Slashdot Mirror
Benchmark Software For Windows 7 Rollout?
tdisalvo writes "We are doing a Windows 7 rollout and I will have to compare major PC vendors. I am looking for vendor-neutral tests that will give me the data I need to present an educated opinion to my CIO. Clear, pretty charts are nice since it is for C level execs, and we need to make it understandable for nontechnical as well as technical people. More specifically, I am looking for something that will clearly show how the same processor performs (better or worse) with a particular build, motherboard, RAM, power supply, etc. My plan is to get very similar machines from major vendors and see which one's build has the highest independent benchmarks. Something with which I could test multiple computers and report on the differences in score would be ideal."
As usual, free is an advantage.
The only thing I can say is a lot of benchmarking software that offers charts and nice graphs tend to be skewed. Not all of them however. A lot of hardware companies design the parts to get somewhat abnormally high results on benchmarks, thus inflating the numbers, and providing inaccurate results. Your best bet is unfortunately more time consuming. You should have multiple software testing the machine, and then make your own chart. This is much more accurate. Try rendering a 1080p video file and record the amount of time it takes. Things like that.
It doesn't run on Windows but Phoronix Test Suite would give you a good baseline for the hardware.
Phoronix Test Suite ( http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/ ) supports Win7 now. It also allows comparison against OSX and Linux ( http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_windows_part3&num=1 ).
It's Free, it's Open Source and has a bucketload of tests already. You can combine result sets and you can even get the results uploaded for comparison at http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/
Creating your own tests is nice and easy too.
(Full disclosure - I am one of the project members).
This is pointless. Really. All the machines will test within a few percent of each other. It's not like a Dell is significantly faster than an HP (especially if the software image is the same).
If the machines have different CPU/Chipsets/Video Cards, that's a different story, but a PC -is- really just the sum of its parts.
Tell the C-level execs that the best value would be to skip the benchmark and go right to the bidding, let the vendors undercut each other for an extra month.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Yeah. You won't need more than 1Gig of RAM, and the slowest processor processor you can get with a Windows 7 bundle should be plenty enough for IE, Office, and Adobe Reader, which is pretty much the basics across the board in the Corporate world.
Unless you are using some software that demands more specs, than the benchmarks shouldn't be the primary concern, it should be the price.
Not to slashvertise, but we use the Optiplexes from Dell, and besides the cheap price for decent specs, the best part about them is screw-less maintenance. You will never need a Screwdriver to replace any component on a Dell desktop. I never realized how great it was until my parents wanted me to add RAM to their 5 year old Compaq's and HP's. I'm not sure if other vendors have started doing this yet, I hope so.
(1) Pricing.
(2) Reliability/Warranty.
(3) Driver compatibility. Gets rid of most of the issues related to stability.
The fastest processor is useless for word processing, web browsing, and Outlook.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Windows 7 and your average suite of corporate crapware (anti-virus, monitoring tools, Outlook and Word, etc) will burn through 1G of memory just getting started.
If you are paying the piper to upgrade desktops and roll out a new OS, might as well kick in the extra $75 and get 3Gig of RAM.
That said, if OP is intent on comparing the performance of desktops I say forget comparing across vendors (HP, Dell, IBM) and compare configurations instead (same box with 1G vs 3G of RAM, 5400rpm drives vs 7200rpm drives vs SSDs, video cards, etc.) Then forget the benchmarks and just compare long term support contracts with the vendors, and load them up with 3Gigs of memory.
Personally I'm a fan of Dell, but that's only because I know how to navigate their support site to get the drivers I need.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Here's why this guy is being asked that... Suppose Machine A is "5% faster" than Machine B at the same price point for a common task. Let's say that task is something everyone does often and is easy to measure: booting up. So, if Machine A takes 60 seconds to boot, Machine B takes (0.95*60)=57 seconds--3 seconds faster.
So, here's how the C-level execs think... Say you have 1000 employees, each saving 3 seconds/day in bootup time. 1000 employees * 3 seconds/day = 3000 man-seconds/day. 3000 man-seconds/day * (approx) 225 work days/year = 675,000 man-seconds/year = 187.5 man-hours/year saved! Just think of how much more productive we are due to that 5%!
Of course, that assumes that all your employees are robots and use every second of time productively. To add, by the time the OP gets all the machines, runs the benchmarks, and creates the pretty PowerPoint slides for the C-level execs, this little experiment probably cost the company a lot more than 187.5 hours... (Although you could probably shoehorn a 3-4-year NPV calculation showing a savings for this project...)
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Because anybody who buys hardware today to specifically to run XP64 should be looking for a new job. XP64 is already deader than XP32 and that's saying something. It was never well supported with drivers due to it being rare than rocking horse s**t in the wild, and all future efforts will be focused on W7 x64
But there is actually a simple way to justify it. One word: Superfetch. I have found building Windows 7 PCs that having that "extra RAM" gives Superfetch the breathing room to really shine, and the customers quickly notice how their PC is soooo much more responsive, thanks to Superfetch always having the apps they use most loaded into RAM and ready to go.
Just take two identical PCs and have one with 1Gb and one with 3Gb (on my new builds I'm sticking with 4Gb and x64, unless they have a legacy app that just won't run x64) and run them for two days then time the apps. You'll find superfetch really makes a difference with regards to application speed and responsiveness. And of course the less time they are wasting waiting for an app to load the more time they have to actually be working.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
But that requires storage space for the extra computers, extra IT staff to manage the replacement, and a good accounting system to keep the pulled and spare computers separate and prevent your store of spares from getting empty.
Also, the replacement computers won't be ready immediately. They have to have a zillion+1 patches installed first. That takes time, possibly a lot of time, and runs the risk of getting the machines p0wned before the process is complete - unless, of course, you install the patches offline, which takes even more time and effort.
Of course, having a few spares around might be a good idea anyway, but relying on them as your primary recovery plan can be both costly and inconvenient.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.