Vista performance comparisons

[NiX]

Couple of comparison reviews :

We believe that a lot of these performance problems are related to the earliness of the drivers. Over time, we feel that Vista performance will at least get close to the performance obtainable inside Windows XP - the completely new driver platform is more than likely the route of most of the apparent shortfalls.

bit-tech

Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications).

Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors.

Tom's Hardware Guide

My power consumption testing proves what I had been theorizing for some time about the introduction of the new Aero Glass user interface; idle power consumption has gone up slightly across the board. Since the new Aero Glass UI uses the DX9 technology to draw everything you see on the screen, the GPU is a lot less "idle" than it was before. Still, a modest 5-7 watts isn't much to worry about.

The load power consumption hasn't changed from XP to the Vista, and that also makes sense as the Aero interface isn't running during full screen gaming.

PC Perspective

[monkey56657]

My vista performance is not too far below that of the same machine running xp. A designed for vista pc should be about right..but not perfect like xp.