[DONE] Intel, Microsoft Show More Win 7 CPU Efficiency

Status
Not open for further replies.

icepick314

Distinguished
Jul 24, 2002
705
0
18,990
"The two companies used two identically configured ThinkPads T400s, one running Windows Vista SP2 and the other Windows 7, and compared the two's power usage."

why didn't they test using SAME laptop by installing Windows Vista SP2, test it, then do fresh install using Windows 7?
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
I'd like to see how Win7 power management compares to Vista, XP, and Ubuntu or Mandriva Linux with various tasks including word processing, 802.11 and 3G wireless, DVD encoding, and web browsing with Flash. An improvement over Vista isn't saying much.
 

grieve

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2004
2,709
0
20,790
[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]I'd like to see how Win7 power management compares to Vista, XP, and Ubuntu or Mandriva Linux with various tasks including word processing, 802.11 and 3G wireless, DVD encoding, and web browsing with Flash. An improvement over Vista isn't saying much.[/citation]
While I agree with you I also don't really care about XP, Ubuntu or Mandriva Linux..
I find the power savings a "bonus" because i will be transitioning to Win7 anyhow. I love it.
 

False_Dmitry_II

Distinguished
Does that also mean that they fixed the Vista problem of single core applications randomly migrating between cores forcing AMD to keep each core at the same speed instead of clocking down individual cores as was more efficient?
 

ejarendt

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2009
5
0
18,510
I'd be more interested in seeing a comparison between Windows XP and/or OS X. Improving just about anything compared to Vista is pretty easy - the OS is terrible.

I still think it's pitiful that in eight years, MS hasn't managed to produce an OS that's faster or has better battery life than XP.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'm stunned that neither Microsoft, any Linux vendor, nor Apple has managed in 30 years to produce an OS that's faster or has better batter life than...DOS. OS's progress and they consume more resources - that's what they do. I don't know why anyone would expect a newer OS with improved features to be faster _other_ than in the case of Vista->Win7.
 

False_Dmitry_II

Distinguished
[citation][nom]ejarendt[/nom]I still think it's pitiful that in eight years, MS hasn't managed to produce an OS that's faster or has better battery life than XP.[/citation]

That's because EVERY OS system gets bigger as time goes on, no matter how slowly, and more features are implemented. And that includes linux. The fact that windows 7 has the same or less requirements than vista is a pretty good achievement considering what those requirements actually are. Go run windows 95 or whatever Mac OS was around back then on something more recent and it will run much faster than it did back then.
 
G

Guest

Guest
If you'll recall from an earlier article, Intel was allowed to help code Windows7 to run faster on Core i7. So.......... I wonder if this improvement in battery life will translate to AMD laptops(doubtful)...

Microsoft also handicaps Phenom II CPUs by over-riding the BIOS TLB fix settings and applying the fix anyways, this is exactly why I'll be sticking with Linux, or XP pro corporate if I absolutely have to have Windows for something...
 

cryogenic

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2006
449
1
18,780
[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]Does that also mean that they fixed the Vista problem of single core applications randomly migrating between cores forcing AMD to keep each core at the same speed instead of clocking down individual cores as was more efficient?[/citation]

Yes they have. They actually done more than fix the thread scheduler, they added a new user mode thread scheduler which is more efficient than the kernel thread scheduler.

Dave Probert: Inside Windows 7 - User Mode Scheduler (UMS)
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]That's because EVERY OS system gets bigger as time goes on, no matter how slowly, and more features are implemented. And that includes linux. The fact that windows 7 has the same or less requirements than vista is a pretty good achievement considering what those requirements actually are. Go run windows 95 or whatever Mac OS was around back then on something more recent and it will run much faster than it did back then.[/citation]

Well you do agree that not all feats of Win7 justify purchasing a new OS, and the battery loss.
The only 'real' feats noticeable are the looks, and DX11 for gaming.

If it wasn't for internet security reasons, and driver issues of modern hardware,aswell as software incompatibility, Windows 98se would be the king on the hill!
Booting faster, responding in a nanosecond, while consuming less battery than any other Windows OS.
It was good enough for MSoffice, mails,and some basic 720p HD video playback.

Many act as if XP is the past,but far from!
The majority of pc users still use XP, and XP gets still shipped with some netbooks!

I agree with his reply, comparing 7 to XP is much more interesting then comparing Win 7 to Vista.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]Ubuntu_9_10_Alpha_or_GTFO[/nom]If you'll recall from an earlier article, Intel was allowed to help code Windows7 to run faster on Core i7. ...[/citation]
I've read very little about this,but does that also apply to the Corei5's?
 

ejarendt

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2009
5
0
18,510
[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]That's because EVERY OS system gets bigger as time goes on, no matter how slowly, and more features are implemented. And that includes linux. The fact that windows 7 has the same or less requirements than vista is a pretty good achievement considering what those requirements actually are. Go run windows 95 or whatever Mac OS was around back then on something more recent and it will run much faster than it did back then.[/citation]
Snow Leopard's install size is down to ~10GB from Leopard's ~16GB install size, and it's faster.

An OS doesn't have to keep having more and keep getting bigger. There are redundancies to eliminate, code to optimize, getting rid of legacy support (or making it downloadable instead of bundled), etc.
 
G

Guest

Guest
ejarendt: But where do Win7/OSX/Vista get those huge 10/16gb installer footprints from? It certainly isn't all kernel/OS type code or anything... Take Kubuntu Linux for example. It fits on a CD-R. It looks every bit as nice as Vista/Win7 and OSX, it even comes with a full array of office applications(OpenOffice), internet applications(IM clients, bittorrent, etc..), 3d Desktop FX, and much, much more. The total installer footprint is about 2gb, and from where I'm sitting, it includes far, far more stuff.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Now install XP and compare. Who cares about vista, it was garbage. What most people want to know is it better battery life then xp.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Trauma: Every installer CD on the planet uses ZIP compression, ~700mb = 2gb unzipped. 16gb on a single DVD? Don't you feel stupid now?
 

razor512

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2007
2,130
68
19,890
On my laptop, windows vista has about a 2 hour battery life and windows 7 estimates about 2:20 but it lasts a bit longer than 2:20

but windows xp will do 3+ hours when I disable all of the crap (12 running processes)

microsoft needs to make a OS when everything disabled and each specific user enables only what they need. this will improve performance and security

many exploits for all versions of windows generally target a specific windows service, some will exploit a flaw in windows server service, others may exploit the terminal service and others may exploit the telnet service or 1 of the 60 or so other services that many users will never use and performance guides will have you disable.

microsoft likes having everything running just in case the user ever wants to use them it will be automatically ready at the cost of the OS using 20 times more memory, and higher CPU usage and lower application performance

try running 3dmark then disable all un-needed windows startup items and services then run it again, you generally get a 500-3000 point increase depending on the system

as newer windows operating systems become more bloated, application performance will go down and more security problems will surface because theres more exploitable code running

it is impossible to write 100% secure code because humans are not 100% perfect

so to minimize security problems, many companies go for only whats needed, which is why windows xp is still the main OS used by businesses
and larger scale companies and machinery will often run a embedded OS thats completely custom made to the job so it is only able to do that task,

in the professional world, less is more because less crap running means more resources to focus on the task at hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.