32Bit OS Shoot-Out: Windows Xp vs Vista vs 7


A few months ago I did a piece with a title similar to this one HERE, and what I did was take XP, Vista and 7 and compare them to each other. A lot of you whined though that I was comparing 32bit operating systems to 64bit operating systems and you told me that my testing was wrong for that reason. I don’t think it was wrong, I stand by it, Vista and Win7 64bit operating systems are much more widely accepted and supported than WinXp 64-bit ever was. It’s a dead OS, it was an attempt by Microsoft to get into the 64bit arena but the support from manufacturers just wasn’t there and still isn’t really. I’m guilty of jumping on the 64bit bandwagon myself, I bought WinXp x64 as soon as it came out because I thought it was going to be something good, but I was wrong just like all of you out there were that adopted it right along with me. I wanted to use it as my main OS, but after several months I had to give up and just switch back to the 32bit flavor of XP because there were no drivers for it and half of my stuff didn’t work. I ran the 32bit and the 64bit versions of XP on separate hard drives and switched between them, but I found I was spending more time with Xp32 than I was with XpP64 because of the lack of support. I think it was almost a full year actually before I finally gave up and just formatted the hard drive that had Xp64 on it.

I’m not doing this because I mixed operating systems originally, I’m doing it because I’m curious and I feel it needs done again. Windows 7 has been out long enough now that quite a few bugs or kinks have been worked out and things should be running nice and smooth now.

So here I am a few months later back with what you could call part 2 of this comparison article. This one is truly all 32bit operating systems, yes I spent many hours installing and testing these operating systems to get a better idea of which really is the better choice. I used the exact same hard drive for each operating system to make sure it was truly comparable, fresh installs each time and of course it’s the exact same hardware for each as well. I’ve actually expanded the testing a bit to include networking, video encoding, and gaming and even how they handle things like USB drives or removable storage. This is probably the most comprehensive comparison out there today in terms of what was tested and all of the tests that were run on these operating systems, so I hope you learn something from it…

To begin with let me tell you my system specs, it’s humble system but it works well for me, it’s actually my HTPC and Gaming system in one that I have hooked up via HDMI to my HDTV. Normally it has Windows 7 x64 on it.

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-P35C-DS3R

CPU: Intel C2Q9650

Ram: 4gig Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600Mhz

Video Card: Calibre X260 GTX260 896MB

Sound Card: bGears b-Enspirer PCI sound card

Hard Drive: Maxtor DiamondMax10 200gig SATA (NTFS Formatted)

I’ve got several tests for you, or benchmarks if you will from different sources.

We’re going to start with a full system test called CrystalMark.

CrystalMark 2004R3 is a 32bit total benchmark software


Well we’re off to the start that Windows Xp looks pretty good right? Well here’s the breakdown of the test:

crystalmark-XP crystalmark-Vista crystalmark-Win7

If you look closer at these results you’ll see that they vary quite a bit between the operating systems in certain areas, specifically graphics related tests. Yes the overall score looks like WinXp is better, but I’m not too sure…


The next test is Cinebench

MAXON CINEBENCH runs several tests on your computer to measure the performance of the main processor and the graphics card under real-world circumstances

The test procedure consists of two main components: The first test sequence is dedicated to the computer’s main processor. A 3D scene file is used to render a photorealistic image. The scene makes use of various CPU-intensive features such as reflection, ambient occlusion, area lights and procedural shaders. During the first run the benchmark only uses one CPU (or CPU core) to ascertain a reference value. On computers that have multiple CPUs or CPU cores and on those that simulate multiple CPUs (via HyperThreading or similar technologies), MAXON CINEBENCH will run a second test using all available CPU power.


The second test measures graphics card performance and is run inside the 3D editor window. The project file used can test all graphics cards that support the OpenGL standard. In this scene, only the camera was animated. This scene places medium to low demands on graphics cards and tests the maximum speed with which the scene can be properly displayed.


OpenGl is the only place where Windows Xp scores higher than the others, but the other scores are close.

Here’s screen shots of the tests:

cinebench-XP cinebench-Vista cinebench-Win7


The next test would be 3Dmark06. I think everyone knows this test, so it need no explanation.


Vista actually does the best here, amazing huh?


Next up is another game related test, I grabbed a game off my shelf and it happened to be FarCry2, so that’s what I went with.

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1920×1080 (60Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(2x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(High), Vegetation(High), Shading(High), Terrain(High), Geometry(Medium), Post FX(High), Texture(High), Shadow(Medium), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)


Windows XP appears to be better, but all of the frame rates are good so you wouldn’t have a problem playing it on any of these operating systems.


I’ve got one final graphics related test for you from SiSoft Sandra 2010 Portable Edition called the GPGPU Processing Benchmark.

Benchmark the graphics performance of the graphics processors (GPGPUs).

The test involves the generation of Mandelbrot Set fractals that are used to realistically describe and generate natural objects such as mountains or clouds. Such instructions are used for audio and video encoding and decoding, games and other applications where the same operation needs to be applied to large amount of data.

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

GPGPU Processing

Vista appears to be a bit better here, both are better than Xp though…


The next test involves video encoding. x264 HD BENCHMARK 3.0

Simply put, it is a reproducible measure of fast your machine can encode a short HD-quality video clip into a high quality x264 video file. It’s nice because everyone running it will use the same video clip and software. The video encoder (x264.exe) reports a fairly accurate internal benchmark (in frames per second) for each pass of the video encode and it also uses multi-core processors very efficiently. All these factors make this an ideal benchmark to compare different processors and systems to each other.

No pretty graphs here, just data.

Windows XP:

Results for x264.exe r1342


encoded 1442 frames, 64.63 fps, 3900.43 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 64.81 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 64.85 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 62.27 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.74 fps, 3970.49 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.78 fps, 3971.48 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.76 fps, 3971.58 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.74 fps, 3971.44 kb/s

Windows Vista:

Results for x264.exe r1342


encoded 1442 frames, 62.72 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 64.02 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 63.54 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 63.52 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.21 fps, 3971.27 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.19 fps, 3971.84 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.15 fps, 3971.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.14 fps, 3970.51 kb/s

Windows 7:

Results for x264.exe r1342


encoded 1442 frames, 65.80 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 65.84 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 66.28 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 66.04 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.23 fps, 3971.31 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.22 fps, 3970.51 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.21 fps, 3970.88 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.20 fps, 3972.06 kb/s

I’d have to say that they’re all pretty evenly matched overall here in this test.


(All of the remaining tests are done with SiSoft Sandra 2010 Portable Edition)


Next up let’s check out how the operating systems handle storage related tasks.

The first test I have is the Physical Disks Test:

Benchmark hard disks (i.e. the disk itself, not the file system).

Drive Index: is a composite figure representing an overall performance rating based on the highest read or write speed across the whole disk. Thus the higher the better.

Access Time: is the average time to read a random sector on the disk, analogous to latency response time. Thus the lower the better.

Physical Disks

Windows XP apparently handles the hard disk better than the others, but not by much for either one really. We’re talking a few MB/s and then milliseconds access time, would you be able to tell the difference?


Next up I have the File Systems Test.

Benchmark mounted file systems (i.e. volumes)

This is not the raw disk performance that other benchmarks test – but the speed of the volume itself that depends on many more factors like file system, operating system cache, position on disk, etc. Thus this is the performance you get at the file system level.

Drive Index:
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Random Access Time :
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

file systems

Hmm.. Windows 7 looks to be much better at keeping the house clean and things sorted neatly.


The final storage related test is the Removable Storage Benchmark using a Kingston DataTraveler150 64gig USB Drive.

Benchmark removable and flash devices.

Combined Device Index: is a composite figure representing an overall performance rating based on the average of the Combined Index figures over the four file sizes. (Higher is better, i.e. better performance)

Endurance Factor: is a figure representing the Wear and Life Expectancy of flash devices; this is obtained by dividing the average performance (normal condition, i.e. sequential write) to the lowest performance (high-stress condition, i.e. same block re-write).

It measures the relative improvement of endurance caused by the wear levelling or flash management algorithm; the absolute endurance of a device (i.e. its expected life-time) is directly dependent, in addition to this Endurance Factor, on the nominal manufacturer rating of maximum erase/reprogram cycles, which is typically 100,000+ for SLC and 10,000+ for MLC devices. (Higher is better, i.e. longer life-time for the device)

Removable Storage

Windows 7 takes this one easily, with XP and Vista coming fairly close to each other in terms of performance.


The next test is a network test, now I tossed this one in because I was curious as to how each operating system handles the networking functions. It’s called Internet Peerage.

Benchmark the peerage of the Internet connection. Shows how well your Internet connection and ISP are peered compared to other typical Internet connections and ISPs. By peered we mean how well (speed and latency) your ISP is connected to other ISPs and major Internet backbones.

The test measures the bandwidth and latency from your computer to major sites on the Internet.

Data Bandwidth :
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Data Latency :
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Internet Peerage

Very different results here aren’t there. While the latency of Xp is low, the speed is slow as well… not sure which I’d rather have, no I am, I’d rather have the speed.


The last few tests I have are Memory and CPU related ones.


The Cache and Memory Benchmark is next:

Benchmark the processors’ caches and memory access (transfer speed).

Cache/Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.

Speed Factor (MB/s) – lower results are better, i.e. less difference between processor cache speed and memory speed.

Cache and Memory

Windows 7 appears to the better choice I think.


Next is Processor Arithmetic.

Benchmarks the ALU and FPU processor units

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

CPU Arith

Windows 7 takes it again I see.. but not by much really.


The next test is the Processor Multi-Media Test.

Benchmark the (W)MMX(2), SSE(2/3/4), AVX processor units

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

CPU Multimedia

Here again we see Windows 7 takes the lead. Still though it’s not that much better over Vista, but quite a bit over XP.


The next test I have for you is the Memory Bandwidth Test.

Benchmark the memory bandwidth of your computer

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Memory Bandwidth

Hmm, Vista takes it this time, with Win7 coming in a close second and Xp falling a bit behind the other two…


Ok, this is it, the last test for you, it’s the Memory Latency Test.

Benchmark the latency (response time) of processors’ caches and memory

Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

memory latency

Windows 7 takes it again with Vista coming in a very close second and XP falling quite a bit behind in the latency department…



In conclusion, well you can draw your own conclusions, but for my main computers I use VistaX64 and Win7X64, none of my main computers have Windows XP installed on them anymore. My netbooks do have XP on them, only because I haven’t got around to changing them over yet, but it will be done soon. That’s my opinion, Vista and Win7 are superior over WinXp, we need to just let it die already and be done with it..

..I’m sure though a lot of you will have something else to say about that, so have at it in the comments please.

Let me know what you think, and which OS are you using?

Do you even use Windows XP anymore?  Should we just kill it finally and get it over with?

What do you think of Windows 7?

A small edit to this. Let’s tally up the scores, or which OS “won” each test. Yes I know some of them are so close it’s not going to make much of a difference at all, in might be  ‘win’ at the system level but you’ll never notice the differences really in the real world.

For fun though let’s assign 1 point for each time the OS won a test.

Vista: 111  = 3 Points

Windows Xp: 111 = 3 points

Windows 7:   111111111 = 9 points

So there you have it, Windows 7 is the winner overall by far…

  24 comments for “32Bit OS Shoot-Out: Windows Xp vs Vista vs 7

  1. south side sammy
    February 4, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Something I asked on another site and only got 1 unclear response before it was hijacked……… 32/64bit Vista…. 32/64bit XP….. online gaming. Everything being equal……. why is there a certain amount of disconnect or sloppiness ( not lagg ) between 32bit opsys and 64bit opsys ? On the same server(s) on either 32bit xp/vista I can compete with the other players. On the same server(s) running 64bit xp/vista I get a certain amount of “lagg”, maybe a second or so and my game play seems more sluggish compared to 32bit…….. this is with different game engines and a wide variety of old and new games. What kind of answer can you give me ?

  2. February 4, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Hi Sammy… I wish I could help you but I don’t really have time for online gaming anymore, but when I do I use Win7x64 and I’ve never noticed any lag… might be your connection.. maybe someone else could answer it

  3. xindows
    February 4, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Windows XP is faster across the table in gaming, which is all that really matters. Windows 7 may catch up to Vista, but the fact that Windows Vista is faster in SO many more important areas, it make me want to reinstall Vista.

    Screw Win7. It’s XP and Vista for me.

  4. mrzen
    February 4, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    Two words “Application Compatiblility”.. There are older games that are difficult to get working in a Vista or Win7 environment. Hell, some dont even work at all. For the time being, I will be keeping XP as a dual boot OS for my older software 🙂

  5. Kosta
    February 4, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    I agree with mrzen. I dual boot WinXP and Win7 but i mainly use W7 now and jump to WinXP from time to time to play one of the (hundreds) of old games… so WinXP looks like is going to live even as secondary on my system for a loooong time yet. 🙂

  6. February 5, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    I own XP Pro X32 bit and Vista Premium X64. I was a beta tester for Windows 7 and was not impressed. When Microsoft e-mailed for my response about Windows 7 I told them that they had jumped the gun when they put Vista on the market. Windows 7 is what Vista should have been (it’s all about the money). I believe that Windows XP is going to be around for a long time even though they keep telling us that XP is on the way to it’s grave. I truely believe that Windows XP is as close to the PERFECT (genius) operating system as is currently possible. Everything else has been just a spruced up copy.

  7. Robert
    February 5, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Another worthless comparison based on speed alone. Why not throw Linux in there too if all you want to compare is speed, and not application/driver/hardware compatibility?

  8. Silent Observer
    February 6, 2010 at 5:21 am

    I have used every Windows operating system since DOS 2.0, and I agree, XP is the most “stable” operating system created to date, but it just can’t keep up with today’s technological advances. With the new hardware being created monthly, from all of the various high end manufacturers, the demand for quality and performance is off the charts. People want realistic looking gaming graphics, processors so fast that, everything is instantaneous, and more, and they want it now. XP just can’t do it. Windows 7 and Vista both are the future (for now) in so far as Windows is concerned, and now it’s time for the manufacturing industries to put it to the test, and when they do, Windows will be right there like they were with XP for years patching it up and making it better, faster, more secure, and reliable. I currently am using a 3 year old laptop running Win 7 Pro 64 Bit, 4 Gig’s Kingston DDR2 Ram (667MHz), and a NVIDIA Geforce Go 6150 128MB (shared). Compared to when I had XP (32 bit) on here, Win 7 takes the cake, without a slight bit of comparison. This machine screams compared to when I was running XP. Not once have I had a problem with this machine since installing Win 7 (Upgraded to Win 7 Pro 32 bit at first then switched to 64 bit a couple months later). Every aspect of this machine is better. It’s like running a brand new computer compared to today’s everyday use models (except for the graphics in so far as gaming). I hook this thing up to my TV and watch HD movies on my HDTV via a (RGB 15 pin) UXGA cable at 1920×1080, without a problem, no hesitation, skipping, no nothing. Only graphics problems I have is when trying to run a high end game like Modern Warfare, because my card doesn’t have today’s pixel shader technology that those games were created on. Other than that, from hard drive access, usage and transfers, RAM usage, cache and processor utilization, plus a lot more, XP can’t touch Windows 7. In time Win 7 will dominate all testing benchmarks. People are too soon to judge Windows 7 because they got comfortable with what they had (XP in all flavors), because it was simple enough, and it worked. Now it’s time to take it out of the spotlight and retire it just like they did with every version of Windows that precedes it. People are resistant to change, which is our nature, but given time, we will all change. Just think back to every time there was an new OS brought out, and the SAME EXACT thing is happening now all over again. I love Win 7 64 Bit, and I embrace the time when all the manufacturers, switch to it, because it IS the next step into the future, which will only bring about even greater things, when everyone learns to except it. I understand that there are dangers involved in that aspect as well but there can be no good without evil. XP is dying and Win 7 is the new baby. We need to help nourish it, and bring it along, just like we did with XP.

    (I never really mention Vista because I too was resistant to change and I didn’t like the UAC (disabled or not) and the new rearranging of everything, on top of the user interface that came with it, because I was so hooked on XP Pro and it’s easy manipulation, including the ease of use of it’s user interface, but over time I got used to the idea, so when Win 7 came out with Beta, I jumped all over it, and I’m glad I did.)

  9. February 6, 2010 at 1:16 pm


    I was just about to comment here that your test is pretty much manipulated and tests taken care of so that Win7 “looks” nicer. In fact W7 owns Vista & Xp in just two tests (so that the difference is big enough to make difference) whereas XP does it on 3 tests. So I think that Xp “won” this unfair match.

    Please when you try to manipulate your readers, try to do it more gently and don’t let your attitude scream the result before you. Really, this is like saying that if we’re combining X (89) and P (81) as ASCII together, it’s bigger than number 7 so Windows 7 must be better.

    I’m dissapointed. And I’m pretty sure that this comment will be modified or deleted totally. Thanks to admin 😉

    • Supermariobrosmailee
      June 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm

       …and then two years later your comment remains.

  10. Mats Svensson
    February 6, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Im sticking with xp, at least for a while more.
    The devil you know…etc.

    I have tried migrating to vista several times over the years, but always had to go back.
    I just couldn’t stand the ass-ugly, glacier slow, user hostile, pos, UI that they bolted to vista.
    It really made feel like tearing my eyes out every time i used it.

    From what i have seen the GUI on 7 looks pretty much the same, and when i read the list of “improvements” i cant find that a single one of the many things i hate most about windows have been fixed.

    For one thing, i can hardly believe its 2010 and we still have to “install” programs by letting them puke files all over the OS so they cant easily be moved or removed.
    Its like the whole thing is designed by monkeys.

    If they cant even fix basic crap like that why bother “upgrading”?

  11. February 7, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    FUD: Look I didn’t delete or modify your comment, but NOW YOU need to tell me HOW exactly I Manipulated the tests?!?!?!

  12. XPS user
    February 10, 2010 at 6:33 am

    I have a Dell XPS that had Vista… BSOD>BSOD>BSOD Grrrrr.
    So I install Lunix, to save my files… NICE, used but then slowed down on my usage..
    So I then install Win7… WOOHOO nice!… noticed speed improvement, seemed more automated. i liked
    I dual booted to Lunix for browsing, then dam crash.
    So I decided to try a version of XP……………………….
    My webcam streams fatest, all software working, customizes easier, can be made to look identical to Win7,
    haha, bla bla, yea i dont need nobody to tell me which just works, works better, easier, and is up to the task without the BS.
    XP FTW
    Oh and by the way, I tried dam Mac laptop for a day and was pulling my hairs out at how dam UN_user friendly it was for copy pasting,(dinosour button mashing C&V butons) no right-clicking, unmounting external drives, clutter F*k of bottom jumping icons…
    Only good thing was battery and low heat. Lunix kicks it ass in User Interface :p
    All this trama i had to go thru because of DAM M$ BSOD, BSOD I Hate u M$! & Luv your disowned XP!

  13. ringo
    May 6, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    was rtm versions of xp and vista used in the benchmarks or xp_sp3 and vista_sp2?

    also any links to other good comparisons would be appreciated…

  14. ringo
    May 6, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    was rtm versions of xp and vista used in the benchmarks or xp_sp3 and vista_sp2?

    also any links to other good comparisons would be appreciated..

  15. Bill
    August 16, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Thanks for the article, probably saved me $200 bucks on a new OS on a used computer.

  16. wista.comlol
    August 17, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    i use windows vista 32 bit lol

  17. aasldkjh
    August 19, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    XP Pro
    Nothing more.

  18. August 21, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    Would be interesting to see how XP32 XP64 Windows7 32 and Windows7 64 compare on a average not highend $1000+ machine. Maybe a simple Athlon 64 x2 5000+ with 2 to 3 gig and a 500gig drive and average video card. Who goes and spends thousands every year just to play games?

    • AMD-user
      February 22, 2011 at 10:15 pm

      that matches my specs
      I have OS X, XP, Vista 32, Win 7 (64)
      Mine runs games without a problem

  19. bky
    August 24, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Xp is better
    speeds greater
    It can be easily customized, Win7 cant be if you dont run aero. My intel card does not support areo.
    And for xp there are softwares which can give the aero look and whoa my graphics chip can handle it.
    Still today many buisness firms use xp
    If it was that slow why do they use it.

  20. October 25, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    The difference is too little to justify a switch from XP to 7. Too much hassle. I do not think that you will feel a difference when using the PC. What can make a difference you can feel is to switch off the swapfile:
    When you set up a 32-bit version or a 64-bit version of Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP, a page file is created that is one and a half times the amount of RAM that is installed in the computer provided there is sufficient free space on the system hard disk. However, as more RAM is added to a computer, the need for a page file decreases. If you have enough RAM installed in your computer, you may not require a page file at all, unless one is required by a specific application.

  21. Iosauivfh
    December 31, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    XP FTW
    WIN 3.1 FTW
    WIN 98 SE FTW
    DOS 5.0 FTW

    WIN VISTA/7/ME/95 sucks

  22. November 23, 2012 at 3:16 am

    xp is better don’t fool people with your crap plz 😀

Comments are closed.