Windows 7 vs windows vista gaming: Windows 7 vs Windows Vista — Difference and Comparison

Would Windows Vista or 7 be better for gaming especially for games released between 2005 and 2015? : windows7

Would Windows Vista or 7 be better for gaming especially for games released between 2005 and 2015? : windows7

Looks like you’re using new Reddit on an old browser. The site may not work properly if you don’t update your browser ! If you do not update your browser, we suggest you visit old reddit .

Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts

Search all of Reddit

Found the internet!

r/

windows7

r/windows7

6 comments

100% Upvoted

This thread is archived

New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast

About Community

r/windows7

This community is dedicated to Windows 7 which is a personal computer operating system released by Microsoft as part of the Windows NT family of operating systems.

Created Mar 5, 2009


4.1k

Members

54

Online


Similar to this post

  • r/4kTV

    Would a Samsung TU8500 be ok for 1080p/120fps gaming?

    75%

    19

    2/27/2021

  • r/xbox

    Would the Xbox Series S be good as a media console?

    100%

    12

    9/15/2020

  • r/Witcher3

    Would Ghost Mode or Redux be better for a first time player?

    100%

    9

    7/12/2021

  • r/ARK

    would a turret wall be better with double door frames…

    100%

    2

    Jan 21

  • r/linuxquestions

    Would Linux be possible on Samsung s10?

    67%

    2

    11/29/2021

  • r/windows7

    Got Windows 7 fully working with Aero on a 2006 iMac.

    97%

    10

    1d

  • r/windows7

    Windows 7 now supports native UEFI and Secure Boot!!!

    97%

    4

    5d

  • r/windows7

    Is Windows 7 safe in 2022?

    97%

    29

    5d

  • r/windows7

    I want to install Windows 7 no matter what

    100%

    23

    4d

  • r/windows7

    Windows 7 vs. Windows XP, 8, 10 and 11 on Old Hardware…

    100%

    4

    5h

  • r/windows7

    Does Windows 7 still receive updates?

    100%

    14

    2d

  • r/windows7

    Sunsetting support for Windows 7 in early 2023? what…

    100%

    19

    6d

  • r/windows7

    Never gonna use this again but it’s a pretty cool program ?

    88%

    1

    2d

  • r/windows7

    Is Firefox dropping support for windows 7 and 23?

    100%

    10

    4d

  • r/windows7

    Microsoft Security Essentials

    91%

    3

    2d

Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience.By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform.For more information, please see our Cookie Notice and our Privacy Policy .

Advertisement

Windows XP vs Vista vs 7, what to run for retro games?

Windows XP is now 20 years old, Vista, 14 and 7, 11 years old. But for a retro gaming machine, which is best in overall speed?

XP, Vista and 7 all have their strengs and weaknesses, but for performance, which is the best?
Today we take a look at which OS would fare the best performance for what era via synthetics, and the tradeoffs they all have. Strap in as there is a LOT to unpack! Or just skip to the conclusions and skip all the test data. ?

Summary:

  • Windows XP
    Best compatibility but rather out of date, some people are still updating their custom installation images.
    Best hardware compatibility of all three but limited in the modern age like web browsing. What if you want to look up cheats or need to use XP for programming?
  • Windows Vista
    Offers a much more sleek design, DirectX 10 support and a generally more up-to-date experience. Still limited by the neglect it has gotten over the years and it shows in support. Primairly web browsers, just like XP.
  • Windows 7
    The new XP? Fast, decently lighweight, Steam is still supported and so are modern browsers. Both architectures of drivers may work and some XP drivers can even be loaded in 7 if you need them.

We will be testing primairly with 3DMark and PCMark, which all can be found here. 3DMark 2000 to ’06 for XP, and 3DMark Vantage is used to compare Vista to 7. All benchmarks are activated with licenses from the page mentioned before.

  • All settings of the OS installs will be left at default, so Windows XP will have its default theme and Vista/7 will have Aero running. Other settings will not be touched unless the benchmarks do so.
  • No overclocks are applied, the system will run at default settings with no further changes. Only the SATA controller is set to native.
  • No background applications, each variation counts on the score!

You can download each result file for the benchmarks with the exception of 3DMark06. This gives more detailed information compared to the scores on the Excel sheet supplied in this article.

Version differences:

3DMark has the following features for each version, which can also be found at the Legacy Benchmarks page,, such as:

3DMark screenshots

3DMarks is purely for 3D performance, whereas PCMark tests overall system speed, 3DMark was and still is the go-to synthetic benchmark software for PC’s.

  • 3DMark 2001:
    3DMark 2001 tests DirectX 8.1 using vertex and pixel shaders, also offering full scene anti-aliasing but is fairly processor dependant on its speed.
  • 3DMark03:
    3DMark03 uses a DirectX 9 engine created by Futuremark. It was the first 3DMark to include CPU tests and compared to 2001 leans much more on graphics power then processor.
  • 3DMark05:
    With new support for DirectX 9.0c and up to 2 million polygons on screen compared to 2003.
  • 3DMark06: 3DMark06 builds on 3DMark05 with Shader Model 3.0 effects and new CPU tests using PhysX.
  • 3DMark Vantage: Vantage introduces DirectX 10 support and is made especially for Windows Vista.

PCMark is no different, it also has many improvements over the years.

PCMark screenshots

Thus PCMark 2002 was designed for Windows 2000 and 98, where PCMark04 took the same new design as 3DMark03 with the coming of Windows XP. PCMark05 further improved said new design.

PCMark tests things like interface speed, scrolling, your themes performance, video de/encoding, image speed and much more. The things that would make a PC good for all day use, and not per-se gaming only.

The benchmarks results were all run 3 times, averaged out and compared afterwards. The full excel sheet is available on the bottom of this article.

3DMark:

Averaged test result in 3DMarks, (the results score). These are for 3DMark 2001 to 06. Vantage does not support Windows XP. We will first share the scores obtained over all 3 tests for each version, then the conclusions and summary.

3DMark 2003 2005 2006
Windows XP 42938,33 17829,67 14163,33
Vista 42492,00 17665,00 13946,00
Windows 7 42650,67 17530,33 13931,00

Benchmark results for 3DMark, scores displayed each an average of 3 runs.

PCMark:

Windows XP:
PCMark WinXP Score Graphics CPU Memory HDD Average
2002 N/A N/A 11045,00 33352,00 1956,33 15451,11
2004 N/A 22371 N/A 10829,33 5335,33 12845,22
2005 8731,33 9985,33 8131,67 4831,00 6771,00 7690,07

PCMark scores for Windows XP, scored displayed each an average of 3 runs.

Windows Vista:
PCMark Vista Score Graphics CPU Memory HDD Average
2002 N/A N/A 10935,33 34681,67 2080,33 15899,11
2004 N/A 18405,67 N/A 10715,33 4777,33 11299,44
2005 9381,33 13360,00 9041,33 4153,00 6108,00 8408,73

PCMark scores for Windows Vista, scored displayed each an average of 3 runs.

Windows 7:
PCMark Win7 Score Graphics CPU Memory HDD Average
2002 N/A N/A 11031,67 35250,67 2649,67 16310,67
2004 N/A 18440,33 N/A 10706,00 4744,67 11297,00
2005 8650,67 13078,00 9085,00 6156,67 5501,33 8494,33

PCMark scores for Windows 7, scored displayed each an average of 3 runs.

So there are many things I have come to notice along the way, but lets first look at a summary table:

PCMark Averaged Scores: ‘Score’ Diff. To XP Vista vs 7 Average Loss.
Windows XP: 11995,47
Windows Vista 11869,10 -1,05% -1,37%
Windows 7 12034,00 0,32%
3DMark Averaged Scores:
Windows XP: 15228,56
Windows Vista: 15025,28 -1,33% 0,01% -0,58%
Windows 7: 15024,44 -1,34%
Both Averaged Systems:
Windows XP: 14150,86
Windows Vista: 13973,22 -1,26% -0,38%
Windows 7: 14027,63 -0,87%

Summary tables for all resulting benchmarks.

Conclusions from the data:

Now here one can easily see which operating scored the best overall and how much difference there is compared to Windows XP. With a total of 189 benchmarks run, there are a couple things that jump out from these results. Such as:

  1. Windows XP remains the fastest in all tests done, but only by a small margin. Way less then believed by many.
  2. Furthermore, the difference between Vista and 7 is only 0.58%, where it should more matter which system you, the user like to most to use.
  3. High framerate tests, formerly 3DMark03 crazy enough scores the best when running on Vista!
  4. Graphics performance seems to greatly improve when upgrading to Vista and 7 compared to XP in many-typed tests, formerly PCMark2005 shows a big jump in overall rendering speed.
  5. PCMark’s scores test not only graphics but image speed, interface speed and much much more, where it can be seen that Vista sometimes comes out ahead!
  6. Yes, Vista is slower in the majority of tests but only by so little where it does not matter THAT much, unless you want to break records of course.

There is a common saying that “Putting XP on any system instantly makes it fly”, where if you would look at the benchmark data that can actually HURT performance more then it does good! But lets look at that in detail:

Ups and downs:

That being said, Vista and XP share the biggest fate, support. They both got neglected really fast, Vista espcislly with its image of being slow and crappy. But that is where the ups and downs come in, where you should really think of first.

Windows XP has not many things going for it in 2021, where software support has only stayed with enthusiasts.

XP & Vista:
  1. XP has no ‘official’ browser support, where nowadays backported and fan-built projects come in to play.
    Primairly Basilist/UXP and MyPal. They are both ports of Pale Moon, which in itself is a Firefox ‘version’.
  2. Long dead Steam support.
    Steam, the popular game launcher and store has long since stopped supporting XP. The tricks used previously like replacing older files and other tweaks also fail to work because login is now impossible to pull off.
  3. No security updates, which could leave your system HIGHLY vunerable, and a good anti-virus to combat that can cost a lot of money.
  4. Windows XP is the most compaible, yes, BUT only in the most extreme cases would games that run on XP not work on 7 in my experience.

Vista has had the same fate as XP, no Steam and modern browsers, and sketchy anti-virus support.

Windows 7:

Whereas those two were left in the dust, Windows 7 is still a very viable platform.

  1. Modern browsers still work and get updated, this article was even written on Windows 7 using the latest Firefox! (88)
  2. Updates and anti-virus support remains rock solid, if updates seem a bit lacking. But it is a LOT safer to use then Windows XP and Vista.
  3. Steam still works!
    If you have a Steam account with lots of new/old games you can enjoy them on Windows 7, right on your old rig!
  4. Windows 7 in itself does not eat much RAM either!
    With a fully working and up to date installation, even with Aero running task manger only saw around 400MB of memory at use sitting on the desktop. (Will depend on how many drivers your system needs!)
  5. But it is not all happy times, if you need EAX surround you will need to stick with XP, or use a wrapper just like on Vista.

Thus, the tradeoffs with Windows 7 should make it the modern de-facto standard. I would recommend anyone with a Core2Duo or Core2Quad to upgrade. Faster, the compatibility can be fixed with patches for most games or even Compatibility Mode!

3DMark:

Note: 3Dmark 99 and 2000 did not work across all installations so was excluded from the tests, they would test DirectX 6 and 7. 2001 did run on XP but failed to run on Vista and 7.

PCMark:

Note: CPU and System tests have been exluded from PCMark2004, because the Windows Media 9 encoder did not work. This prevents PCMark from giving a CPU score and PCMark score. Thus it is not recommended to use them as a comparison point. Only Graphics, Memory and Hard Disk Drive scores were taken.

Requirement: PCMark05 requires the installation of Windows Media Encoder 9 (wmencode.exe) to function properly. WMEncode64 worked on Vista but not on Windows 7, so use the x86 version for Windows 7 if the x64 package does not work.

Note: PCMark Vantage only gives results online, if you finish the benchmark with no internet access it will not give you the results! Activate the program before you run anything because the online parts seem completely broken. It was run, but after 3 hours of waiting to get scores, and the scores were not even useful I gave up on it.

Bugfix: To run PCMark2002 on Vista, run each session new, not one after another. Also, run as administrator or HDD access may crash the benchmark.

Note: All Windows versions had the latest drivers installed for the tested Radeon HD card. 14.4 for XP, 13.2 for Vista and 15.7.2 for 7.

Bugfix: PCMark2002 does not see any OGG encoders and decoders on Windows 7 by default. Set PCMark2002 to XP compatibility mode, and thats seemed to fix it. If not, download the files here and put them in the Program Files folder where you installed PCMark2002.

You may either, download the XLSX file, or view on Google Sheets here.

XP-Vista-7-Benchmarking-Sheet-1Download

The difference in performance and the gains in usability are so little and better on Windows 7, with this article I hope I have shined a bit more light on my take that Windows 7 should become the new XP. Its old, has much better support and the performance loss is only around 1% at max! Using more modern hardware will only help decrease the difference as well.

My take? Windows 7 all the way, XP should really stop being used due to its many modern flaws and dangers, or even Vista if you MUST.

All this work took an entire weekend to complete, and in total 189 tests were run. I hope you enjoyed the findings as much as I did. Thanks a LOT for reading!

Games vs. Microsoft — which OS do you prefer? Comparison x86 Windows 7, Vista and XP

  • Introduction
  • Test configuration
  • Instrumentation and test procedure
  • Test results: performance comparison
    • Assassins Creed
    • Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
    • Call of Juarez
    • Clive Barker’s: Jericho
    • Colin McRae: Dirt
    • Crysis (gpu_test)
    • Crysis Warhead (ambush)
    • Devil May Cry 4 (scene 1)
    • Fallout 3: The Pitt
    • Far Cry 2 (ranch small)
    • FEAR 2: Project Origin
    • Gears of War
    • Grand Theft Auto 4
    • Left 4 Dead
    • Lost Planet: Colonies (area1)
    • Mass Effect
    • Need for Speed: Pro Street
    • Race Driver: GRID
    • Resident Evil 5
    • Sacred 2: Fallen Angel
    • STALKER: Clear Sky
    • Tom Clancy: HAWX
    • World in Conflict: Soviet Assault
  • Conclusion
  • October 22, 2009 Microsoft introduced the world a new operating system Windows 7. Many users were looking forward to this day — unsuccessful in many aspects and failed in sales of Windows Vista did not appeal to them. Most waited out the «Vista era» on the trusted and proven Windows XP, only to move straight to Windows 7.

    Today we will consider three operating systems (hereinafter referred to as the abbreviated OS): Windows XP SP3 x86, Windows Vista SP2 x86 and Windows 7 7600 RTM x86. Our choice fell on 32-bit OS, because. they are currently the most common among users.

    Games were selected for the toolkit because a huge number of users are gamers or people who are not indifferent to this type of entertainment. This material will consider three aspects of the OS:

    1. Driver optimization for SLI and CrossFireX technologies.

    2. Optimization of drivers for single video cards.

    3. Processor performance.

    recommendations

    Test bench configuration:

  • Processor: Intel Core i7 i920, 2660 MHz @ 4200 MHz, 1. 3 V, L3 8 MB, (Bloomfield, D0), Turbo Boost — on, Hyper Threading — off
  • Motherboard: GigaByte GA-EX58-UD5
  • CPU cooling system: Cooler Master V8 (~1100 rpm)
  • RAM: 3 x 2048MB DDR3 Corsair TR3X6G1600C7 (Spec: 1600MHz / 8-8-8-20-1t / 1.5V) , X.M.P. — off
  • Drive subsystem: SATA-II 500 GB, WD 5000KS, 7200 rpm, 16 MB
  • Video card 1: MSI GeForce GTX 275 896 MB (666/1476/2230 MHz)
  • Video card 2: PowerColor Radeon HD 4890 1024 MB PCS (950/4200 MHz)
  • Video card 3: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 1024 MB (850/3900 MHz)
  • Video card 4: XFX GeForce GTS 250 1024 MB (740/1836/2200 MHz)
  • Video card 5: Manli GeForce GTS 250 1024 MB (740/1836/1900 MHz)
  • Control and monitoring panel: Zalman ZM-MFC2
  • PSU: FSP Epsilon 700 Watts (stock fan: 120mm blown)
  • Housing: open test stand
  • Monitor: 24″ BenQ V2400W (Wide LCD, 1920×1200 / 60Hz)
  • Software:

  • RivaTuner 2. 24
  • Operating system Windows 7 build 7600 RTM x86
  • ATI Catalyst 9.10 and NVIDIA Display Driver 191.07
  • These games used built-in performance measurements (benchmark):

  • Crysis (gpu_test)
  • Crysis Warhead (ambush)
  • Devil May Cry4 (scene1)
  • Far Cry 2 (ranch small)
  • Lost Planet: Colonies (area1)
  • Resident Evil 5 (scene 1)
  • Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X.
  • World in Conflict: Soviet Assault
  • In these games performance was measured by downloading demo scenes:

  • Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
  • Left 4 Dead
  • Stalker: Clear Sky
  • Used in these games with FRAPS v2.9.6 build 7637: Assassins Creed Clive Barker’s: Jericho Colin McRae: Dirt Fallout 3: The Pitt FEAR 2: Project Origin Gears of War Grand Theft Auto 4 Mass Effect Need for Speed: Pro Street Race Driver: GRID Sacred 2: Fallen Angel

  • Call of Juarez was tested using a technical demo of the game.
  • minimal (min ) and average (avg) FPS values ​​were measured in all games.

    In benchmarks and demos that lacked the 9 indicator0177 min fps , this value was measured using the FRAPS utility.

    Gaming applications were tested at 1280×1024 and 1920×1200 resolutions.

    VSync was disabled during tests.

    The test methodology is a three-time run of each game, regardless of the utility it was tested with: benchmark, demo, or FRAPS. The obtained three results were processed, and the arithmetic mean was taken as the final value.

    Video cards were tested at 1920×1200 resolution — this was done in order to load them as much as possible.

    The processor was tested at a resolution of 1280×1024 with FSAA disabled. This is the smallest of the resolutions that are popular among users, so the choice fell on it. The tested video cards have enough power to build three-dimensional scenes, so all settings were set to maximum.

    Let’s start the tests.

    Full screen anti-aliasing (AA) 0, shadows 3, post-effects 3, graphics quality 3, detail level 3.


    DirectX 9.0, VGA, 1920×1200, AA 0


    In Assassins Creed, we see a slight change in the performance of Radeon graphics cards: 2-5%. For GeForce GTX 275, min and avg fps change by more significant values ​​of 4-7%, but these changes cannot be called critical. On the other hand, the performance of the GeForce GTS 250 tandem in Windows XP turned out to be 25-28% lower than in Windows Vista and Windows 7. This indicates less driver optimization by NVIDIA for this OS.


    DirectX 10.0, VGA, 1920×1200, AA 0


    In DirectX 10.0, the performance of two Radeon HD 4850s is significantly increased, which indicates that CrossFireX technology most likely did not work in DirectX 9.0. Also in this API, compared to DirectX 9.0, the performance of the GeForce GTX 275 and Radeon HD 4890 has evened out. The above changes indicate that both manufacturers’ drivers are better optimized for the DirectX 10.0 API than for DirectX 9.0.

    We did not find a significant difference in the performance of video cards in Windows Vista and Windows 7.


    DirectX 9.0, CPU, 1280×1024, AA 0


    The difference in processor performance in different operating systems was insignificant 2-3%.

    Full Screen Anti-Aliasing (AA) 0-4, Anisotropic Filtering (AF16), View Distance — max, Texture Quality — very high, VRAM Usage — High, Terrain Quality — Normal, Object Quality — very high, Texture Resolution — very high, texture map resolution — very high, specular texture resolution — very high, shadows — on, reflections — on, depth of field on, lighting — on, number of dynamic lights — high, edge softening — on, model — on, bullet impact physics — on, detail — high, water details — high.


    DirectX 9.0, VGA, 1920×1200, AA4


    If the Radeon HD 4890 in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare in all operating systems demonstrated equal performance with a slight error, then the min and avg fps of the Radeon HD 4850 tandem in Windows XP decreased by more than two times compared to Windows Vista and Windows 7 Most likely, CrossFireX technology does not work in this OS.

    In the green camp, the picture is more rosy: the GeForce GTX 275 demonstrates almost the same min and avg fps in all operating systems. The performance of two GeForce GTS 250 in Windows XP is 13-14% lower than in Windows Vista and Windows 7.


    DirectX 9.0, CPU, 1280×1024, AA 0


    The difference in processor performance in different operating systems was insignificant 2-4%.

    Full screen anti-aliasing (AA) 0-4, detail level — high, shadow map 2048×2048, shadow quality — high.


    DirectX 10.0, VGA, 1920×1200, AA4


    In Call of Juarez, AMD graphics cards show the same performance in both operating systems. The GeForce GTX 275 has the same situation as its competitors. GeForce GTS 250 duo performance in Windows Vista at 5-19% higher than in Windows 7.

    Full screen anti-aliasing (AA) 0-4, shadows — high, texture — high, blur — high.


    DirectX 9.0, VGA, 1920×1200, AA4


    In Clive Barker’s: Jericho, the Radeon HD 4890 shows the same performance on all operating systems. The Radeon HD 4850 tandem in Windows XP is 37-44% slower than in Windows Vista and Windows 7 — either the CrossFireX technology does not scale well in this OS, or it does not work at all.

    Two GeForce GTS 250 in Windows XP is 2-7% faster than in Windows Vista and Windows 7, GeForce GTX 275 in Windows 7 is 6-7% faster than in other operating systems.


    DirectX 9.0, CPU, 1280×1024, AA 0


    The processor in all operating systems demonstrates approximately the same performance.

    Performance comparison of Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7. Which is better to install?

    Brief description of

    Comparison of performance of Windows XP , Windows Vista and Windows 7 in various applications.


    A few words about Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7

    Probably, many of you, my dear readers, at least once faced with the choice of operating system for your laptop or desktop computer. In this article, I will try to help you choose an operating system, but first, a little history.

    Prior to , Windows Vista didn’t have much choice. Computers and laptops mainly used Windows XP . Before it, Windows 98 SE was very popular. Windows ME essentially failed and did not gain wide popularity. Everything would be fine, but here appeared Windows Vista , formerly codenamed Longhorn .

    Many had high hopes for the new operating system, it was pre-installed on most new laptops and computers. It was a completely redesigned operating system that could not be called a variation on the theme Windows XP . It so happened that the first versions of this operating system were full of errors. It was simply impossible to use it. Most of these bugs and shortcomings were fixed in Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2, but the image of the new operating system was undermined. She just wasn’t for sale. Therefore, Microsoft decided to release a new operating system with a new name, which in fact was well-optimized and improved Windows Vista . That’s how Windows 7 appeared.

    Note: Windows 7 and Windows 8 performance comparison is described in a separate article: Which operating system is better to install: Windows 7 or Windows 8?.

    You can now proceed directly to the comparison of Windows XP , Windows Vista and Windows 7 .

    Comparison method for Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7

    Before proceeding directly to the results of the study, it is worth saying a few words about the principles and methodology of this comparison.

    This study focuses on comparing the performance of different versions of Windows.

    Comparison of power consumption and battery life was deliberately omitted due to large measurement errors. It is very difficult to create roughly equal conditions for all operating systems. In practice, with the right settings, you get about the same battery life. It is worth noting here that Windows Vista can manage power more flexibly than Windows XP . This eliminates the difference in battery life due to the greater consumption of Windows Vista system resources. With Windows 7 , Microsoft has made power management even more flexible.

    Comparison of switch-on and switch-off times was also omitted. As in the previous case, the measurement error is large. You can, of course, intend something there, draw thoughtful conclusions, although the actual measurement error will be several times higher for the difference in on / off time between different versions of Windows. The practical value of such information is low. The laptop does not turn on and off so often.

    The last point that was missed is the convenience of the interface. Since convenience is a very subjective criterion, it is not very correct to compare it. Here you already need to decide for yourself whether it is convenient or not to use this or that operating system. Windows XP and Windows Vista are quite similar in terms of interface, but in Windows 7 it has been significantly redesigned. Some moments have become much more convenient.

    Compared with Asus N61Vn laptop with Intel Core 2 Quad Q9 processor000, 4 GB RAM and nVidia GeForce GT240M graphics card. The original 32-bit versions Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3 , Windows Vista Ultimate Service Pack 2 and Windows 7 Ultimate with the latest updates were used. You can read about the impact of Windows bitness on performance in this article: Windows x86 or x64. What is better to install on a laptop? All systems used the same driver versions adjusted for the Windows version, as well as the same set of test programs. Caching and DMA were also included. Read more about them here: Optimizing Windows. In all cases, the energy plan was included, which corresponded to the maximum performance.

    Futuremark 3DMark03

    In this test, Windows XP leads by a fairly large margin. Then, with a slight difference, come Windows 7 and Windows Vista .

    Futuremark 3DMark05

    In this test, Windows XP still leads by a wide margin, but Windows 7 and Windows Vista showed almost the same result.

    Futuremark 3DMark06

    Total result:

    SM2.0 subtest result:

    SM3.0 subtest result:

    CPU subtest result:

    In general, the situation is the same. Windows XP leads by a fairly large margin. Windows Vista and Windows 7 show approximately the same results. Due to improvements and optimizations, the result of Windows 7 is slightly higher than that of Windows Vista .

    AquaMark 3

    In this test, the situation is similar to 3DMark06 . Windows XP leads by a wide margin, Windows Vista and Windows 7 are approximately on the same level.

    Now let’s look at performance on ordinary tasks. For this, HD Benchmark 3.0.5 is used, which allows you to evaluate performance when encoding 720p video, as well as PCMark05 and PCMark Vantage from the same Futuremark .

    HD Benchmark

    First pass, fps:

    Second pass, fps:

    The situation here is similar to 3DMark . The performance difference is minimal.

    PCMark05

    Overall result:

    Processor performance:

    Graphics performance:

    Hard disk performance:

    In general, the situation is similar to the previous ones. Only in the hard disk test , Windows 7 took the lead due to a better optimized disk write caching algorithm. In graphics test Windows Vista was faster than Windows 7 .

    PCMark Vantage

    Because this program requires DirectX 10 , which is not supported on Windows XP , only results for Windows Vista and Windows 7 will be shown .

    Total Score:

    Memory Performance:

    TV & Movie Performance:

    Gaming Performance:

    Music performance:

    Communications performance:

    Office application performance:

    Hard disk performance:

    In general, the results are almost the same. Windows 7 performed slightly better than Windows Vista .

    Conclusions

    Based on the information received, the following conclusions can be drawn:0261 Windows Vista and Windows 7 ;

  • Windows 7 shows comparable performance to Windows Vista . Subjectively interface Windows 7 is faster than Windows Vista . If this is important to you, then it makes sense to upgrade to Windows 7 ;
  • If you don’t need DirectX 10 support then it makes sense to upgrade to Windows Vista or Windows 7 no;
  • As an alternative to Windows XP Mode , VirtualBox can be used in Windows 7 . Tutorial: Installing and running Windows XP on Windows 7, Windows Vista, or another operating system.
  • It is up to you which version of Windows to install. I hope this material will help you with this.

    Important note: Windows 7 currently contains one very serious bug for laptop owners. It consists in the fact that on some laptops, after installing Windows 7, the battery begins to lose its capacity quite quickly and after a while Windows 7 reports the need to replace it. When installing a different version of Windows, the problem remains. It is solved by buying a new battery. Despite the fact that this problem is widespread, this does not mean that if you install Windows 7, your battery will automatically fail, but there is a possibility of such an outcome. Microsoft is aware of this issue, but has not yet provided a workaround.

    How to install Windows is described in these resources: Easy installation of Windows XP, Typical installation of Windows XP, Installing Windows Vista, Installing Windows 7, Installing Windows 7 and Windows Vista from a USB flash drive, and Installing Windows XP from a USB flash drive or memory card.

    Please post all questions in this section of the forum: Installing and configuring Windows.

    All comments and suggestions on the article itself, you can express through this contact form: send an e-mail to the author. Please note that if something does not work out for you, then you should only ask on the forum.