Windows 7 is going to be one of the biggest hits ever !!!!!!!!

 

[Mike]

Do you have a screen shot or link to these benchmark results?

 

[davehc]

This type of thread is running hot on several sites. It leads to no where. A pre beta program cannot be compared to one which is already in maturity. In future releases, 7 could go either way. Without any peripherals added, of course it will run faster. But it is still lacking some essentials. This may slow it down, but hopefully MS have sorted out a few solutions to that.Before a flood of tests come in on this thread, criteria would have to be established.
Is the comparison being run on the same computer?
For bootup comparison, what is the startup point and the completion point. If, for example, it is from switch on to a working desktop, what is already on the desktop in your "legacy" OS. Running my own tests (NOT a benchmark) on two identical computers, with a raw install of Vista and 7 (Sorry, XP does not interest me at this stage) I found very little difference. I battled with posters on another forum on this matter, with astonishing claims, until I realised they were doing precisiely as I said, whilst I was running both OS's with all my favorite software installed.
Again, for example. It takes my BIOS, up to the startup manager, about 10seconds to load. After arrival at a complete desktop, it takes a further 10 seconds to load my Internet and Internet and Lan connections. I read so many claims of a 12 to 20 second startup that I feely it is never going to be achieved on my hardware!

On a raw install of 7, my best startup figure was 48 seconds. This was identical to Vista. After installing antivirus, which is always a slow loader, and Office 2007, a resource hogger, and then applying the same speed tricks to both, 7 rose to 98 seconds and my Vista installation clocked in at 75 seconds.
I could not detect any difference in the actual running of programs or Internet access.
I emphasise that this was on my computer, with my applications. Results will vary according to cpu speeds (mine- 3.2 Intel) and harddisk speeds. (Again - mine are a couple of years old) It will also depend on where, on the hard disk, the OS has been loaded, the outer edge being quite a bit faster when we are talking about 10 to 20 second startup speeds
This does not mean I have a bad view of 7. It is pre beta, and I am sure a lot is still to be accomplished before final release.
At the risk of starting a controversial thread, I will say I am a customisation freak. With that in mind, I see before me, in 7, a pre customised Vista for the average "ready to go" user. --- What Vista should have been.

 

[Thomas]

This is on my workstation using a E8400 with a 9800GTX+ And 780im/band 2gig 1250 corsair memory

Windows xp pro = 43,609
Windows 7 = 44,414
That is a + 850

This was using 3Dmark03 it is the only benchmark that I could make work. Can't waite to see the finished product.


And yes it is on the same computer. I do have a wizzzzz banger that is one of the fastest computers you can build and there was a 5,000 + for Windows 7 so it does blow away everything. If you don't like Windows 7 and just are knocking it then stay back in the past, as for the rest of us speed is everything and we are going Windows 7 all the way !!!!!

 

[davehc]

You last para is unnecessarily offensive.
I have no arguments with the progress of 7, as you could see if you read my post.
I did clearly say I did not use a benchmarking program. The timing was based purely on manual scripting on my own computer, which is no where as advanced as yours, nor is not likely to be. These homemade figures were a direct comparison and, in spite of the basic method of application, I cannot argue with them.

FWIW 3dmark concerns its benchmarking with the graphics capability combined with the CPU direct response to that capability. As you have said, with your ultimate machine, it is natural that you would get a high reading.

". If you don't like Windows 7 and just are knocking it then stay back in the past, as for the rest of us speed is everything and we are going Windows 7 all the way "
lol. I am a registered member of a couple of the Microsoft sites. I have just posted up my own bugs which I have found on 7, after several weeks testing. The blog came to two useful pages. This was impartial, and made no reference to my thoughts on 7.
I reread my earlier post as being inclined towards 7, not the opposite.

P.S. Did you try a Vista comparison.

 

[Thomas]

Yes I did.

The test that was 5000 faster was with Windows Vista 64 and Windows 7 64. Windows 7 realy rocks with the Quad core Extream prosesors. Microsoft msays that they are paying attention to speed and thay have it. I do understand this is a alpha test so far and things can change in the end . All I can say they have it all together, for a alpha test to be this good is a big feat in itsself , like it is going to be a big winner right out of the box.

Windows vista 64 55,905
Windows 7 64 60,854

used 3Dmark03

3Dmark 06 and 3Dmark Vantage will not work with the alpha windows. So I used 3Dmark03 and it will work with all o/s

 

[davehc]

Fair comment. As I hinted, benchmarking can lead to a poor representation of overall results. In fact, diferent quality benchmark programs will give very different results also. Hhere is another one, for example, running with software installed ,and testing with such. Not mine!! Done by a pro.
CINEBENCH is a real-world test suite based on MAXON’s award-winning animation software, CINEMA 4D, which is used extensively by studios and production houses worldwide for 3D content creation.

• Windows 7 build 6956
  1CPU Score: 2076
  xCPU Score: 7370
  Multi-proc speedup: 3.55x
  OpenGL: 3183
• Vista 32-bit RTM
  1CPU Score: 2172
  xCPU Score: 7808
  Multi-proc speedup: 3.59x
  OpenGL: 3960
• Vista 32-bit SP1
• quote Steve Ballmer:
• “The goal with Windows 7 is that it will run on the same hardware as Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will also be compatible with Windows 7. So customers will be able to fully leverage their Windows Vista investments in the future when Windows 7 ships.â€Â￾
  1CPU Score: 2084
  xCPU Score: 7140
  Multi-proc speedup: 3.43x
  OpenGL: 3458

Note: Higher score is better.
​

Link Removed
Here is an insteresting blog by the three guys who are actually writing the new code. It is balanced and does mention the possible bad aspect of benchmarking at this stage.
Engineering Windows 7 : Continuing our discussion on performance

I remain a VERY optimistic 7 supporter, with my feet very firmly on the ground.

 

[superbill]

For what's worth, I have just installed the 64bit Build 6801 on the same machine as Vista Ultimate.
I see very little difference in performance using the same programmes and applications. Obviously I will have to "tweak" Windows 7 a little to find the sweet spots but there is nothing particularly outstanding that catches the eye.
Windows 7 has a long way to go before the final build is ready so it is better to keep an open mind about how much better if any it will be than Vista. It is far to early to be influenced by benchmark tests and so called experts preditions.
I am hoping that Windows 7 will be innovative & "ground breaking" but see nothing at present to back this up.