Windows 7 Speedup

Primeinator · 2009-11-02, 20:14

Has anyone else noticed that Windows 7 seems to run Prime95 faster than Vista? I have noticed an approximate 2% increase in speed over the first two these first two days of running it.

stars10250 · 2009-11-02, 21:46

I switched to 64 bit with win 7 and I see a speedup. Did you, by any chance, switch from 32 to 64 bit?

Primeinator · 2009-11-02, 21:50

No. From 32 bit to 32 bit, Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home Premium. I'm running 2 LL's around the 47M range on a dual core machine. Interesting, when I am running other applications, the difference is even more noticeable- around 8-10% faster running say iTunes and 2-3 Firefox windows as opposed to the same scenario on Vista.

Jeff Gilchrist · 2009-11-03, 00:59

One of the things they supposedly tweaked in Windows 7 is thread/process scheduling so the OS should handle multiple threads and processes better. Maybe that is what you are seeing.

Primeinator · 2009-11-03, 03:43

Possibly, but I'm not complaining!

henryzz · 2009-11-03, 07:32

I am not surprised as I seem to remember people commenting on a slowdown when moving from xp to vista. It looks like Microsoft have finally got their act together and speeded up windows for once.

Freightyard · 2009-11-03, 07:57

I'm not looking for a flame-war, but my roommate says Windows 7 runs better than Ubuntu on his Dell mini. I get *nix just isn't as light-weight as it used to be. Of course, 7 hogs the majority of his 16 GB flash drive!

joblack · 2009-11-03, 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freightyard

I'm not looking for a flame-war, but my roommate says Windows 7 runs better than Ubuntu on his Dell mini. I get *nix just isn't as light-weight as it used to be. Of course, 7 hogs the majority of his 16 GB flash drive!

You have to define what 'runs better' exactly means. Windows 7 is running better (e.g. faster) than Windows Vista but most probably not faster than Win XP. For Ubuntu it depends how the Linux kernel is configured. You can customize your kernel so it will work better for mprime (but worse for desktop use). Most probably the kernel from Ubuntu is configured to get the needs for a majority of users.

I doubt that the Linux kernel is slower than Windows 7 ... it all has tradeoffs ..

nucleon · 2009-11-03, 22:54

Win7 is also aware of intel's turbo boost finction in core i7 9xx cpus and later.

i.e. If you have 2x processes one that uses 100% of core0, and 10% of core1. It sounds like it would be optimal to keep them on seperate cores. But given intel's turbo boost function which means that if some cores are idle, switch them off, and up the clock speed on the cores in use (if thermals and power are suitable).

So for the 100-10 example above, Win7 will place those 2 threads on the same core and let the cpu up clock rate giving a minor speed improvement of the 100% thread listed above.

I think I read something similar to the above on ars.

-- Craig

petrw1 · 2009-11-03, 23:42

And don't forget this undocumented "feature" of Windows 7:
http://www.ghacks.net/2009/10/26/end...rade-problems/

Freightyard · 2009-11-04, 06:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by joblack

You have to define what 'runs better' exactly means. Windows 7 is running better (e.g. faster) than Windows Vista but most probably not faster than Win XP. For Ubuntu it depends how the Linux kernel is configured. You can customize your kernel so it will work better for mprime (but worse for desktop use). Most probably the kernel from Ubuntu is configured to get the needs for a majority of users.

I doubt that the Linux kernel is slower than Windows 7 ... it all has tradeoffs ..

Of course, yes. Simple user responsiveness and boot-up time was his comments. And, yes, it is faster than XP (although I'm sure added GUI weight makes it slower in some areas). My roommate has used XP on this same laptop. Windows 7 has some substantial improvements in process scheduling in the core. Additionally, Microsoft focused many enhancements on responsiveness and boot speed.

No doubt the Linux core is likely faster (and much smaller), but the Ubuntu GUI is definitely slower. Again, I'm just reporting general user feel as per my roommate's comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

And don't forget this undocumented "feature" of Windows 7:
http://www.ghacks.net/2009/10/26/end...rade-problems/

I never experienced that issue when I performed the Vista upgrade (using RC1). One should always strive to install from scratch, and I have since done that. Perhaps this is a bug in the RTM version.

Overall, I am very pleased with Windows 7.

2009-11-02, 20:14	#1
Primeinator "Kyle" Feb 2005 Somewhere near M52.. 3×5×61 Posts	Windows 7 Speedup Has anyone else noticed that Windows 7 seems to run Prime95 faster than Vista? I have noticed an approximate 2% increase in speed over the first two these first two days of running it.

2009-11-03, 00:59	#4
Jeff Gilchrist Jun 2003 Ottawa, Canada 2225₈ Posts	One of the things they supposedly tweaked in Windows 7 is thread/process scheduling so the OS should handle multiple threads and processes better. Maybe that is what you are seeing. Last fiddled with by Jeff Gilchrist on 2009-11-03 at 00:59

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
TF speedup suggestion	tichy	Software	4	2010-12-16 11:43
GGNFS SVN 374 with 11e siever: Speedup for c85-95!	Andi47	Aliquot Sequences	0	2009-11-02 16:41
Holy Speedup, Batman!	R.D. Silverman	NFSNET Discussion	4	2008-10-02 01:28
More RAM = Speedup??	dave_0273	Hardware	8	2004-06-23 05:15
Mp factoring speedup question.	Fusion_power	Math	11	2004-06-03 08:25

2009-11-02, 21:46	#2
stars10250 Jul 2008 San Francisco, CA 3×67 Posts	I switched to 64 bit with win 7 and I see a speedup. Did you, by any chance, switch from 32 to 64 bit?

2009-11-02, 21:50	#3
Primeinator "Kyle" Feb 2005 Somewhere near M52.. 393₁₆ Posts	No. From 32 bit to 32 bit, Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home Premium. I'm running 2 LL's around the 47M range on a dual core machine. Interesting, when I am running other applications, the difference is even more noticeable- around 8-10% faster running say iTunes and 2-3 Firefox windows as opposed to the same scenario on Vista.

2009-11-03, 03:43	#5
Primeinator "Kyle" Feb 2005 Somewhere near M52.. 1623₈ Posts	Possibly, but I'm not complaining!

2009-11-03, 07:32	#6
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 2³×3×5×7² Posts	I am not surprised as I seem to remember people commenting on a slowdown when moving from xp to vista. It looks like Microsoft have finally got their act together and speeded up windows for once.

2009-11-03, 07:57	#7
Freightyard Nov 2008 San Luis Obispo CA 2⁷ Posts	I'm not looking for a flame-war, but my roommate says Windows 7 runs better than Ubuntu on his Dell mini. I get *nix just isn't as light-weight as it used to be. Of course, 7 hogs the majority of his 16 GB flash drive!

2009-11-03, 22:54	#9
nucleon Mar 2003 Melbourne 5·103 Posts	Win7 is also aware of intel's turbo boost finction in core i7 9xx cpus and later. i.e. If you have 2x processes one that uses 100% of core0, and 10% of core1. It sounds like it would be optimal to keep them on seperate cores. But given intel's turbo boost function which means that if some cores are idle, switch them off, and up the clock speed on the cores in use (if thermals and power are suitable). So for the 100-10 example above, Win7 will place those 2 threads on the same core and let the cpu up clock rate giving a minor speed improvement of the 100% thread listed above. I think I read something similar to the above on ars. -- Craig

2009-11-03, 23:42	#10
petrw1 1976 Toyota Corona years forever! "Wayne" Nov 2006 Saskatchewan, Canada 2²×7×167 Posts	And don't forget this undocumented "feature" of Windows 7: http://www.ghacks.net/2009/10/26/end...rade-problems/