Windows Vista performance: What to expect

Five years and 50 million new lines of code after Windows XP made its debut, Microsoft released its successor. Windows Vista is available in no less than six editions, each of which boasts a different set of bells and whistles. Regardless of the graphics, entertainment, and security features packed into each edition, the same engine drives them all. Microsoft makes modest recommendations on what mix of hardware is needed to make that engine run. CNET is of a different mind, however, about what you need to smoothly run Vista; we recommend a more robust rig than what Microsoft suggests.

Before you upgrade your current computer to Vista or replace it with a new Vista-based system, we think it's helpful to know how your upgraded or new machine will compare to your current XP-based model in terms of performance. CNET Labs tested two laptops with XP and Vista to see how performance differs between the two operating systems. We chose the midrange Asus W7J and the high-end Dell XPS M1710 for our tests. For both systems, we first ran all of our tests with Windows XP installed and current drivers. We then upgraded the laptops to Windows Vista Ultimate, installing Vista on top of XP, thereby keeping all of the applications and data files intact. Lastly, we then reinstalled Vista Ultimate, this time formatting the systems' hard drives and doing a "clean install" of the operating system.

A word about drivers
Even though Vista has been in the works for the last five years or so, not all Vista drivers are ready for prime time. So when looking over our benchmark results, you'll need to do so with a grain of salt. Our testing was done in the weeks immediately following Vista's large-scale public release. It's entirely possible--even probable--that, as better driver updates become available over time, Vista performance will improve.

We took two approaches in regards to drivers for our testing. For the midrange Asus laptop, we tested using the drivers that installed automatically from the Vista install disc and via Windows Update--with the sole exception of installing the Vista beta graphics driver downloaded from Nvidia's Web site. This approach gave us a snapshot of how robust the default drivers are. (We manually installed the beta graphics driver because we wouldn't have been able to run our 3D test with the default driver.) For the high-end Dell laptop, we updated the Vista drivers with all those available for the particular model from Dell's Web site. This scenario allowed us to examine the best possible performance with the most recent drivers.

Immediately following the installation of Vista on the high-end Dell, Vista reported a Windows Experience Index of 1.0, and it lacked Aero Glass support. After updating all of the Dell's drivers, however, the Windows Experience Index jumped up to 4.7, and Aero Glass support was enabled.

Microsoft asserts that you should experience faster boot times and quicker resumes from standby when running Vista. Our testing showed noticeably faster boot and resume times with the clean install of Vista on the Asus, compared with its XP performance. The Dell, on the other hand, saw longer boot times and no noticeable improvement in its resume times on Vista.

Asus W7J Cold-boot and resume times (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)

Windows XP Professional

Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade

Windows Vista Ultimate new install

Out-of-standby time

8 

9 

5 

Cold-boot time

104 

95 

41 

Dell XPS M1710 cold-boot and resume times (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)

Windows XP Professional

Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade

Windows Vista Ultimate new install

Out-of-standby time

5 

5 

4 

Cold-boot time

32 

42 

36 

Battery life
We noticed a significant drop in battery life when we moved from XP to Vista on our DVD battery drain tests. The biggest difference was on the Asus where battery life with the Vista upgrade was almost 40 minutes less than with XP. The gap was a more modest 15 minutes when comparing XP with the clean install of Vista. We saw a small drop in battery life on the Dell going from XP to Vista, but no significant difference between the clean install of Vista and the upgrade. The shorter battery life with Vista is most likely a byproduct of its more intense Aero Glass graphics engine.

Asus W7J DVD battery drain (in minutes)
(Longer bars indicate better performance)

Windows XP Professional

Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade

Windows Vista Ultimate new install

DVD battery drain

118 

79 

103 

Dell XPS M1710 DVD battery drain (in minutes)
(Longer bars indicate better performance)

Windows XP Professional

Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade

Windows Vista Ultimate new install

DVD battery drain

141 

124 

126 

Gaming
Gaming performance also took a noticeable hit with Vista on our laptops when compared with XP. Mind you, scoring 67.5 frames per second on Quake 4 at a resolution of 1,600x1,200 on a laptop--as the Dell did--is still respectable. But this was still 13.3fps slower than on the same laptop with XP. With a lower-end graphics engine in the Asus, the Asus' frame rate at 1,024x768 on Vista plummeted to 13.2fps, less than half of the 38.5fps the system achieved with XP. That's the difference between a game that you can actually play and one that you can't, at least not enjoyably. For both laptops, we saw the same level of gaming performance with the clean install of Vista as we did with the Vista upgrade.

Asus W7J 'Quake4' test (in fps)
(Longer bars indicate better performance)

Windows XP Professional

Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade

Windows Vista Ultimate new install

1,024x768

38.5 

13.4 

13.2 

Dell XPS M1710 'Quake 4' test (in fps)
(Longer bars indicate better performance)

Windows XP Professional

Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade

Windows Vista Ultimate new install

1,600x1,200

80.8 

67.5 

67.6 

1,280x1,024

94.2 

78.4 

79.1 

1,024x768

98.2 

84.1 

84.8 

Application performance
While our sample-size of only two laptops shouldn't be used to make definitive conclusions about the performance of Vista, the results from our mainstream application testing provide some telling possibilities. For starters, both laptops' Apple iTunes encoding and Multimedia multitasking performance tests results didn't change significantly going from XP to a clean install of Vista. (Even more of a curiosity, Apple reports that the versions of iTunes and QuickTime--both of which are part of our Multitasking multimedia test--we tested with are not officially Vista-compatible. They worked fine for us, however.) The Dell's XP performance on the Photoshop CS2 image-processing test was only marginally faster than its Vista performance. Under the right circumstances, it appears that it is possible to get the same application performance--or close to it--on Vista that you get on XP.

The midrange Asus' Vista upgrade results tell a slightly different story. The Asus' Vista clean-install performance on all four application tests consistently outperformed the Asus's Vista upgrade performance. So does this mean that you'll see better application performance if you do a clean install of Vista instead of upgrading to Vista? Not necessarily. With the exception of the Multimedia multitasking test results, the Dell's Vista upgrade results were statistically identical to that of its Vista clean-install results. The Dell used the latest available Vista drivers, while the Asus used almost all generic drivers. The difference in the Asus' Vista upgrade versus Vista clean-install performance could be primarily a function of the drivers. It's possible that during the Vista upgrade, not all of the Asus' XP drivers were updated to their Vista versions; when Vista was installed cleanly on the Asus, there were no legacy XP drivers to potentially muck things up.

Asus W7J application tests (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)

Windows XP Professional

Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade

Windows Vista Ultimate new install

Apple iTunes encoding test

243 

298 

249 

Adobe Photoshop CS2 image-processing test

379 

495 

444 

Microsoft Office productivity test

776 

1379 

1281 

Multimedia multitasking test

1346 

1965 

1314 

Dell XPS M1710 application tests (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)

Windows XP Professional

Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade

Windows Vista Ultimate new install

Apple iTunes encoding test

177 

179 

178 

Adobe Photoshop CS2 image-processing test

225 

242 

243 

Microsoft Office productivity test

863 

1597 

1585 

Multimedia multitasking test

870 

856 

937 

Taking the plunge
Should you upgrade to Vista? Should you do a clean install or is it OK to upgrade to Vista so you won't have to reinstall all of your programs? These are good questions that don't have easy answers. Before you consider upgrading your current system to Vista, make sure that it can run Vista satisfactorily (visit the CNET Vista Upgrade Advisor to find out). Then you should make sure that all your important programs--those you use regularly--are compatible with Vista or have Vista update patches available, or you should be willing to take the risk that they might not behave properly on Vista. All of the programs installed on our test systems continued to function properly after we upgraded from XP to Vista--even those that weren't officially branded as Vista-compatible. Make sure that there are Vista drivers available for your computer or at least for all the major subsystems of your computer, such as the motherboard chipset and the graphics engine. You'll be less than thrilled if you upgrade your system only to discover that there aren't Vista drivers available for your sound card. Look before you leap.

If you are considering giving your system a Vista transplant so soon after Vista's public release, then you are what is commonly referred to as an early adopter. The same could be said for someone who's just looking to purchase a new system with Vista. Given that most manufacturers are selling systems with Vista installed on them as their standard configuration, you might become an early adopter even if you don't want to. For now, battery life and gaming performance are definitely areas where you'd likely sacrifice performance for the pleasure of running Vista. With the right programs and drivers in place, however, the potential for comparable mainstream application performance is at least already here today. The rest will hopefully come with driver updates.

Find out more about how we test Windows laptops.

System configurations:

Asus W7J
1.66 Intel Core 2 Duo T5500; 1,024MB DDR2 SDRAM 528MHz; 512MB Nvidia GeForce Go 7400; 100GB Fujitsu 5,400rpm SATA/150

Dell XPS M1710
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T7600; 2,048MB DDR2 SDRAM 666MHz; 512MB Nvidia GeForce Go 7950 GTX; 100GB Hitachi 7,200rpm SATA/150

Windows Vista Ultimate Windows Vista Business

Windows Vista Home Premium Microsoft Vista Home Basic