Vista Question

[lelliott731]

Has anyone else run the GPU2 client in both Windows XP & Windows Vista x64? I'm noticing an almost 25% decrease in speed on the Vista x64 machine with the exact same graphics card.

On my XP box, with ATI Catalyst 8.4, my 3870 was getting around 1950-2100PPD on average. Now, on a new Vista x64 box, with ATI Catalyst 8.6, my 3870 is getting around 1550-1675PPD. A major loss in points, and I was just curious if it's an issue with my box, or if Vista x64 just sucks.

 

[Crazy Larry]

No Vista just sucks

I'm not running SMP client on Vista x64 but when I was running SMP in Vista x32 on my laptop I was getting a point drop of about 100-200 points from Windows XP.

 

[lelliott731]

Yeah, I've had it, I'm going back to XP.

 

[Jon855]

Aero much?

 

[Crazy Larry]

For me, my Vista desktop looks like Windows XP

I turned all that Aero $hit off

 

[Kendrak]

me likes the aero, and I'm pulling 4100 points from my old 8800 GTS 320

 

[compuguy]

me likes the aero, and I'm pulling 4100 points from my old 8800 GTS 320

Same here, getting around 4600PPD with my 8800GT OC , vista ultimate x64.

 

[relic]

Vista64, 8800GT q6600 8GB

4700 PPD from the GPU client (running at "slightly higher" priority)
Plus one or two SMP clients.

On a good day fahmon reports 8300PPD
Today it's doing ~7k while I use it.

My XP boxes don't do so well since the GPU client uses 100% of one core on XP and only 8-25% of a core in Vista.

 

[lelliott731]

Now is that for a nVidia client or an ATI client? I am running a ATI 3870 card in the Vista (now XP) box and it takes up a whole core. I've heard that the nVidia client doesn't take up as much CPU resources, but so far I've only run it in XP, and it seems to take just as much as the ATI client

 

[relic]

Now is that for a nVidia client or an ATI client? I am running a ATI 3870 card in the Vista (now XP) box and it takes up a whole core. I've heard that the nVidia client doesn't take up as much CPU resources, but so far I've only run it in XP, and it seems to take just as much as the ATI client

Nvidia client takes up 100% of one core in XP, but much less in Vista. Not sure how that compares to ATI, I've not run an ATI client.

 

[Wheresatom]

Not to threadjack, but I have a Vista question too.

With the UAC turned on, FAHmon gives an error and cannot start because it cannot write a log file or something along those lines. Is there a way around that?

Second, is there a way to get the UAC to not pop up when I open coretemp? It loads so much faster than Speedfan it is a much nicer way to check temps quick as long as the UAC doesn't impose itself.

Thanks.

 

[APOLLO]

I believe the Ati client utilizes 100% of a core's processing power in either OS, and the nVidia client does the same in XP, IIRC from the FCF. However, the nVidia client in Vista sees far, far lower CPU utilization, almost nil with the newest client and core release, IINM. I think Xilikon mentioned in a few threads that both Ati and nVidia folks are diligently working to get their respective hardware optimized for the GPU2 client. It's probably only matter of time before we see less CPU utilization in XP from both camps. <fingers crossed>

My personal sentiments towards Vista aside, I believe it is currently the best Windows OS for GPU2 but only as far as raw performance is concerned. In general folding terms, I would stay away from Vista. It consumes more resources, thereby reducing overall performance and there is more work involved to get multiple SMP clients to function seamlessly. Maybe I'm outdated with some details, but this is an opinion based on accumulated thread readings over the past year. There are some here who prefer Vista like relic, and I greatly respect their opinions. I prefer XP. Run what you can that's best for your installed hardware and software.

 

[relic]

Before you attach a label, let me be a bit clearer.

Vista 64 is great if you need a lot of RAM.
Two Virtual machines and a GPU2 client and Vista x64 is your baby.

Linux is a better option for the SMP client crowd without GPU2. It's cheaper and easier to configure. (But it won't do GPU2)

XP works well in many scenarios, too.
It's all a matter of what you want to run.
If I had a 2 year old XP system and I didn't want to spend a lot of money, I'd add a relative cheap 8800GT (or two) and chew up all those Vista Quads.

What you have and can afford determines what you run. Maximize your potential for the least dollar. Just fold your heart out.