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."

39 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. Re:Windows Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    3. Re:Windows Update by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am no Linux fanboi by any stretch of the imagination however I have to agree with the parent. In my personal experience, regardless of hardware configuration, even a brand spanking new build will slow to a dead crawl (for all intents and purposes unuseable) when performing updates.

    4. Re:Windows Update by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

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

    So you're saying Vista is the better OS?

  3. But what about ECC? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given the recent google study and the Folding@Home NVIDIA study, why would you want to run an i5/i7 system (which don't permit ECC)?

  4. MacBook Pro by MBCook · · Score: 2, Informative

    One of the most interesting features added to Intel’s GM45 chipset was switchable graphics—a hybrid technology consisting of an integrated graphics chipset and a discrete GPU. [...] The potential savings was supposed to equal up to roughly an hour of battery life. Unfortunately, Lenovo and Fujitsu were the only two builders to take advantage of switchable graphics.

    Isn't that what Apple introduced earlier this year on the MacBook Pros? The ability to switch off the high power GPU when it's not needed and fall back to a lower quality integrated GPU? I realize that Apple used an nVidia solution instead of an Intel, but that still seems a little disingenuous.

    PS: Emphasis was mine

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:MacBook Pro by Shados · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Notebooks have done this for years (my girlfriend's 2-3 years old windows lap-top has that). Im guessing this is just Intel's flavor of it. Unless there's something fancier about Apple or Intel's offering like being able to do it on the fly without any settings to toggle or bios interaction, like CPU stepping.

    2. Re:MacBook Pro by nxtw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't that what Apple introduced earlier this year on the MacBook Pros? The ability to switch off the high power GPU when it's not needed and fall back to a lower quality integrated GPU? I realize that Apple used an nVidia solution instead of an Intel, but that still seems a little disingenuous.

      The Apple GPU switching implementation appears to require the user to restart his or her session (that is, log off and log on again.) Intel's implementation seems to support switching GPUs without logging off or restarting. The Intel solution also has to handle two different display drivers.

      Some older laptops supported switching between integrated and discrete graphics as well, but I think they required a reboot to switch.

    3. Re:MacBook Pro by Nursie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    4. Re:MacBook Pro by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So the worst thing you can say about Win7 is that it performs better but uses slightly more power in some rigs?

      Desperation sets in...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. On what desktop system do you use ECC? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I haven't seen a desktop in a long time that had ECC RAM, or even support for it. In the Core 2 era of chips desktop use normal unbuffered DDR2 or DDR3 DIMMs. For ECC stuff on workstations/servers you use FBDIMMs which are way more expensive.

    Same shit with the i7. If you want i7 class hardware with ECC it is called the Xeon 5500. Running on a 5520 chipset, it supports ECC RAM, and lots of it (144GB is the most I've seen thus far).

    That's all workstation class stuff. Desktop stuff is not ECC because it is cheaper.

    1. Re:On what desktop system do you use ECC? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 5, Informative

      I haven't seen a desktop in a long time that had ECC RAM, or even support for it.

      Any moderately recent AMD CPU will support ECC, and it's not hard to find a mainboard that does as well (for example I believe any ASUS mainboard for AMD will support ECC, I know the one I checked a couple days ago does (cheapest ASUS AM3 mainboard on Newegg then, probably still is, only like $5 more than the cheapest other AM3 board)).

      In the Core 2 era of chips desktop use normal unbuffered DDR2 or DDR3 DIMMs.

      Buffered/unbuffered is separate from ECC/non-ECC. For example I know the AMD desktop chips support unbuffered ECC memory.

      Desktop stuff is not ECC because it is cheaper.

      Maybe 10% cheaper. And of course it's easy to make things cheaper if they don't have to work correctly.

    2. Re:On what desktop system do you use ECC? by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      ECC support is more expensive on Intel platforms because Intel segments the market intentionally!!! If you want ECC support running an Intel rig, you will need both a Xeon CPU and a Workstation class board (even thought the new FSB desktop chipset supports ECC, it's not enabled)

      FYI, I'm actually building a new desktop machine this week. It's an AMD Phenom II paired up with Asus Crosshair III board. I purchased matched ECC DDR3 memory (non-buffered and non-registered) direct from Crucial.com. Simple really. I just pulled down the make/model board and placed the order in two shakes... I could be wrong, but this might be the cheapest desktop class system that supports ECC DDR3.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:On what desktop system do you use ECC? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes good enough is just that. People are used to restarting their computers and getting random blue screens. If a restart fixes it, they generally don't care. And that's fine by me. I don't use my machine for super-high precision work where a few bits flipped will cause massively different results. Nor do 99% of people. Why pay the extra 10% more when less than 1% actually might have a use for it?

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    4. Re:On what desktop system do you use ECC? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes good enough is just that. People are used to restarting their computers and getting random blue screens. If a restart fixes it, they generally don't care. And that's fine by me.

      I see it more as a problem that needs to be fixed, because even if most people use their computer for mostly entertainment they still use it for actual productive stuff at least occasionally.

      I don't use my machine for super-high precision work where a few bits flipped will cause massively different results. Nor do 99% of people. Why pay the extra 10% more when less than 1% actually might have a use for it?

      Because that "10% more" is going to be maybe $20 if you have unusually large amounts of RAM, and more like $5 for a $500 BudgetBox system that only has 2GB? That's probably worth it even for gaming (I'd imagine a bluescreen in the middle of an important raid or something could be rather annoying), let alone using TurboTax or doing office stuff for your small business (I seem to recall hearing that this includes a double-digit percent of the workforce?) or doing your homework at the last minute (I'm pretty sure almost all college kids do this).

    5. Re:On what desktop system do you use ECC? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:On what desktop system do you use ECC? by MojoStan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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...

  6. 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.
    1. Re:Good grief by crazipper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quick summary:
      Lynnfield = the internal name for the new Core i5/Core i7 CPUs for LGA 1156.
      Core parking/ideal core = two optimizations from Microsoft in Win7 that are supposed to save power by consolidating background tasks onto as few CPU cores as possible, and then putting the idle cores to sleep.
      Clarksfield = Core i7 Mobile; basically, the Lynnfield stuff with a different interface, more aggressive Turbo Boost, etc.
      Nehalem = Another Intel internal name referring to the whole family of 45nm CPUs based on this architecture. Members include Bloomfield, Lynnfield, Clarksfield.

    2. Re:Good grief by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They obviously don't. Some cohesive naming might give you at least an indication on what you are dealing with.

      My favorite is the nVidia one: GF 6xxx -> GF 7xxx -> GF 8xxx -> GF 9xxx -> GT 2xx .. WTF?

      Now don't ask me why. I think it's stupid.

  7. Isn't this what we want? by Korin43 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this what we want? I mean, it's higher power under load because it switches to "fast mode" faster. Isn't that good? Yes it uses more power, but if the goal was to use as little power as possible, we'd just lock the processor in "slow mode".

    1. Re:Isn't this what we want? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... if the goal was to use as little power as possible, we'd just lock the processor in "slow mode".

      Not necessarily. You also have to consider that higher performance settings may allow the processor to complete its task(s) and return to a minimal-power idle configuration more quickly, for an overall improvement in average power consumption. It all depends on the power/performance ratios for each performance level and the amount of overhead involved in switching between them. Plus, of course, a bit of clairvoyance in accurately predicting future requirements.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    2. Re:Isn't this what we want? by SpelledBackwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. People seem to forget that power drain and energy consumption are not the same thing - power consumption is in energy consumed per some amount of time. For a completely unrelated example: If you run a 30 W load over 1 second, it will use 30 joules of energy (because a 1 W power draw means it consumes 1 J per second). But if you run a 500 W load over 1/100 sec, you'll only use 5 J of energy. Batteries store energy, not power, so what is likely to be more important for mobile platforms is which one used the least amount of energy over the time span of the test, not comparing peak power or power in short bursts of activity. That is, if you're concerned about battery life. Peak power might play a bigger role in talking about current load and CPU/battery temperature issues.

    3. Re:Isn't this what we want? by izomiac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really. A CPU running at half speed uses something like 70% of the power that it does at full speed. So it's better to run at full speed for a short time, then go into power saving mode than to run at slow speed for a long time. This has been called "race to idle", and reminds me of the de facto motto of my old military school, "hurry up so we can wait".

      That said, Tom's Hardware did make a pretty big blunder on SSDs and battery life before, even having the gall to start that article with "Could Tom’s Hardware be Wrong? No, our results are definitely correct.". I haven't RTFA, but I'd be quite hesitant to take their word on anything to do with power consumption without carefully examining the methodology of their tests.

    4. Re:Isn't this what we want? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really. A CPU running at half speed uses something like 70% of the power that it does at full speed. So it's better to run at full speed for a short time, then go into power saving mode than to run at slow speed for a long time. This has been called "race to idle", and reminds me of the de facto motto of my old military school, "hurry up so we can wait".

      Actually, that's probably only true if you keep the voltage constant. If you can reduce the voltage to the CPU as you reduce the frequency ("DVFS" - Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling), the power consumption at lower speeds is far lower than running the CPU twice as long. Power consumption varies by the square of the voltage.

      This is not a new technique - and is the core of many technologies like SpeedStep and the like. A frequency agile CPU is handy. But a frequency and voltage agile CPU is very handy. However, this complicates the power management software considerably - do you crank the speed up (and power consumption) to wait, or can you run it at a reduced rate and save power? An idling CPU consumes less power (especially if you can "slow-idle" it - reduce clock dramatically AND voltage - I remember an old embedded PowerPC that was so frequency agile, you could go from 200MHz operational to 33MHz when you entered the idle loop, and back to 200MHz when you left). But it's tricky since it takes time to do a speed/voltage switch and power.

      Activities where the CPU being as slow as possible would be media playback (where you want the frame to be ready just before it's needed, so you can stay in the busy-low-voltage-low-frequency range and not switch, which will save more power than cranking the CPU up, decode the frame, then crank it down and idle). But if you're doing something interactive, say, rendering a web page, it's more optimal to crank the CPU up, render the page, then crank the CPU back down and idle. A user is waiting for the output, and finishing their work fast may result in being able to stay in a low power state longer, or finish their work faster so the whole laptop can be put to sleep. The problem is, at the scheduler level, it's hard to tell what workload it is.

  8. How about using XP sp3 for comparison??? by voss · · Score: 5, Informative

    I cant be the only one who might think xp sp3 might actually win

    1. Re:How about using XP sp3 for comparison??? by selven · · Score: 3, Informative

      Windows 98 might win.

    2. Re:How about using XP sp3 for comparison??? by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course it would win. Which is why they won't allow it in the tests.

  9. Powering the chipset and backlight by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    while under battery power the CPU will do everything it can to conserve power under the same software load conditions.

    In many notebooks, the CPU does not dominate battery consumption; the northbridge, southbridge, and LCD backlight draw a significant fraction of the power. So when CPU usage hits 90%, clocking it up to full power is warranted because it gets the work done faster, meaning that the chipset and LCD don't run as long while the user is waiting for the CPU to finish.

  10. Situations like this are why I run Intel chips by dave562 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I primarily use Microsoft software (I know, get out the pitchforks) and over the years I have occasionally run AMD chips after being overcome by various AMD biased friends of mine. I've never been able to put my finger on it, but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips. I always end up switching back to Intel. This article is just an example of why. Intel and Microsoft are in bed with each other, and Microsoft will always be putting out the code to take full advantage of the Intel chips. It wouldn't surprise me if Intel gives Microsoft the heads up on new features far in advance. It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft works with Intel and encourages them to develop certain features in their processors that will help the Microsoft code base execute faster.

    1. Re:Situations like this are why I run Intel chips by dave562 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is flame bait about my post? Intel and Microsoft work closely together to optimize the user experience. Must be AMD fans with mod points today.

    2. Re:Situations like this are why I run Intel chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Riiight.

      Certainly Intel and Microsoft work closely together, they have many reasons to. But I've used many AMD and Intel systems, and honestly they're pretty interchangeable in terms of user experience.

      Claims that Windows only runs right with Intel is at best, inaccurate. Are you forgetting things like the adoption of the AMD64 architecture as The Way Forward for Microsoft in terms of 64bit support, over Intel's offerings..

    3. Re:Situations like this are why I run Intel chips by Com2Kid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My Win7 quad core AMD system that boots in under 10 seconds, is rock solid stable, and runs every game I throw at it blindingly fast would care to disagree with you. :)

      Link to my PC build out. I was going more for cosmetics (30 lbs of brushed aluminum, I don't much like the blue LEDs though, I am burnt out on blue LEDs) than for power, I have friends who consider a 10 second boot with Win7 to be slow. Not that I boot very often, more likely I am coming out of Hibernate which I can do in ~3-5 seconds, which is pretty good timing for 8GB of RAM.

      I've never been able to put my finger on it, but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips. I always end up switching back to Intel.

      Intel makes very stable chipsets. If you tried AMD during the days that they were relying on Via chipsets (or used some of AMD's early chipsets) I can see how you could easily get this impression. Intel is good at putting together barebones kits and working with OEMs to put out stable systems.

      Also don't skimp on the mobo, get a good middle of the range one, and read reviews on it. AMD's platforms have always offered a lot of diversity, which can be both a strength and a weakness; depending on how educated the system builder is about the relative merits (including stability) of those choices.

      AMD is often seen as a cost cutting measure (and their CPUs are very financially efficient) but a lot of people, both OEMs at individuals, take cost cutting a bit too far and once they go with AMD they also skimp on the power supply, motherboard, and even RAM.

      Indeed, an AMD system with a very well performing CPU that has been hooked up to a crash prone motherboard running no-name RAM all powered by a flaky PSU, can indeed give one a very negative impression of AMD as a whole. :)

      AMD MoBos are typically cheaper than comparable quality Intel MoBos, so you can save some money there, but don't be cheap with any other parts of the system. You will still save a good chunk of change (how much depends on which company has done price drops most recently) and you will get a stable, reliable, very well performing system.

      --
      Need help treating your acne? Come here!
  11. still worth the upgrade by sabhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    its still worth it to upgrade to windows 7. vista is just too terribly slow. i think a lot of people are holding back from purchasing computers because no one wants to be stuck with vista.

  12. 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.
  13. 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]

  14. Re:Test is pointless by armanox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.