Slashdot Mirror
Comparing Performance and Power Use For Vista vs. Windows 7 WIth Clarksfield Chi
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."
the real nuisance of Windows Updates is the tremendous amount of CPU they use. how is it that I can update a Linux distro on inferior hardware and not notice the slowdown so much? is it because the linux system runs a user-mode program to take care of things, while windows update probably handles this in kernel mode? seriously why does Windows need so much more processing power to perform the same type of task, and less of it since Windows Update considers only the core OS and not every installed package like a Linux package manager would do?
My vaio has that too.
Unsure as to the actual battery life gains, but it has built in Intel GM965/X3100 and an nVidia 8400M GS. Maybe not using intel's tech?
In the few test situations I've run Windows 7 in (My laptop (1.7GHz Celeron M, 1.5G RAM, ATi XPress 200m), my desktop (2GHz Pentium Dual-Core, 3GB RAM, ATi Radeon HD 4550), a Dell GX270 (3.2GHz P4 HT, GeForce 6200, 2GB RAM), and a Dell SX280 (3 GHz P4 HT, 1GB RAM, Intel i915 Graphics) I have seen it out perform XP, especially as RAM increases. With 1 GB they seem fairly even, at 2 7 is faster, and above 2 XP can't compete. Also, much better drivers for 64-bit 7 then XP.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
"Intel segments the market intentionally!"
Don't forget virtualization. With AMD, you don't have to pay a premium if you plan to run virtual machines.
You no longer have to pay a premium with Intel either. I've noticed that Intel recently began adding their "Virtualization Technology" to all new CPU models, even their entry-level Celeron and Pentium Dual-Core lines. Example: this $53 Celeron E3200 at Newegg.
I think Intel did this in response to Microsoft's announcement of Windows 7's "Windows XP Mode" and its requirement of on-CPU virtualization technology. AMD also recently started adding their "AMD-V" to their previously-excluded Sempron line of CPUs. Newegg has one for just $40.
For a long time (since the Pentium D days), Intel had a confusing market segmentation strategy where some models had it and some didn't, even within the same CPU family (Pentium D, Core 2 Duo). In contrast, after AMD-V was introduced, AMD added it to all of their newly released Athlon 64 and x2 CPUs (but not Sempron). And after the Core 2 Duo was introduced and kicked major butt, AMD dramatically dropped their prices, resulting in cheap AMD virtualization platforms.
Anyhoo, AMD isn't the only option anymore for cheap virtualization.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Ya you might actually want to look at the CPU usage during update, because the process doing the updates isn't using 100% while waiting for another process to finish. i've watched cpu usage several times during updates, and the only processes using cpu are the ones doing the actual updates (or the other running processes).