Tests Show Win XP Still Fastest for Multicore

Status
Not open for further replies.

lutel

Distinguished
Aug 18, 2008
45
0
18,530
0
I'll stick with Windows XP / Ubuntu until Microsoft remove DRM. DRM is the greatest mistake of Microsoft because it is designed against user, not for user. Remove DRM and I and my employees will be happy with vistas eye-candies even at cost of 20-30% system overhead.
 

barbos

Distinguished
Oct 9, 2008
3
0
18,510
0
I would say given the way it was measured, you could conclude that Windows XP is more efficient, by requiring less clock cycles. But if Windows 7 spread the clock cycles more evenly across multiple cores, it could accomplish more work in less time. Therefore it would still be possible for Windows 7 to be faster.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I dont like the comparison. for a few reasons. 1. Xp is not beta and has the second service packs for it and the second win 7 is beta and probably still has a fare amount of optimizing to be done. we can do this comparison in a few year with win 7 has time to mature and be refined. Xp would be faster if the installed Sp3 on there but that still doesnt help the comparison. my 0.02
 

squatchman

Distinguished
Oct 31, 2008
211
0
18,680
0
I'm not sure how I feel about trying to use Desktop Operating systems to do Server related tasks. Worse, his quad core system was a laptop. It would be best if we could keep the FUD on fudzilla.
 

jwl3

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2008
341
0
18,780
0
Doesn't take a genius or benchmarks to figure this one out. What moron at Microsoft figured that 0% cpu utlization is a BAD thing? That's the whole premise of Vista, that any unused CPU is bad; hence, all the tons of startups and services that run in the background. I optimize my machine with the least amount of startups, services, drivers, etc. just so my games run silky smooth.
 

njalterio

Distinguished
Jan 14, 2008
780
0
18,990
1
"Fastest" is a BS way of describing what is really going on here.

Vista uses up lots of RAM to optimize desktop computing. Naturally, there are a lot more instructions to be executed in Vista than XP.

In layman's terms; Runner A who completes the mile in 8 minutes is NOT faster than Runner B who completes a marathon in 20 minutes!

From the processor's point of view, it finishes all of its instructions sooner in XP, but that isn't the point!
 

njalterio

Distinguished
Jan 14, 2008
780
0
18,990
1
[citation][nom]jwl3[/nom]Doesn't take a genius or benchmarks to figure this one out. What moron at Microsoft figured that 0% cpu utlization is a BAD thing? That's the whole premise of Vista, that any unused CPU is bad; hence, all the tons of startups and services that run in the background. I optimize my machine with the least amount of startups, services, drivers, etc. just so my games run silky smooth.[/citation]

Disabling startup programs and services is nothing new to Vista. That is always the case for XP as well.

CPU cycles, which is what the author is comparing, grab instructions from main memory, something that Vista is programmed to use a lot of. It's not unused CPU they are trying to use, it is unused main memory.

Anyways, I find it hilarious how random blog/article writers on the Internet seem to think they have found all the answers, that Microsoft's OS programming team seem to have completely missed.

 
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]"Fastest" is a BS way of describing what is really going on here.Vista uses up lots of RAM to optimize desktop computing. Naturally, there are a lot more instructions to be executed in Vista than XP. In layman's terms; Runner A who completes the mile in 8 minutes is NOT faster than Runner B who completes a marathon in 20 minutes! From the processor's point of view, it finishes all of its instructions sooner in XP, but that isn't the point![/citation]
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Disabling startup programs and services is nothing new to Vista. That is always the case for XP as well. CPU cycles, which is what the author is comparing, grab instructions from main memory, something that Vista is programmed to use a lot of. It's not unused CPU they are trying to use, it is unused main memory. Anyways, I find it hilarious how random blog/article writers on the Internet seem to think they have found all the answers, that Microsoft's OS programming team seem to have completely missed.[/citation]
+1 Well said! Also note they used 4GB on the Deal core (E6700) and 8GB on the quad. That cries unfair to me. See: http://weblog.infoworld.com/labnotes/archives/2009/01/windows_on_mult.html

 

grieve

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2004
2,709
0
20,790
4
I have Windows 7 running in a VM with 500ram... i was shocked how fast it is, even online vids are snappy. I plan to install 7 as a second OS and give it a run now.

**Vista has always run fine for me but my machines are always a little quicker then average Joe.
 

narlzac85

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2008
8
0
18,510
0
use a server OS for your server workload. If you're going to test consumer operating systems, use a consumer test. I think the most important test for many consumers is reliability and resistance to viruses. Any speed differences between XP and Vista are generally minor. In my opinion, its a worthwhile trade-off.
 

bf2gameplaya

Distinguished
Mar 19, 2008
262
0
18,780
0
G

Guest

Guest
You must be using a limited set of benchmarks because video rendering is quite a bit faster with 64 Bit Vista because it is able utilize MUCH more ram compared to the 2-4GB Max. in XP.
 

afrobacon

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2008
396
0
18,790
1
I'd personally like to see an article on this which is NOT server based, and also on a fair playing ground. Maybe using one of the $1250 system builds to do so with. Something consumers can relate with.
 

seboj

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2008
403
0
18,790
1
If you read the InfoWorld article, the author is praising both Vista and 7.

Windows XP's aging kernel, though SMP-aware, has never been fully optimized for multicore computing. By contrast, both Windows Vista and Windows 7 have benefited from years of tuning and tweaking (including the removal of various global SMP locking mechanisms) to allow them to better exploit all those additional CPU cores.
Yes, XP is basic, lean, and fast. The key take-away from this is future scalability.
 
G

Guest

Guest
How about this idea:

Windows 8 = XP pro 64-bit with "new feature service pack" ???

Perhaps they can just evolve XP and make us pay 1/3 the price for their service packs? Perhaps a new one every year...

Then we could decide if we need the new features...

All the silly new visual candy can be added as add-on for people who care for them...
 

kamkal

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2007
479
0
18,780
0
ms needs to cut all the stupid features and make windows7 blazing fast

fast = people will like your OS

slow = people will not like your OS

when i click on something, it should pop up right away, even on a modest computer




 

ravenware

Distinguished
May 17, 2005
617
0
18,980
0
ests conducted by InfoWorld show that Windows XP is still the overall performance king even in today’s quad core PCs. Not only does Windows XP outpace Windows Vista
, it also does better than the current Windows 7 beta.
InfoWorld? Why didn't toms hardware do this and provide their own benchmark results?
 

Milleman

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2006
208
0
18,680
0
Kill the DRM for God´s sake! The DRM crap is useless and only slows the system down at the expense of the user, who is forced to invest in more expensive hardware in order to do the same things as before. I will not use an OS that works agains the users interests. If you are not playing games, there is no reason at all to use Windows. Windows XP is my final Windows. I've now move to Ubuntu and use a dual boot for the times there's need for using old Windows programs. But that need have been surprisingly low. Next time I make a full Ubuntu installation, I'll skip the dual boot. For games? The Xbox is doing fine! There will probably be more Linux games as well in the future. But I don't care, since I don't play games on PC.
 

ossie

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2008
335
0
18,780
0
As long ago pointed out in the analysis of vi$tha DRM costs (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt), these tests underline more of the huge impact made by the crippling of windoze with DRM by m$, to appease MPAA, RIAA & co.
Even if xpire wasn't well optimized for SMP, it still blows vi$hta, and is't SE = $even, out of the water.
It would have been much more interesting to know how many of these CPU cycles were used to do actual work in the application, and respectively used in system calls in the kernel - then the overhead of the DRM in the "improved" eye-candy crap "OS" would be much more evident.
 

joex444

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2006
1,279
0
20,160
239
This isn't even a logical test to run on a desktop / home use CPU & OS. Honestly, who here is running a database transaction server here? This test belongs in Xeon and Opteron land and be testing Server 2000, 2003 and 2008.

With the current generation of quad core CPUs, especially when overclocked well past 3GHz, you have to question whether you will ever notice the speed difference. Is 1.47s really that much different than 1.51s? Will you care? I doubt you will, so just pick whatever OS you prefer; the performance is similar. I find Vista to be more functional, XP just looks and works in a very ... antique way. I find it depressing that in 2009 people are still championing an OS made in 2001.
 
pppppppppppfffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttt ill take my vista x64 with my quad and 8gb over that dinosaur operating system any day, its not as if any new microsoft OS is lighter then the last release - people bitch about every release they make, get over it and get a new rig to handle a NEW operating system, Athlon 64's and Pentium D's belong in the bin with xp.
 

ravenware

Distinguished
May 17, 2005
617
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]pppppppppppfffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttt ill take my vista x64 with my quad and 8gb over that dinosaur operating system any day, its not as if any new microsoft OS is lighter then the last release - people bitch about every release they make, get over it and get a new rig to handle a NEW operating system, Athlon 64's and Pentium D's belong in the bin with xp.[/citation]

Please and I mean this in the most sincere way, stop smoking crack!

Athlon 64's still pack a punch. Aned they run vista pretty damn well.

Hell mine ran FEAR2 on win7 only with a 7800GT and 2GB of RAM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS