Gateway NV52 (AMD) - Futuremark
Since we were already installing the various operating systems and running battery life tests, we thought it might be interesting to run some of the Futuremark benchmarks (while waiting for the battery to recharge...). Windows XP can't run the latest Vantage versions of PCMark and 3DMark, but we included 3DMark03/05/06 and PCMark05. Here are the results.
The results in the 3DMark tests are very close, with the largest gap coming in 3DMark03. XP leads Vista by 3% in that test, which is hardly noticeable, and the results in the other 3DMark suites are within 1%. PCMark shows a much larger difference, with PCMark05 putting Vista in the lead by 7% over XP and 8% over Windows 7. We'll take a closer look at those results below, as the composite score is very deceiving. PCMark Vantage goes the other way, with Windows 7 beating Windows Vista by almost 20%. Let's look at the individual test results in both PCMark benchmarks to get a better idea of what's going on, beginning with PCMark05.
| Gateway NV52 PCMark05 Breakdown | |||
| XP SP3 | Vista SP2 | Win7 RTM | |
| PCMark05 Score | 3590 | 3875 | 3623 |
| HDD XP Startup (MB/s) | 6.664 | 5.948 | 6.168 |
| Physics and 3D (FPS) | 111.1 | 97.4 | 103.7 |
| 2D Transparency (Windows/s) | 214 | 2730 | 478 |
| 3D Pixel Shaders (FPS) | 55.02 | 54.81 | 52.86 |
| Web Page Rendering (Pages/s) | 2.450 | 1.644 | 1.962 |
| File Decryption (MB/s) | 35.91 | 34.02 | 36.05 |
| 2D 64 Line Redraw (FPS) | 331.8 | 362.7 | 392.1 |
| HDD General Usage (MB/s) | 4.233 | 4.038 | 3.941 |
| Multitasking 1 | 1000 | 930 | 948 |
| Audio Compression (KB/s) | 1936 | 1313 | 1163 |
| Video Encoding (KB/s) | 310.4 | 366.8 | 402.2 |
| Multitasking 2 | 1000 | 889 | 934 |
| Text Editing (Pages/s) | 113.0 | 88.4 | 100.7 |
| Image Decompression (MPixels/s) | 23.64 | 23.54 | 23.09 |
| Multitasking 3 | 1000 | 956 | 1047 |
| File Compression (MB/s) | 4.224 | 3.86 | 3.283 |
| File Encryption (MB/s) | 21.04 | 20.72 | 29.27 |
| HDD Virus Scan (MB/s) | 68.37 | 59.38 | 52.88 |
| Memory Latency (MAccesses/s) | 6.73 | 7.103 | 8.382 |
When you look at the composite score, Windows Vista looks very attractive in PCMark05. The individual results tell a completely different story! (Note that we calculated results for the multitasking tests relative to the XP score, which is why it scores 1000 on all three tests.) The high composite score of Vista is a result of the 2D Transparency test, where it is nearly 13 times as fast as XP and almost 6 times as fast as Windows 7. Exactly how important is 2D transparency? It probably helps in Vista when you're using Aero Glass, but it shouldn't matter much at all in Windows XP.
Obviously 2D transparency is a weak point of XP - or at least the XP drivers - so we went through and calculated the relative performance in the PCMark05 tests with and without 2D Transparency. We used the XP result as the baseline metric. Including 2D Transparency, Vista's average performance is 200% of XP and Windows 7 is 108%. Remove that one result and XP ends up being 8.6% faster than Vista and 3.5% faster than Windows 7. The composite PCMark score is weighted, and we don't have exact details on their formula. It's clear that 2D Transparency does not have the same weight as the other tests, but it's still enough to skew the results.
| Gateway NV52 PCMark Vantage Breakdown | ||
| Vista SP2 | Win7 RTM | |
| PCMark Vantage | 2566 | 3055 |
| Memory | 1467 | 1529 |
| TV and Movies | 1541 | 1835 |
| Gaming | 2121 | 2126 |
| Music | 2170 | 3347 |
| Communications | 2971 | 3652 |
| Productivity | 2499 | 2558 |
| HDD Test | 2445 | 2372 |
The results for the individual test suites in PCMark Vantage are a lot closer than the 2D Transparency result from PCMark05, and Windows 7 leads in most of the tests. Gaming performance is essentially a tie, Vista leads by 3% in the HDD test suite, but everything else favors Windows 7 - sometimes by a large margin. We don't know exactly why Windows 7 scores so much higher in the TV and Movies, Music, and Communications test suites. It could be that driver differences play a part, or it may be that Windows 7 is simply better optimized for some of these tests. We do know that most users think Windows 7 performs better than Windows Vista, and the PCMark Vantage results clearly support that impression.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
106 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link
Links please? I'm not a Linux guru by any stretch of the imagination, so if there's a "better" Linux option out there for testing I'm willing to give it a look. Ideally, I need something similar for the AMD platform.prince34 - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link
You could always look a UNR(Ubuntu Netbook Remix) as a netbook distro. It's what I use on mine. I've done some comparisons to XP on it, and it seems to follow the trends you are seeing, but not with as much disparity.http://www.ubuntu.com/GetUbuntu/download-netbook">http://www.ubuntu.com/GetUbuntu/download-netbook
smitty3268 - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link
I'm not sure Moblin is really a "mainstream" linux option at this point, it's more of an Intel "look at what we can do on netbooks" research project. It does supposedly have 5 second boot times. I suspect your tests here are almost completely dependent on the browser and Flash anyway, and the video drivers. All areas that Linux does not excel at - battery and performance testing of Linux + Apache or file serving would no doubt be much better.http://moblin.org/downloads">http://moblin.org/downloads, if you really want to try it.
smitty3268 - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link
Or the LiveCD version: http://moblin.org/documentation/test-drive-moblin">http://moblin.org/documentation/test-drive-moblinsmitty3268 - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link
Firefox for Linux is well known to be terribly slow and unoptimized compared to the Windows version. It would be interesting to see the battery results from running the Windows version through WINE on Ubuntu, just to see how that compares - I know it blows the Linux native version away as far as javascript performance is concerned, and I'm sure Flash is the same. You could also try Chrome, since I've heard it works quite fast, even though it's still in beta.Chlorus - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link
But how could that happen? I thought Linux was the most awesome OS ever? All the people on slashdot said so! Are you saying they lied? M$ SHILL!!!smitty3268 - Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - link
If you read what I was saying, it doesn't have anything to do with linux, it's a Firefox problem. They've got performance bug reports that say, "fixed, for windows. we could do this for linux but not worth the effort." They don't even enable profiled compilation, which is good for a 10-15% boost on windows.smitty3268 - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link
Also, Ubuntu 9.04 (and other distros released last spring) had a terrible, terrible regression with Intel video driver performance. I'm not sure how much that really affects battery life, but it definitely could. Something to keep in mind, anyway, as you compare the differences between the two laptops.andrewaggb - Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - link
It's true about the intel driver, but let's be honest, if it wasn't the graphics driver it'd be pulse audio, or using 64 bit instead of 32 bit firefox, ext4 whatever... Seems linux get's alot of excuses for it's problems.I'm pretty tired of ubuntu and fedora. Releasing half-finished, barely tested, OS's to the masses is not doing linux a favour, but as the answer to everything is it's fixed in svn... you're kinda stuck.
JarredWalton - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link
I followed a guide on fixing Intel GPU performance in Ubuntu... I don't know if it really worked or not, but here's the reference:http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1130582">Jaunty with Intel Performance Guide. I stayed with the default kernel and the "Safe" configuration, which may be partly to blame for suboptimal results. Then again, the ATI platform fared worse under Jaunty.