Windows 11 Benchmarks Claim Performance Increases of Up to 15 Percent versus Windows 10

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
11,666
Points
83
windows-11-start-menu-purple-background-cropped-1024x576.jpg
Image: PlainDosaa



Microsoft’s upcoming operating system, Windows 11, is set to provide something more exciting than just a fresh coat of paint. According to early benchmarks conducted by YouTuber Ben Anonymous of a leaked build that has apparently spread like wildfire online, Windows 11 is poised to offer performance increases of as much as 15 percent versus its current sibling, Windows 10. In addition to a quicker boot time (13 vs. 16 seconds), Ben found higher scores in both 3DMark Time Spy (CPU: 6,872 vs. 7,613, GPU: 6,927 vs. 7,426) and Geekbench (single core: 1,138 vs. 1,251, multi-core: 6,284 vs. 7,444). A 10th Gen Intel Core i7-10875H processor and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER graphics card was used in these tests. Microsoft will lift the veil on Windows 11 and presumably show off all of its actual performance improvements this Thursday, June 24...
Click to expand...

Continue reading...


 
Probably just uses the old hyperthreading code. Easy boost on an "leaked" version.
 
Yeah, the question then becomes why is 10 so slow? This is not a good look either way.
 
I'm hearing echoes of the first Windows 7 beta, when the OS was a reskinned Vista that had been de-Vista'd.

Four cores were still a lot and spinners were still the thing- and Windows 7 made it all seem fast again, with the very first beta release.

Thing is, Vista was slow because MS tried to do too much too fast; by the second service pack it was on par with Windows 7, of course it couldn't shake the image that people had built. But Windows 10 isn't really slow.

Grimlakin said:
Probably just uses the old hyperthreading code. Easy boost on an "leaked" version.
Click to expand...
That CPU is still part of the Skylake family, so it's possible. I really, really hope that this isn't what has happened here.
 
15% faster until they add back in all the spyware and phone home "features" as well as proper security measures probably missing from the leaked alpha.

Or the OS has been optimized to run canned benchmarks well but none of that will translate into real world performance.

I also have to question any sort of "speedup". What could MS possibly have done to cause a 15% performance increase over the previous OS? Win10 isn't exactly slow even on older hardware. I'm no fan of MS but I have difficulty imagining that they screwed something up so badly in 10 that a newer version could be this much faster unless security and mitigations have been removed.

MS hasn't screwed up resource management and needs since Vista so optimizations to the OS shouldn't be able to make this much difference. For the Vista defenders out there: it was a piece of **** of an OS. I'm not even talking about the massive problems with drivers due to moving to a completely different driver model with major limitations compared to XP. Everyone with half a brain knew that was going to be a problem and I've never once held that against MS. Performance issues with Vista were 100% MS's fault. The massive increase in resources needed for the OS to do the same thing as the previous OS was idiocy. Double the resources needed to do something well in XP was barely usable in Vista. The proof to this is the fact that 7 could do the exact same things with XP era resources and perform better. With older and slower hardware, a 7 machine would outperform XP in most things and you could be done before Vista even finished booting. I'm really glad that I never shut my machines down and only restarted when required because the Vista Superfetch would lock down the machine effectively until it was done and the more RAM you had the longer it took.

Vista was an unfinished and rushed mess which should have never been released. 7 is what Vista should have been to begin with at least with regards to resources and resource management.
 
Yeah, running benchmarks with OBS running so you are "ideling" at 60° on a laptop with a win 10 install that has been in use for who knows how long vs a fresh win 11 install.

I will wait for someone who is using a more lvl playing field b4 drawing my conclusions.
 
SmokeRngs said:
For the Vista defenders out there: it was a piece of **** of an OS.
Click to expand...
Since I'm the only one that 'defended' Vista (or even mentioned it), let me clarify: Vista was pretty terrible upon release. By the time Service Pack 2 hit, it was basically Windows 7 but with the Vista skin.

I still would like to have widgets and sidebars back, some of those were kind of nice...

I'd also liken Vista to other transitions in the industry; the pain of Vista has made our desktop systems running successors faster and more stable. It takes a lot to crash a system in normal use these days, and software is that much more secure by design.
 
Denpepe said:
Yeah, running benchmarks with OBS running so you are "ideling" at 60° on a laptop with a win 10 install that has been in use for who knows how long vs a fresh win 11 install.

I will wait for someone who is using a more lvl playing field b4 drawing my conclusions.
Click to expand...
Spot on!

Granted the use case presented isn't a remote one, it's definitely not one that would be applicable to most gamers, let alone most power users.
 
LazyGamer said:
Since I'm the only one that 'defended' Vista (or even mentioned it), let me clarify: Vista was pretty terrible upon release. By the time Service Pack 2 hit, it was basically Windows 7 but with the Vista skin.

I still would like to have widgets and sidebars back, some of those were kind of nice...

I'd also liken Vista to other transitions in the industry; the pain of Vista has made our desktop systems running successors faster and more stable. It takes a lot to crash a system in normal use these days, and software is that much more secure by design.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one that didn't mind Vista. I kinda liked Aero (although it was a resource hog). But if you turned off Aero, Vista was decent under the hood. Everyone thought it was a memory hog, but that was mostly because it would report precaching as memory use - which it would happily give up when a program actually called for it (7/8/10 do the same thing, they just don't report it as "Used Memory"). The move from Vista to 7 for me really was ... I lost the Aero theme, and gadgets changed (for the worse) that was about it. I really liked the gadgets (I run Sidebar Diagnostics now in a lame attempt to get some of that back). 7 also introduced Homegroup - which pretty much has broken local Windows-based SMB file sharing for good now....

I think a lot of folks just got really attached to XP - it was the devil we knew. And it was around for a ~really~ long time (at least with respect to previous OS release cadence) -- 5 years. When Vista came around - a lot of older drivers broke, sure, but a lot of that needed to be broke - XP was pretty flawed with respect to security - particularly online security. When XP was released, the internet was largely AOL and dialup... A lot of things needed to change for an always-online computer to be secure - Vista was a big step in that direction. XP SP2 helped, but there's only so much you can do without breaking everything, and Vista was the release they chose to break everything with.

Now, 10 has been around for longer, but 10 was supposed to be the "forever" release with major updates every year- which hasn't been so bad, apart from the many forced broken updates in-between, and I suppose with 11 we are going to step away from that - whereas most other OS'es are still on about a 2-year cadence.

I wish MS would get back to that -- faster, but more incremental change with major releases every other year, and minor updates in between. Instead, we get these colossal paradigm shifts every large number of years, and it's harder to transition between. That, if anything, I think was Vista's biggest shortfall - it was just a big leap ahead from XP and most people weren't quite ready to jump that far.
 
Brian_B said:
I think a lot of folks just got really attached to XP - it was the devil we knew. And it was around for a ~really~ long time (at least with respect to previous OS release cadence) -- 5 years. When Vista came around - a lot of older drivers broke, sure, but a lot of that needed to be broke - XP was pretty flawed with respect to security - particularly online security. When XP was released, the internet was largely AOL and dialup... A lot of things needed to change for an always-online computer to be secure - Vista was a big step in that direction. XP SP2 helped, but there's only so much you can do without breaking everything, and Vista was the release they chose to break everything with.
Click to expand...

Never used XP at home, went from 98SE to 2K to vista, 2K was imo a lot better then vista which was ok after the first service pack.
 
Since the beginning , there is always a leak about the next windows being " faster" i remember the case with 95 98 98se me xp 2000 7 10 .... whatever the heck i used so many. I am not sure if this happened with 2.6 to 3.1 or some such. Its never the case that it gets faster.., but this strategy of saying it is, clearly is an SOP somewhere. And everyone falls for it every single time. Its funny and sad.
Btw im getting a profound dislike of where computing and devices are headed. Its a big problem of nownership. I don't know how to fight it but in thinking less is more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top