Performance Trade-Off Between Windows 10 and Windows 11: A Comparative Analysis of CPU and Memory Behavior Using Performance Monitor and LatencyMon
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35870/ijsecs.v6i2.7560Keywords:
CPU Utilization, HandBrake Transcoding, Hard Page Fault, Interrupt Latency, LatencyMon, Windows 10, Windows 11Abstract
The operating system consumes processor and memory resources and affects kernel-level responsiveness before user applications run, and these resource demands may differ across operating system versions. This study compared Windows 10 and Windows 11 under a realistic and reproducible video transcoding workload performed with HandBrake, measuring CPU utilization, hard page faults, and interrupt-to-process latency. A quantitative experimental method was used. Performance Monitor recorded CPU and memory behavior, while LatencyMon measured kernel timer, interrupt service routine, deferred procedure call, and interrupt-to-process latency. An important constraint is that the two operating systems were tested on physically different devices with processors from different generations: a 6th-generation dual-core Intel Core i7-6600U and an 11th-generation quad-core Intel Core i7-1165G7. Therefore, the measured differences cannot be attributed to the operating system version alone. Windows 11 showed more sustained CPU utilization and recorded fewer hard page faults than Windows 10 (22,480 versus 50,539), although the difference is also subject to the unequal monitoring durations. Windows 10 recorded a lower highest interrupt-to-process latency (1,147.60 µs versus 1,430.70 µs) and a lower average interrupt latency (10.10 µs versus 22.44 µs), while both systems remained within the conventional real-time suitability threshold. The findings indicate that the observed performance differences are entangled with processor generation and other hardware-related effects. Therefore, a dual-boot configuration on identical hardware is recommended in future studies to isolate the effect of the operating system version.
Downloads
References
Al Fajar, R., Lestari, A., & Teknologi Informasi, J. (2025). Analisis perbandingan sistem operasi Windows 11 dan Linux Ubuntu menggunakan metode studi literatur (Studi kasus: Kinerja sistem, keamanan dan biaya). Jurnal Bitwise, 1(2). https://jurnal-bitwise.org/
Ali Ridho, A. A. S. (2025). Analisis manajemen memori sistem operasi Windows dalam menjalankan game open-world.
Amin Hidayat, D. K. E. N. G. S. (2025). Analisis implementasi Windows 10 dan 11 di pendidikan: Evaluasi biaya, usability, kinerja.
Ananda, R. A., & Nama, G. F. (2024). Analisis dan perancangan layanan streaming film berbasis web langganan menggunakan framework NextJS. Jurnal Informatika dan Teknik Elektro Terapan, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.23960/jitet.v12i1.3967
Apriana, S. P., Hidayat, R., & Rilvani, E. (2024). Optimalisasi pengguna memori virtual pada sistem operasi Windows 10. Journal Global Technology Computer, 4(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.47065/jogtc.v4i1.6512
Bagas Sulistio, D., Riski, N., & Aryani, Y. (2025). Analisis kinerja CPU dan manajemen proses pada sistem operasi Windows saat beban penuh menggunakan Task Manager (Vol. 1, No. 2). https://jurnal.dharmadhikara.com/sifra.index
Fauzia Fredella, & Ulya Rahman. (2025). Penerapan virtual memory terhadap kinerja CPU, GPU, dan respons multitasking pada Windows 10. MARS: Jurnal Teknik Mesin, Industri, Elektro dan Ilmu Komputer, 3(5), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.61132/mars.v3i5.1133
Ghufron Malik, K., Wahyudi, K., Sakti, F. T. A., Ghofar, A., & Anshor, A. H. (2024). Analisa perbandingan manajemen proses multitasking pada sistem operasi Windows dan Linux. Jurnal Teknik Mesin, Industri, Elektro dan Informatika, 3(4), 190–199. https://doi.org/10.55606/jtmei.v3i4.4538
Haritsah, M., Widjajarto, A., & Almaarif, A. (2023). Analisis karakteristik antivirus berdasarkan aktivitas malware menggunakan analisis dinamis. Journal of Information System Research (JOSH), 4(2), 693–700. https://doi.org/10.47065/josh.v4i2.2908
Jurnal, H., Wildan Kemal, M., & Farizy, S. (2022). Analisis penyebab bottleneck pada suatu komputer menggunakan aplikasi benchmarking CrystalDiskMark dengan metode SWOT. JUPTI, 1(3).
Rahmika, B., Aulia Az Zahrah, K., Anggraini, A., Bisnis Bina Sriwijaya, D., & Palembang, K. (2025). Analisis kinerja perangkat I/O disk (HDD): Perbandingan performa disk menggunakan Task Manager pada aktivitas transaksi file (Vol. 1, No. 2). https://jurnal.dharmadhikara.com/sifra.index
Verano, D. A., & Purnamasari, E. (2025). Benchmarking kinerja sistem operasi Linux dan Windows dalam pengelolaan proses dan memori. SMARTICS Journal, 11(2), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.21067/smartics.v11i2.13850
Wijaya, W., Panjaitan, F., Rizal, S., & Ulfa, M. (2024). Perbandingan kinerja sistem operasi Network Attached Storage: Studi kasus TrueNAS dan XigmaNAS. Jurnal Indonesia: Manajemen Informatika dan Komunikasi, 5(1), 255–261. https://doi.org/10.35870/jimik.v5i1.468
Yusnanto, T., Wahyudiono, S., & Wicaksono, H. A. (2022). Analisa kinerja sistem operasi Windows 10 dengan Linux Mint menggunakan aplikasi ZXT CAM, GNOME System Monitor. Jurnal Riset Ilmiah, 1(2). https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/api
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ekie Revsie Akbar, Muhammad Fadhil Rachman, Tiara Fitriana, Try Mulyoto, Yan Everhard Riwurohi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Copyright Retention and Open Access License
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal non-exclusive right of first publication under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license allows unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2. Rights Granted Under CC BY 4.0
Under this license, readers are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use
- No additional restrictions — the licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as license terms are followed
3. Attribution Requirements
All uses must include:
- Proper citation of the original work
- Link to the Creative Commons license
- Indication if changes were made to the original work
- No suggestion that the licensor endorses the user or their use
4. Additional Distribution Rights
Authors may:
- Deposit the published version in institutional repositories
- Share through academic social networks
- Include in books, monographs, or other publications
- Post on personal or institutional websites
Requirement: All additional distributions must maintain the CC BY 4.0 license and proper attribution.
5. Self-Archiving and Pre-Print Sharing
Authors are encouraged to:
- Share pre-prints and post-prints online
- Deposit in subject-specific repositories (e.g., arXiv, bioRxiv)
- Engage in scholarly communication throughout the publication process
6. Open Access Commitment
This journal provides immediate open access to all content, supporting the global exchange of knowledge without financial, legal, or technical barriers.
