Win XP vs Vista vs Win 7-Mutiprocessor performance

[gplasky]

So noticing the various threads on OS for servers, OS for single machines and the 64 bit vs 32 bit discussions I thought this was a very interesting article on Inforworld.

The generation gap: WIndows on Multicore

Basically saying on dual or quad cores Win XP is still the performance champ.

Like Vista, this new Windows chews up a lot more CPU cycles per transaction loop than XP -- from 39 to 68 percent more on dual-core and from 19 to 51 percent more on quad-core (the lower figures in each case representing the workflow workload, and the higher figures the database workload). Any illusions about Windows 7 somehow being leaner or more efficient than Vista can now be thrown out the window, right along with the infamous "new kernel" myth and related rumors and misconceptions.

In fact, with its second-generation multicore tweaking (good-bye, global lock!), Windows 7 is poised to overtake XP even earlier than Windows Vista -- perhaps at 16 or 24 cores. In the meantime, you certainly won't lose anything by moving from Vista to Windows 7, and you may even gain a few seconds here and there, thanks to its better kernel tuning.

I bolded that sentence that caught my eye. So we only need around 16 or 24 cores running on our desktop to have Win 7 overtake Win Xp's multicore performance.

So it starts to put into perspective what to expect when companies claim how their latest and greatest is so much faster than the previous generations.

Gerry

[Ryokurin]

I'm not a programmer, but I distinctly remember hearing that compilers nowadays can optimize its multicore performance to perform best for specific operating systems, since every major OS handles them differently. Since they never really say what they what programs they are running, or which compiler they are using, its kind of hard to completely believe what they are saying, especially since they are comparing a beta OS.

[babgvant]

The test used isn't very similar to what a real computer's workload looks like.

[stevech]

Microsoft's layers and layers of software abstractions yield software that spends a million cycles to do 100 of real work.

Kind of like the Overhead rate at the Dept. of Social Security.

[Slipshod]

Originally Posted by stevech

Microsoft's layers and layers of software abstractions yield software that spends a million cycles to do 100 of real work.

Kind of like the Overhead rate at the Dept. of Social Security.

Bad analogy, this was covered during the privatization debates in 2004. SS has an administrative overhead under 1% . Mutual Funds, on the other hand, average at least 50% more overhead at 1.5%.

[vexhold]

Meanwhile.... Back at the ranch...

[stevech]

Originally Posted by Slipshod

Bad analogy, this was covered during the privatization debates in 2004. SS has an administrative overhead under 1% . Mutual Funds, on the other hand, average at least 50% more overhead at 1.5%.

Have you worked at or been to SS's HQ?
I have.
I stand by my assertion.

Sorry for the diversion.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.