Does win vista use more power than win xp?

Ecological issues around computing. This is an experimental forum.

Moderators: Ralf Hutter, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
drjunk
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:46 am
Location: Scotland

Does win vista use more power than win xp?

Post by drjunk » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:13 am

I was wondering about vista's power consumption. Does it use more power than xp?.....even after disabling aero?

If it does use more power, then does this mean that vista users are getting less performance per watt?
Viewsonic VP930 Lcd, Thermaltake (Black) Armor Case, A7N8X-E Deluxe, 2500XP Barton, Thermalright SI-97 With 92mm Vantec Tornado Fan, 1Gb Patriot PC3200 Dual Channel Low Latency Ram, Sapphire Radeon 9800SE (256bit), Zalman ZM80D-HP Gpu Cooler With ZM-OP1 80mm Fan, 250Gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 SATA NCQ, Pioneer DVR-109 dvd-r.

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:27 pm

It does not use more power, even with Aero enabled. Well, maybe a few tenths of a Watt. In terms of performance per Watt, depends on the usage scenario. Most tasks are actually faster with Vista (assuming adequately provisioned system), but some are slower (most notably moving files).

frostedflakes
Posts: 1608
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: United States

Post by frostedflakes » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:03 pm

I haven't seen or done any testing on this, but my intuition would be that it would use less. Especially if you have a lot of RAM (4GB+), Superfetch should reduce hard drive access, meaning lower average power consumption. :)
Corsair Obsidian 650D | Seasonic X-650 | Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 | Phenom II X4 955 | Noctua NH-D14 | 2x4GB Corsair DDR3-1600 | ASUS HD6950 DirectCU II 2GB | OCZ Vertex 2 120GB | 2x WD Green 1TB

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:25 pm

It would be nice to see the main OS's lined up and tested for power consumption. And also rated for greenness of packaging too.

alecmg
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:56 am
Location: Estonia

Post by alecmg » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:28 am


jhhoffma
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jhhoffma » Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:30 am

Configured identically, you should not see much of a difference. However, Vista will do the drive indexing by default whereas XP won't (unless you install Windows Search), and I know my hard drives are working a lot more in Vista than in XP.
HTPC: OrigenAE X11|Gigabyte GA-MA785GPMT-UD2H|Phenom II x3 740BE w/AC Freezer 7|150GB Velociraptor|Corsair VX450
Main: Antec 300 (SlipStream @ 800rpm/140mm @ 5v)|Asus M4A88TD-M|Phenom II x4 945 (Mugen2 pass.)|Asus EAH6850|Samsung 830 128GB|Antec TP750
WHS: DF-85|P8H67-M Pro|I5-3450S/Hyper 212+|Corsair AX650|Sandisk Extreme 240GB, 2xWD20EARS, 2x WD15EARS, WD15EADS

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:52 am

Superfetch should reduce hard drive access, meaning lower average power consumption.
That is working on the assumption that the PC is on for sometime. If the PC is on for 5-minutes to check what the road congestion is like before you go to visit someone for the weekend, then XP will win hands down because its not thrashing the HDD for 5-minutes solid, it will load what it has to + your Web Browser.

The flip side to that is if you have your PC on all day in regular use, at which point Vista should end up winning/drawing.

Without an actual study we wont know for sure when Vista will break even with XP, but I guarantee you that on most PC's in existence made within the last 4-years XP will win. In a year or so the tables will be turned when the "average" hardware can cope with Vista + the mountains of crap software that people (and OEM's) install. This has happened with the transition between 95/98, 98/Me, Me/W2Kand W2K/XP.

I hope that MS have learned their lesson with the many Flaws of Vista and actually make "Windows 7" faster than the previous OS.

But to put all of this into perspective, the differences will be very small unless the PC is severely under powered.


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

Palindroman
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:00 am

Post by Palindroman » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:57 pm

I did an OS power consumption test about nine months ago.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:01 pm

Glad to see that Vista still doesnt win any badges, come on "Windows 7".


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

jessekopelman
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by jessekopelman » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:33 pm

andyb wrote:Glad to see that Vista still doesnt win any badges, come on "Windows 7".


Andy
Why are you glad? I've been using Vista for 6 months now and I find it perfectly satisfactory. While it is not a huge improvement over XP, it is an improvement. I'd rate it like going from Win95 to Win98. Anyway, you'd be foolish to get Windows 7 right away. Microsoft (in the 20 years I've been using their products) has never released a product that wasn't vastly improved by a post release patch/upgrade. As the cliche goes, wait for SP1.

erkan
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:40 pm

Post by erkan » Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:27 pm

I have not tested Vista versus XP but I can confirm that Aero draws a couple of watts more when it is turned on. Can not remember exactly how much more, but it was no more than 5 watt.

With that said, I turned Aero off.
Pegasos 2 G4 1GHz, 768 MB, AmigaOS4.1

Post Reply