Interesting article

gizbug

Platinum Member
May 14, 2001
2,621
0
76
Enjoy:

http://www.tweaktown.com/artic...performance/index.html


Final Thoughts

So, from our testing here today, what conclusion do we come out with at the end of the day?

Vista Service Pack 2 RC managed to steal some surprising gaming wins away from Vista SP1 - some by a fairly large margin. SP2 RC managed to offer much better performance under the PT Boats benchmark by up to almost 33% in the average FPS. And under Crysis Warhead the minimum frame rate was vastly improved, moving from four FPS in SP1 to ten FPS in SP2.

That unfortunately is about as good as it gets, though, for SP2 - in some of the other tests, both ended up with very even results, but most of the time SP1 came out first on the podium.

As for hard disk drive performance on the Intel ICH9R controller chip, performance was rather poor under SP2. We are not sure at this stage if it is due to the service pack or a poor driver, but clearly something needs to be done. It affected read performance greatly, especially in the minimum read speed where SP2 dropped right down to around 48MB/s whereas SP1 stayed strong at about 136MB/s.

This impact on HDD performance also had a negative effect on loading times with SP2 taking a full 8.5 seconds longer to fully load into the Windows desktop. Likewise, game level loading was also affected with SP2 taking six seconds longer to load into a Far Cry 2 benchmark demo.

Unless you require some of the new features in SP2 or like the idea of having all the latest bug fixes and security updates, we wouldn't recommend upgrading to SP2 at this point in time. New drivers from the likes of Intel, AMD (ATI) and NVIDIA may help boost numbers, but at this stage of the game and if performance is what matters to you, stick with SP1.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
Originally posted by: gizbug
As for hard disk drive performance on the Intel ICH9R controller chip, performance was rather poor under SP2. We are not sure at this stage if it is due to the service pack or a poor driver, but clearly something needs to be done. It affected read performance greatly, especially in the minimum read speed where SP2 dropped right down to around 48MB/s whereas SP1 stayed strong at about 136MB/s.
That's horrid! I hope that they fix that before release.

 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
240
106
This article is pretty much in synch with the test results here:

SP2RC
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
Since Windows 7 is based on Vista SP2, does that mean that it suffers from the same low disk speed bug?

The reason that I ask this is, a friend has a newly built-system: UD3P, E5200 (stock 2.5Ghz), 2x2GB DDR2-800, and a WD 6400AAKS HD (a relatively speedy HD).
He has a single partition, with 6% of his HD used, with Windows 7 32-bit beta 1.

Running Malwarebytes and doing a full scan takes 2 hours!

On an older machine, with a P3 1Ghz, 512MB RAM, and an older 80GB WD IDE HD, with XP SP3, running a full scan with Malwarebytes takes 40 minutes. This is roughly consistant with other machines that I've run a full scan on using Malwarebytes, with XP as the OS.


Why is the faster machine taking over twice as long to perform a scan? There are more programs installed on the slower XP machine.

I suspect that it's Windows 7.

 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Since Windows 7 is based on Vista SP2, does that mean that it suffers from the same low disk speed bug?

The reason that I ask this is, a friend has a newly built-system: UD3P, E5200 (stock 2.5Ghz), 2x2GB DDR2-800, and a WD 6400AAKS HD (a relatively speedy HD).
He has a single partition, with 6% of his HD used, with Windows 7 32-bit beta 1.

Running Malwarebytes and doing a full scan takes 2 hours!

On an older machine, with a P3 1Ghz, 512MB RAM, and an older 80GB WD IDE HD, with XP SP3, running a full scan with Malwarebytes takes 40 minutes. This is roughly consistant with other machines that I've run a full scan on using Malwarebytes, with XP as the OS.


Why is the faster machine taking over twice as long to perform a scan? There are more programs installed on the slower XP machine.

I suspect that it's Windows 7.

Could be that the base install on 7 is 17GB.

Download HDtach and post us a screenshot of what your C: drive looks like after running the bench in HDtach.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
I had him download HDtach and HDtune. He says that HDTune shows him transfer rates of 115MB/sec,down to 80-something.
WD6400AAKS