64-Bit XP vs 64-Bit Vista

DeathFromBelow said:
If you guys are interested I'm currently installing the 64-Bit Windows 7 Beta on the exact same system I used for the benchmarks.

Should I run the benches again? Any other tests you would like to see?
Click to expand...

Very interested. I have the 64bit Beta 1 and my main rig and it absolutely screams. Those benches would be very interesting. :)
 
Meow said:
Thanks for proving my point. You people wouldn't even believe it, even though it's the truth. There is simply no way you will accept defeat when it comes to the harsh reality. Fact remains that Vista is slower than XP64 on ANY hardware with most software the average user uses/needs, on most tasks I throw at it. The image was pretty clear on the few points where XP64 loses from Vista, but you can't even see those because it's brought up by someone who doesn't join the Vista.bandwagon just because it is "newer".
Click to expand...

How does the fact remain that Vista is slower on any hardware, the OP's benchmarks prove otherwise. The image you posted is a fabrication, you can not list the benchmarks so they can be independently verified because you made the whole thing up, nobody believes you so please just shut up already. You should be banned for what you're doing, imo, and in fact I am going to mail the mods to have it done. And speaking of bandwagons, you're just on the vista hate bandwagon because you think all the cool kids hate it, so don't lecture us on bandwagons. Fact remains (actual facts not made up nonsense that you can't back up) that Vista is as fast as XP or faster, bechmarks in the OP prove that, deal with it.

Thats true because all the benchmarks i posted were knocked out because they were vista fan boys. Some people can't accept defeat. Just because you paid a ton of money for vista doesn't mean its the best.
Click to expand...

The benchmarks weren't knocked, what was knocked was your conclusion that Vista virtually tying XP in 95% of benchmarks and losing by like 1% in others, is proof of an epic XP win. Most benchmarks I've seen, including the OP, show vista is as fast or faster than XP or XP Pro 64.
 
Conker said:
Thats true because all the benchmarks i posted were knocked out because they were vista fan boys. Some people can't accept defeat. Just because you paid a ton of money for vista doesn't mean its the best.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for Meow to reply to this post.
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033553664&postcount=44

Since you're so convinced Windows XP is better than Vista, and since Meow clearly has no intention of having a constructive conversation on the topic, why don't you reply to it for him?
 
AbJ32 said:
I'm still waiting for Meow to reply to this post.
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033553664&postcount=44

Since you're so convinced Windows XP is better than Vista, and since Meow clearly has no intention of having a constructive conversation on the topic, why don't you reply to it for him?
Click to expand...

And again, the point needs to be made that this thread and the discussion is about XP Pro x64 vs Vista x64 - XP Pro x64 is NOT WINDOWS XP, so stop saying "Windows XP" because people read that and assume it means XP Pro x86/32 bit even in a thread where the discussion is about XP Pro x64 which is actually Windows Server 2003 x64 at heart.

The comparison between 2003 x64/XP Pro x64 and Vista x64 is a valid one; comparing XP Pro x86/32 bit to Vista x64 is a waste of time... and brain cells... they're talking about XP Pro x64, for the record.
 
Meow said:
Tests conducted by InfoWorld show that Windows XP is still the overall performance king even in today’s quad core PCs. Not only does Windows XP outpace Windows Vista, it also does better than the current Windows 7 beta.

From last week, in http://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-windows-xp-vista,6895.html
Take that, you whiners. ;-) XP64 FTW once again!
Click to expand...


You're claiming that XP is "faster" based off of clock cycles? My God you XP cock riders will go to any length won't you? One of the comments posted there sums it up nicely:

"Fastest" is a BS way of describing what is really going on here.

Vista uses up lots of RAM to optimize desktop computing. Naturally, there are a lot more instructions to be executed in Vista than XP.

In layman's terms; Runner A who completes the mile in 8 minutes is NOT faster than Runner B who completes a marathon in 20 minutes!

From the processor's point of view, it finishes all of its instructions sooner in XP, but that isn't the point!
Click to expand...

Now go troll somewhere else.
 
XP has less overhead so it will always win in that type of benchmark. All I care about is what has better usability. This includes user interface speed, file access speed and ease of use. Vista wins in every one of those categories.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Wow, XP wins one synthetic workload benchmark. :rolleyes:
Even then, Vista and 7 still scale better with multiple processors, so its sort of a half-win.

Why did this thread get revived? The newer thread is here:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1383898
Click to expand...


Oh my God, the perfect quote from that thread:

devil22 said:
Actually, it does. Otherwise, even MS-DOS would be bloated, the only reason MS-DOS is not bloated is because the price of ram dropped from the days when 640KB of memory cost thousands of dollars or more. That is the nature of computers, cpu's get more powerful, ram gets cheaper and software adapts to put it all to use. 512MBs of Ram cost like $100 - $200 when XP was released, now you can buy 8GBs for less than $100, and Vista runs much better on 8GBs of ram than XP runs on 512MB, so relatively speaking, Vista is LESS bloated. The computer market is a complex thing, you can't always just add up the numbers without a deeper understanding of what's going on.
Click to expand...
 
My OS is teh ZOMG!! bestest, all other OSez = teh suxors most greatly, LOL, ROFLs. My OS is faster than your OS blah, blah, blah ,blah, etc., adnauseum.
What OS is that you ask, I can't tell you. It's way too kool for the likes of you heathens. Weep, beg forgiveness, and never again stand b4 me and my OS's uber greatness...



Yes, some of you really do come off that way. If you have to ask, you are prolly one of them. :D
 
lol no matter how many benchmarks everyone sees no one will ever admit defeat. All them are pretty close within each other. Just use what you like. My favorite right now is xpx64. Going to try windows 7 sometime though.
 
earnolmartin said:
Hmm didn't the benchmarks conclude that XP x64 is faster, gives better performance, and is greater than Vista?
Click to expand...

I see vista winning in Crysis, World in Conflict and PCMark (by a significant amount.) Of the ones XP won, one was due to a reworked file copy protocal, where XP basically cheats (says the copy is finished before it's done writing to disk.) - so no, I don't see it as a XP victory, in fact I see it the opposite. Besides, Vista has a lot more in addition to performance, over XP.
 
earnolmartin said:
Hmm didn't the benchmarks conclude that XP x64 is faster, gives better performance, and is greater than Vista?
Click to expand...

Back when Vista launched there were performance issues like you would expect with any major OS changes. These issues were ironed out within the first few months and Vista now generally outperforms XP.

Again, this is the old thread. The updated benchmarks with the 7 beta data are here:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1383898
 
i've been putting off installing vista x64 for my gaming rig. i was perfectly happy with xp x64, but now i think i might make the switch or dual boot more quickly than i had planned.

thanks for the testing, op
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top