Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    12,519
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 1,221 Posts

    Performance comparison - Windows 8 vs. Windows 7

    There have been some discussions regarding Windows 8 vs. Windows 7 performance. I just read a blog post that offered an unequivocal victory to Windows 8, in terms of performance. The advantage seems pretty clear, from the tests done, so I decided to post the links:

    PC Magazine: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406668,00.asp
    Tech Spot: http://www.techspot.com/review/561-w...ws7/page2.html

    This does match my own experience.
    Last edited by ruirib; 2013-01-15 at 12:30. Reason: Title changed

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    It's nice to see that in the one test that Win 7 was faster (file transfer) the reason is because Win 8 does a malware scan during the transfer, thus offering more security.

    It is very nice to know that as I am presently copying over 2000 songs from our laptops to our desktop PC, which is used as a backup media. If for some reason I had acquired some malware, this one item would justify this slower speed.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  3. #3
    Super Moderator bbearren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Polk County, Florida
    Posts
    3,760
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 424 Times in 338 Posts

    And these benchmarks

    Ars Technica - "Gentlemen, start your benchs: Measuring Windows 8's performance".

    Their conclusions include the statement, "Windows 8 continues to build on that foundation, so performance remains mostly the same in Windows 8. There are isolated cases where performance is consistently better, most notably in boot time and in certain games, but for the most part the performance of Windows 8 is going to be very similar to the performance of Windows 7 on the same hardware."
    Last edited by bbearren; 2013-01-14 at 18:50.
    Create a fresh drive image before making system changes, in case you need to start over!

    "The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Savvy?"—Captain Jack Sparrow "When you're troubleshooting, start with the simple and proceed to the complex."—M.O. Johns "Experience is what you get when you're looking for something else."—Sir Thomas Robert Deware.
    Unleash Windows

  4. #4
    Silver Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,335
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 267 Times in 260 Posts
    I discard "trickery" when making comparisons unless it can be proven unequivocally that that speed boosting shortcut has no adverse affects whatsoever, and I think the jury is still out there, but overall I would say yes, Microsoft has done a competent job of streamlining processes to the point where incorporation in less powerful devices is not a lesson in mockery, as was the case with Vista.
    I think hardware will rule the roost though and OS differences will only account for a very small percentage of influence.
    Last edited by F.U.N. downtown; 2013-01-14 at 19:36.

  5. #5
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire USA
    Posts
    431
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 37 Times in 34 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ruirib View Post
    I just read a blog post that offered an unequivocal victory to Windows 8, in terms of performance.
    Unequivocal? Yes: a win, no matter how slight, is still a win. Important? Not nearly as clear (with one notable exception: startup speed, at least for those who consider that significant, and I do). That said, an improvement need not be 'important' to be worthwhile: one just should not over-estimate the importance of the latter.

    Which begs the question, WHICH ONE matches your own experience?

    For example, the first claims that startup speed improved by a full 21 seconds from Win 7 (38 seconds) to Win 8 (17 seconds). That does not match my experience, even before I disabled Win 8's 'fast startup' to avoid its problems.

    The second, by contrast, claims that startup speed improved by only 9 seconds from Win 7 (27 seconds) to Win 8 (18 seconds). That's closer to what I've observed.

    The first reports a nearly 16.8% improvement in PCMark7 (and touts it highly WITHOUT noting an actual percentage in the text), while the second reports only a 9.2% improvement on exactly the same benchmark.

    The first touts the improved file-copy UI (kind of irrelevant in an article about performance, I'd say) before admitting that Win 8 "didn't show a speed improvement" (you have to go to the later table to discover that the measured Win 7 multiple-file copying performance was in fact nearly 16% better than Win 8's), then attempts to minimize the importance of this by quoting Microsoft's alleged explanation that Win 8 was slower because it was malware-scanning the data (which is pure BS on multiple counts: 1) unless MSE scans are abysmally slow they were not the gating factor, 2) Win 7 was almost certainly ALSO performing such scans, and 3) in any event no such speed difference was observed on a large single-file copy test, which likely WAS merely hardware-limited in contrast to the multiple-file-copy test where Win 8 was significantly slower).

    By contrast, the second found no significant differences in copy performance (possibly because USB was not involved?) - which actually makes Win 8 look better than the first link did if you discount the first link's attempts to draw the reader's attention away from the negative performance result it actually found (including its observation that a copy to a SECOND directory was 'nearly instant' in Win 8 - a physical impossibility unless Win 8 simply didn't bother to wait for the copy to complete before indicating that it had). This is simply another instance where the second link seems far more impartial - even though it is hardly critical of Win 8 (if anything, the reverse).

    The first closes with three browser tests that make Win 8 look really good, until you realize that 1) it's IE 10 on Win 8 competing with IE9 on Win 7 (granted, only an IE10 preview was available on Win 7 when the article was written) so you can't tell whether any real advantage exists now that IE10 IS available on Win 7 SP1 and 2) if you really care about browsing performance you'll likely not be using IE at all (the second link's testing shows that both Firefox and Chrome are significantly faster, as well as finds no major speed differences between them on Win 7 and Win 8 - and for that matter no significant speed difference between IE10 on Win 8 and IE9 on Win 7, suggesting that the first link may have cherry-picked its tests to demonstrate difference that may not be visible in the real world).

    In summation, I see nothing in these links that effectively refutes bb's quote from arstechnica above. I also see nothing that makes your initial comments invalid: I would simply encourage you to examine the links a second time with some of my observations above in mind.

  6. #6
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    NY state
    Posts
    229
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 23 Times in 22 Posts
    What I'd really to see in a speed test of the two is test the RTM of both on identical hardware. On Windows 7 add only MSE and disable gadget sidebar and aero. That would make the two as equal as possible since eliminating gadgets and areo was one thing MS did to helped improve windows 8 preformance. I really don't see the big deal about a faster boot time. How many times a day do most people bootup?
    Joe

  7. #7
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    4,746
    Thanks
    171
    Thanked 649 Times in 572 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ruirib View Post
    I just read a blog post that offered an unequivocal victory to Windows 8, in terms of performance. The advantage seems pretty clear, from the tests done, so I decided to post the links:
    Was the blog post also six months old? Why are we interested in benchmarks of beta software when we have the real thing?

    Bruce

  8. #8
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    12,519
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 1,221 Posts
    The blog post was from yesterday. There are no subterfuges here and I admit that I find it rather surprising that the articles are that old, since the blog post was from yesterday. As it was from yesterday, I didn't even check the article dates.

    My experience, as mentioned before, is that Windows 8 boot, with fast start disabled, and shutdown are faster in Windows 8 when compared with 7. My experience is also that overall, the different activities performed with the OS, such as app launching, internet browsing, are faster with Windows 8.
    I agree that the performance leap is not huge, but my impression is that there is a general performance improvement.

    The purpose of my post was simple - to provide more info to those who need to consider whether an upgrade to Windows 8 is worthy or not. Each user has its own reasons and values different factors when considering an upgrade. I am sure no one can be offended by presenting two articles from reputed technical sources about Windows 8 performance.

  9. #9
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,522
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 170 Times in 142 Posts
    The darn thing works really, really well... that's what counts & that what's good enough for me. All the 'tests' in the world but, how does it perform my tasks & demands on a consistent, everyday basis... and the answer is... famously, brilliantly, impressively, quickly, easily & smoothly. I expect a lot, have high expectations & it, @ least, satisfies, if not surpasses... ever regardless of increased loads & over time. Ergo, it passes the test of practically applied usage w/ flying colours. If 'tests' support this, well, then that's cool, too.

    And when I can run 3 full OS VMs simultaneously on a Win 8 Host machine and all 4 machines are nicely fast and w/ no noticeable loss in performance to the Host machine... well, there's a fairly good litmus test, in my books.

    Tests are very interesting, so is how they are interpreted. But, how I see this thing fly along for me that's proof enough @ the end of the day.

    I, still, feel, although not a 'perfect' lab set-up, when I was dual booting 7 & 8 w/ fairly similar stuff and certainly on the same hardware, that fact that 8 was better seemed quite blatantly clear & obvious, too.

    Cheers,
    Drew
    Win8Logo.jpg

  10. #10
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    12,519
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 1,398 Times in 1,221 Posts
    I will also easily concede that I had not realized the links were done to versions of Windows 8 prior to the RTM, until it was stated here. It's a bit weird that someone would post now (meaning yesterday), pointing out comparisons made with non RTM versions. I have explicitly questioned the blogger about it and I am waiting for a reply.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •