Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comparing Performance and Power Use For Vista vs. Windows 7 WIth Clarksfield Chi

Posted by timothy on from the batteries-need-help dept.

crazipper writes "Back when Intel launched its Core i5/i7 'Lynnfield' CPUs, Tom's Hardware ran some tests in Windows 7 versus Vista to gauge the benefits of the core parking and ideal core optimizations, said to cut power consumption in the new OS. It turned out that Win7 shifted the Nehalem-based CPUs in and out of Turbo Boost mode faster, resulting in higher power draw under load, while idle power was a slight bit lower. The mobile version of the architecture was claimed (at the time) to show a greater improvement in moving to Win7. Today there's a follow-up with the flagship Clarksfield processor that shows the same aggressive P-state promotion policies giving Win7 a significant performance advantage with Core i7 Mobile. However, power consumption is higher as well."

6 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Windows Update by RocketRabbit · · Score: 2, Funny

    We do know that the thrice-daily Windows Updates will consume a startling amount of power, though.

    1. Re:Windows Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      We do know that the thrice-daily Windows Updates will consume a startling amount of power, though.

      How much power? Since we're talking about Windows with Chi, I'd say over 9000.

  2. As a shudder runs down my spine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So you're saying Vista is the better OS?

  3. Good grief by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've built several high-end PCs from scratch and spec'd several more at component level, during a period of well over a decade and most recently just a couple of years ago, and I still have absolutely no idea what any of the fine summary meant.

    Does anyone actually label/number components in any sort of logical way at all any more? Codename this, year that, version.subversion.minorversion.veryminorversion the other (revision C17, of course; the C16s and B17s didn't have the double overclocked doobreeflips in the L7 cache).

    It's a wonder anyone can build a PC that runs at any speed at all any more. Sheesh.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  4. confused by zmollusc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is Clarksfield Chi anything like a Charleston Chew?

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  5. power isn't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The power isn't so much the problem.
    The problem [ducks] is that it's running windows [runs]...
    [aw crap, here we go again]
    [I hear the sock puppets winding up]