mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-06-04, 03:36   #1
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

11100111112 Posts
Default Vista vs. XP for LL

A couple of weeks ago I bought an HP Compaq dx7500 tower with an Intel Core 2 Duo E7600 processor (a steal for the price I paid).

I'm multibooting it with Windows XP and Vista (both x86), and (of course) it's running Prime95 (v26.6) whichever OS I'm using. After number-crunching on Vista for about ten days, I just switched back to XP and restarted Prime95.

Surprisingly, there is quite a difference in Prime95's performance between Vista and XP: whereas the 50M-level LLs the box is working on had per-iteration times of approximately 0.058 seconds in Vista, in XP they're at 0.079 seconds.

Both systems are new, clean, and lean. Other than the OS, the only active software difference between them is that I have McAfee Total Protection on the XP side, and Avast! 7 on the Vista side. Could this alone account for the performance difference, or is the difference more attributable to the operating systems? (Unlike the Vista setup, the XP setup also has MS Office installed, but nothing's open and no Office processes seem to be showing in Task Manager.)

Anybody have insight on this?

Rodrigo

Last fiddled with by Rodrigo on 2012-06-04 at 03:39
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-04, 07:20   #2
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

5·11·157 Posts
Default

McAfee is known as one of the slowest tool on the domain. There is a post of mine somewhere around here where I was pleading for nod32 from Eset. I have no idea about the impact McAfee has on P95, but this could be easy to see, you can disable "real time scanning" and see if there is any difference. This is the first thing you should do. Another reason could be the 32/64 thing, most probably your xp is 32 and vista is 64. (?)

Anyhow, letting apart the P95 work, talking only about using McAfee as antivirus/protection, my advice is: don't. There are plenty of faster/better solutions. Check virus bulletin. Pick one who had at least 6-10 submissions for vb100 award, and passed all of them. There are not so meany choices, another two or three beside of Eset's nod32 (and none with so many, I am using it for many years and I am quite happy with it, it has one of th ebest heuristics to detect new -unknown- viruses, contrary to McAfee which relies more on signature, it can detect the threats after they are "known" and somebody "patches" the code with new signature/behavior files).
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-04, 07:42   #3
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

2×5×467 Posts
Default

Are they running the same exponents (or at least, the same FFT size)? Is the CPU underclocking under XP? Are you running P-1 stage 2, by any chance?

Bottomline is, the OS has practically nothing to do with how fast P95 runs. So, there must be some specific (non-OS) factor that's causing it -- find it and fix it.
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-04, 14:39   #4
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

3×5×172 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
McAfee is known as one of the slowest tool on the domain. There is a post of mine somewhere around here where I was pleading for nod32 from Eset. I have no idea about the impact McAfee has on P95, but this could be easy to see, you can disable "real time scanning" and see if there is any difference. This is the first thing you should do. Another reason could be the 32/64 thing, most probably your xp is 32 and vista is 64. (?)

Anyhow, letting apart the P95 work, talking only about using McAfee as antivirus/protection, my advice is: don't. There are plenty of faster/better solutions. Check virus bulletin. Pick one who had at least 6-10 submissions for vb100 award, and passed all of them. There are not so meany choices, another two or three beside of Eset's nod32 (and none with so many, I am using it for many years and I am quite happy with it, it has one of th ebest heuristics to detect new -unknown- viruses, contrary to McAfee which relies more on signature, it can detect the threats after they are "known" and somebody "patches" the code with new signature/behavior files).
I find that often McAfee is hogging an entire core for "Real Time Scanning" on my Quad.
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-04, 15:02   #5
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

32·103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
McAfee is known as one of the slowest tool on the domain. There is a post of mine somewhere around here where I was pleading for nod32 from Eset. I have no idea about the impact McAfee has on P95, but this could be easy to see, you can disable "real time scanning" and see if there is any difference. This is the first thing you should do. Another reason could be the 32/64 thing, most probably your xp is 32 and vista is 64. (?)
LaurV,

Thanks for the advice. I'll let the McAfee trial period run out and then get something else.

Both of the OS's on the machine are 32-bit versions.

Rodrigo
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-04, 15:10   #6
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

32×103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
Are they running the same exponents (or at least, the same FFT size)? Is the CPU underclocking under XP? Are you running P-1 stage 2, by any chance?

Bottomline is, the OS has practically nothing to do with how fast P95 runs. So, there must be some specific (non-OS) factor that's causing it -- find it and fix it.
axn,

Huh, interesting. It must be the security suites, then.

Yes, they are the exact same two exponents in the same machine. The difference is which OS I booted into (and then Avast vs. McAfee).

I don't know about underclocking. (How does one find out?) What kind of situation would cause a CPU to underclock under XP but not in Vista?

Both factors (the machine has two cores) are currently being LL'd.

Rodrigo
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-04, 15:16   #7
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

92710 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
I find that often McAfee is hogging an entire core for "Real Time Scanning" on my Quad.
Whoa!

In my case, though, it's not that McAfee is periodically claiming a core to do background scanning or anything -- it's just a steady 0.079 seconds per iteration, compared to 0.058 seconds when I'm running the Vista side.

Rodrigo
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-04, 15:23   #8
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

5·11·157 Posts
Default

What does Task manager says? 99% for P95? If not, who takes the rest? I mean in in XP.

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2012-06-04 at 15:24
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-04, 15:41   #9
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

16378 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
What does Task manager says? 99% for P95? If not, who takes the rest? I mean in in XP.
Task Manager shows Prime95 at 99%.

When I get a chance to, I'm going to suspend/disable McAfee and see if it makes a difference in the per-iteration times.

Rodrigo
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-04, 15:52   #10
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

2·5·467 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo View Post
I don't know about underclocking. (How does one find out?)
CPU-Z could probably tell you.
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-04, 22:40   #11
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

32×103 Posts
Default

Thanks, axn. I'll download CPU-Z and check it out.

Rodrigo
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help with drivers (Vista 64) schickel Lounge 3 2009-11-19 05:09
Prime95 - Migrating from XP 32-bit to Vista 64-bit azhad Software 1 2008-05-29 22:54
Vista woes tallguy Software 17 2008-01-17 20:31
Vista x64 - Prime 95? w.wahl Information & Answers 7 2007-07-11 17:49
PauseWhileRunning on Vista James Heinrich Software 7 2007-06-25 21:31

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:58.

Tue Aug 11 15:58:16 UTC 2020 up 25 days, 11:45, 1 user, load averages: 1.47, 1.58, 2.00

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.