• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

A3 Performance - Vista vs 7

E

EvilAlchemist

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,732
One topic that have not been discussed yet is if Windows 7 get getter performance then Windows Vista SP2.

There are several articles that say there were kernel changes the give windows 7 a performance edge.

Most of them deal with multiple applications running at once, not one application using all threads like F@H.

Has anyone tested this on their system?

Would be nice to have some hard evidence on this topic.

Frame Time reading would be the best measure of the performance difference , if any.
 
interesting :)

Most of my A3's are running on WinXP, but I have two running Win 7. My two borgs I can't change and my two dedicated boxen are also running WinXP x64. I can at least provide Win 7 numbers. I only have one rig running Vista x64 (sig rig), but that is moving to Win 7 x64 this afternoon. Sig Rig is running Big Adv via my own Linux VM.

My lappy is a daily driver & my wife's desktop only runs when I am logged in
My lappy (Intel QX9300 @ 2.53) is running A3's in Win 7 x64).
My wife's desktop (AMD 940BE @ 3.2) is running A3's in Win 7 x64)

Code: 
Project ID: 6012
Core: GRO-A3
Credit: 470
Frames: 100

Name: Gold Dragon - SMP2 - QX9300 - 2.53
Path: D:\F@H\SMP2 Client
Number of Frames Observed: 300
Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:17 - 5,648.68 PPD (fresh restart and everything turned off)
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:08:02 - 3,907.41 PPD (when running other tasks

Project ID: 6013
Core: GRO-A3
Credit: 380
Frames: 100

Name: Gold Dragon - SMP2 - QX9300 - 2.53
Path: D:\F@H\SMP2 Client
Number of Frames Observed: 193
Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:28 - 4,009.01 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:09:22 - 2,299.75 PPD

Project ID: 6014
Core: GRO-A3
Credit: 484
Frames: 100

Name: Gold Dragon - SMP2 - QX9300 - 2.53
Path: D:\F@H\SMP2 Client
Number of Frames Observed: 300
Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:29 - 5,686.92 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:08:24 - 3,856.16 PPD

Name: Red Dragon - SMP - 940BE - 3.0
Path: \\Sapphiredragon\f@h\
Number of Frames Observed: 100
Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:08 - 6,180.58 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:06:41 - 5,433.56 PPD

Project ID: 6015
Core: GRO-A3
Credit: 484
Frames: 100

Name: Gold Dragon - SMP2 - QX9300 - 2.53
Path: D:\F@H\SMP2 Client
Number of Frames Observed: 300

Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:23 - 5,821.07 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:08:05 - 4,084.97 PPD

Project ID: 6020
Core: GRO-A3
Credit: 467
Frames: 100

Name: Gold Dragon - SMP2 - QX9300 - 2.53
Path: D:\F@H\SMP2 Client
Number of Frames Observed: 300
Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:12 - 5,726.16 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:07:26 - 4,361.90 PPD

Project ID: 6021
Core: GRO-A3
Credit: 476
Frames: 100

Name: Gold Dragon - SMP2 - QX9300 - 2.53
Path: D:\F@H\SMP2 Client
Number of Frames Observed: 300

Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:08 - 6,078.43 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:07:33 - 4,450.57 PPD

Project ID: 6023
Core: GRO-A3
Credit: 475
Frames: 100

Name: Gold Dragon - SMP2 - QX9300 - 2.53
Path: D:\F@H\SMP2 Client
Number of Frames Observed: 300

Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:22 - 5,735.28 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:08:51 - 3,499.51 PPD

Name: Red Dragon - SMP - 940BE - 3.0
Path: \\Sapphiredragon\f@h\
Number of Frames Observed: 278

Min. Time / Frame : 00:05:58 - 6,321.57 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:06:07 - 6,090.46 PPD

Project ID: 6024
Core: GRO-A3
Credit: 474
Frames: 100

Name: Gold Dragon - SMP2 - QX9300 - 2.53
Path: D:\F@H\SMP2 Client
Number of Frames Observed: 186
Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:30 - 5,548.01 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:08:12 - 3,915.49 PPD

Name: Red Dragon - SMP - 940BE - 3.0
Path: \\Sapphiredragon\f@h\
Number of Frames Observed: 100
Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:08 - 6,052.89 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:06:13 - 5,931.59 PPD

Project ID: 6025
Core: GRO-A3
Credit: 483
Frames: 100

Name: Gold Dragon - SMP2 - QX9300 - 2.53
Path: D:\F@H\SMP2 Client
Number of Frames Observed: 181
Min. Time / Frame : 00:06:32 - 5,610.14 PPD
Avg. Time / Frame : 00:08:34 - 3,736.44 PPD

 
I have a WIn 7 64 Phenom II @ 3.225 that has been running A3s for quite a while now (65 complete according to HFM, so a pretty good sample size) for comparison if someone has a similar machine on Vista. I have never had anything on Vista myself.
 
I have two Q6600 machines. One runs vista, one runs 7

The Vista machine is stuck at stock speeds though, so I'll have to drop the W7 machine down to stock to make the determination.

I'll try to track this info down
 
I've gone back and forth with the Win7 RC and Vista processing A3s on both. I do not have any frame times I could grab but I haven't seen a large difference between them. I have another system here running XP but that system doesn't seem to be too far off from the other two.

All three systems are Q6600s. One is running 3.6, another 3.4 and the third is running 3.2. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between the systems even with the speed differences. The system running 3.6 is my main system and due to the number of things I do with the system, I don't get the PPD out of it that I could due to other programs and stuff stealing CPU cycles. The system running 3.4 spends a good bit of its time doing nothing but crunching unless I let my son use the system and it probably puts out the most PPD overall. The system running XP and 3.2 sits idle a good bit of the time except some nights when my roommate is using it. It generally has similar performance to the system running 3.4.

I think what you would need to do is look for performance differences between the different OSes while the system is being used for light stuff. A3s are very sensitive to anything else using the system. It seems to be especially noticeable when it's just a single program running single threaded. At least that has been my observation. Win7 might be more efficient when switching back and forth between programs and threads when the system is in use for something other than folding. That might be where you would want to look for differences.

 
I was under the impression, the win7 kernel was the same :confused:
 
I didn't see any change in folding performance when I switched from Vista to Win7.
 
Zero82z said:
I didn't see any change in folding performance when I switched from Vista to Win7.
Click to expand...

Are you 100% sure there was 0 frame time difference between the two?

From the many reviews and articles i have reviewed, this *issue* is mainly with 8+ cores.
Microsoft defines core as any logicial procesor, so all these dual xeons are really 16 core.
Core i7 systems are right at the edge of this as well, so these need to be tested as well.

Windwos 7 does not have all the core locking featuers (acording to the articles) but Server 2008 x64 R2 does.

This is were we need to run these tests.

I am going to load up Server 2008 x64 R2 on a system since it has the new NT kernal.
That way I can compare it to the Server 2008 x64 SP2 (Vista Based).

I will be back to record exact frame times and see if any difference occures.
 
EvilAlchemist said:
Are you 100% sure there was 0 frame time difference between the two?
Click to expand...
I don't concern myself with specific frame times, because with all the use my PC gets, they vary considerably depending on load. What I can tell you is that I didn't see any difference in average PPD from all my clients, or at least no difference significant enough to be noticeable. But it's certainly possible that different system configurations might see an improvement.
 
I has tried Vista 64 and Win 7 64 bit. Win 7 does multitask simutaneous programs alittle better. For example my VMware frame times used to fluctuate between 35 to 38 minute frames with 2 gpu clients running. I tied both -smp 7 and -smp 8 in VMware in Vista and the -smp 8 made the computer slow down for daily useage. In Win 7 -smp 8 equals a consistent 35 minute frame with two GPU clients running and no noticeable slow down in daily useage.

I do have 12 gig of ram with an I7 920 over clocked to 3.9 and I believe Win 7 64 bit is managing the 12 gig of ram better than Vista 64 did.
 
I have spent the last three days upgrading my systems from:

Server 2008 SP2 (Vista Based) ---> Server 2008 R2 (Windows 7 Based)
I also converted my laptop from Vista x64 to Windows 7 x64 to verify what the server version were showing.

All systems were base OS installs to begin with so to get the best performance data.

I have seen a 5-10% drop in frame times on Dual / Quad Cores.
I have seen a 3-6% drop in frame times on the 16 thread systems (Dual Xeons)

It would seem that the new Windows kernel does have some better thread management.
 
Hmmm... With the last two posts, I may have to reconsider WinXP x64. I have enough Win7 licenses to move everything over. Guess I need to get off my butt and make some VGA dummy plugs
 
Last edited:
capreppy said:
Hmmm... With the last two posts, I may have to reconsider WinXP x64. I have enough Win7 licenses to move everything over. Guess I need to get off my butt and make some VGA dummy plugs
Click to expand...

If you have 9800GX2's or 295s dont do it
 
jebo_4jc said:
what's the problem with GX2's in Windows 7?
Click to expand...

Dual cards dont always** seem to work well with Vista/7.

I have had 2x 295s Sandwich and Co-op that just would not cooperate with win7 under any circumstance but worked just fine with XP.

Not saying you will have issues, but it may not be a smooth transition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top