Updated:01:31 PM CEST Jun,07

NEWS / RSS
CHEATS

REVIEWS

ARTICLES

HARDWARE

DEMOS

FORUMS

LINKS (new)

66 lottery login

91 club

okwin

bdg game

55 club

CONTACT

Please e-mail us if you have news.

Win10 vs. Win8.1 vs. Win7 Performance - tech

(hx) 09:10 PM CEST - Aug,10 2015

The chaps over at TechSpot have pitted Windows 10 vs. Windows 8.1 vs. Windows 7 in a three-way deathmatch to decide which OS is the performance king. Here's an excerpt: All three operating systems were tested using a fresh install with all the updates applied and then our test software installed. The exact same hardware was used for each configuration with the only difference being the OS used.

Intel Core i5-4670K (3.4GHz - 3.8GHz)
Asrock Z97 Extreme6
8GB DDR3-2400 RAM
Nvidia GeForce GTX 980
Crucial MX200 1TB
SilverStone Essential Gold 750w
Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

After watching near-identical results pour in on most tests, from application to encoding, to storage and gaming, it's hard to read too much into results as there are many variables we can't control. The same hardware that currently runs Windows 7 competently can be upgraded to Windows 10 with no issues whatsoever on the performance front. We can ensure that the operating systems were evaluated using the exact same hardware, benchmarking software and methodology. However, we can't ensure that something such as GPU drivers didn't cause variations in performance. Moreover, technologies such Intel's Turbo boost feature can impact the accuracy of the results, though we generally run all tests at least three times, taking the average from multiple runs.

The short version of this conclusion is that a properly set up Windows machine equipped with semi-modern hardware should be capable of running Windows 7 or above more than adequately. The same hardware that currently runs Windows 7 competently can be upgraded to Windows 10 with no issues whatsoever on the performance front.

It used to be the case a few generations back that a new Windows release would need time to be at least on par with the performance of its predecessor. Possibly the most extreme example I can recall was the move from Windows XP to Windows Vista. Though that was partly due to immature drivers on the all-new platform, Vista was a resource hog, too.

We wouldn't be surprised if certain aspects of Windows 10's performance are improved over the coming months and into next year, but most importantly today, you can feel free to upgrade and know you won't be sacrificing performance in the process.

There are going to be future performance benefits of Windows 10 that we can't measure yet, and even once we can, we won't be able to compare the changes with previous operating systems -- DirectX 12 gaming, for example, will only be supported by Windows 10 and later.

last 10 comments:

Csimbi	(10:10 PM CEST - Aug,10 2015 )
Hardly surprising that Win 7 is faster. What surprises me is that the difference is not that big. To me, the most meaningful test is WinRAR. That's what I use to tune my system - the memory clocks and timings to be specific. Setting better memory clocks and timings can give you quite a boost and it's easily visible in the WinRAR benchmark in seconds.

Tom	(10:27 PM CEST - Aug,10 2015 )
Same OS different skin, not surprising at all. Who deals with WinRAR files? Oh ya, those into pirating and downloading pirated titles. Yes, WinRAR is important. :roll: And look at that huge time difference between all 3. Wheewwww!!!

zarlin	(10:37 PM CEST - Aug,10 2015 )
[u:43f2c2a910]Tom> Same OS different skin, not surprising at all. Who deals with WinRAR files? Oh ya, those into pirating and downloading pirated titles. Yes, WinRAR is important. :roll: And look at that huge time difference between all 3. Wheewwww!!![/u:43f2c2a910] Well it looks like you know it :roll:

gx-x

(12:06 AM CEST - Aug,11 2015 )

Tom> Same OS different skin, not surprising at all.

Who deals with WinRAR files? Oh ya, those into pirating and downloading pirated titles. Yes, WinRAR is important. :roll: And look at that huge time difference between all 3. Wheewwww!!!

you are missing the point...
WinRAR is just the quickest way to see how changes and what changes affected the system and by how much. Though with DDR3 today, moving away from SPD latencies is limited at best and changes in WinRAR speed are minimal if any at all. CPU speed is going to affect it way more.

As for it's use, well, that's up to you. I use it for a lot of other things other than unpacking stuff from internet.

Tom	(02:37 AM CEST - Aug,11 2015 )
Yes, I know. The other sentence is just sarcasm. note the Wheewwww :o

Csimbi

(01:29 PM CEST - Aug,11 2015 )

gx-x> Tom> Same OS different skin, not surprising at all.

Who deals with WinRAR files? Oh ya, those into pirating and downloading pirated titles. Yes, WinRAR is important. :roll: And look at that huge time difference between all 3. Wheewwww!!!

you are missing the point...
WinRAR is just the quickest way to see how changes and what changes affected the system and by how much. Though with DDR3 today, moving away from SPD latencies is limited at best and changes in WinRAR speed are minimal if any at all. CPU speed is going to affect it way more.

As for it's use, well, that's up to you. I use it for a lot of other things other than unpacking stuff from internet.
@Tom
Dunno, I have archived all my junk with RAR ever since the DOS days.
Private stuff, too. It's the best all-around archiver. Nowadays there are better compressors, but they are not that much better...

@gx-x
Yep, that's the point. No need for any other benchmark tool.

Downclocking the memory allows for lower latencies.
Combine those two properly and you'll be surprised that your 1600MHz memory outperforms the 2100MHz one!

I don't know about CPUs becoming the bottlenecks. I'm thinking the next bottlenext is the I/O between the memory and the CPU as well as the memory itself.
Why?
While CPUs don't get much faster (we've been around 4Ghz for four years now), they do get more cores. More cores mean more parallel processing -> more CPUs will need to be fed from the same memory (!)
That will put quite a load on both memory and the bus.

Tom	(03:03 PM CEST - Aug,11 2015 )
With the cost of hard drives and memory these days, who needs to compress? Waste of time and a more serious situation if corruption occurs. If your archive is affected you are fucked. In my case, I could lose a bunch of files but not an archive holding hundreds or thousands of files. I got a bunch of TB's in a NAS configuration.

gx-x

(03:10 PM CEST - Aug,11 2015 )

Well actually, the archiver's tool speed also depends on algorithm and engine itself. 7zip is actually often faster than winRAR, for example.

as for memory, stepping down a notch will yield you what SPD will itself tell you. Usually, for example, if you have 1600MHz 9-9-9-24 memory, going down to 1333 will set it to 8-8-8-22. And yes, it's a better option, but differences are not that big in real operation, even in synthetic benchmarks they are not that big. Like I said, CPU will matter more, but also, I don't think I would notice weaker CPU in tasks like using the browser and listening to music in the same time. By this I mean if you were to give me [email protected] over my current one @3.8, or give i5 @4.7GHz, or [email protected] things don't matter for mundane tasks.
As shown in the review, on a nicely balanced system, all results are pretty much the same, confirming what I wrote couple of weeks back, that, you can sit back, relax and not care about win10 until they sort out some things and until DX12 games (if you play games) start coming out.

Csimbi

(08:32 PM CEST - Aug,11 2015 )

Tom> With the cost of hard drives and memory these days, who needs to compress? Waste of time and a more serious situation if corruption occurs. If your archive is affected you are fucked. In my case, I could lose a bunch of files but not an archive holding hundreds or thousands of files. I got a bunch of TB's in a NAS configuration.
Cost of hard drives are still high.
That's why I add recovery record.

gx-x> *all above*
I am actually downclocking my 2133 Mhz modules to 1666Mhz and I can get 7-7-7-24. I can tell you, you can feel that Windows is a bit more snappy. I have a 2600K behind it though. I bet it would not make a difference on those i5s and i3s (no offense).

I could downclock it to 800Mhz with the same timing and change 2T to 1T, but the speed did not change. Kinda logical.

We will see. I read about the 'improvements' Skylake won't be bringing despite my expectation, so I just put in an order for a 4790K.

gx-x

(09:01 PM CEST - Aug,11 2015 )

I think it's placebo because you want to see it. Reviews and extensive testing has been done and performance differences on high end CPU's and next to non-existent. You'd even hardly notice i5 @4.4 over i7 @4.4, let alone 0.5% improvement in the memory bandwidth department.
Also, no offense meant. In using firefox, chrome, watching movies, doing regular "desktop" crap I didn't notice any improvement when I switched from i3 2100 that was fixed @3.1GHz to intel i5 that is now @3.8GHz. I did however notice it in games of course, photoshop, aftereffects and some other apps, but apps, that don't even bother to utilize the cpu over 15-20% have nothing to gain. It's like comparing a McLaren P1 and Lada Niva on red light. Sure, one looks better but both are doing 0 mph. :d

PS. Save your money on 4790K. It's not worth it. you need new mobo too and all that for on average ~5% faster CPU? I get it, you are itching, but there just isn't anything that much better than Sandy I7. Unless you are willing to go 6 cores route...wait for 8 core i7 at normal price.

zarlin

(10:07 PM CEST - Aug,11 2015 )

Csimbi	(12:34 AM CEST - Aug,12 2015 )
@gx-x Dunno. When the WinRAR score jumps from ~1700 to ~1900 (single core), that's 10%. For free. Enable multi-core and you will see some serious boost. If you check this, the 2600K ticks at 3.8Ghz, while the 4790K ticks at 4.4Ghz. That's 13%, without overclocking. Its memory bandwidth is also higher. So why do you say that it's only 5% faster?

gx-x

(06:54 AM CEST - Aug,12 2015 )

Csimbi> @gx-x
Dunno. When the WinRAR score jumps from ~1700 to ~1900 (single core), that's 10%. For free. Enable multi-core and you will see some serious boost.

If you check this, the 2600K ticks at 3.8Ghz, while the 4790K ticks at 4.4Ghz.
That's 13%, without overclocking.
Its memory bandwidth is also higher.
So why do you say that it's only 5% faster?

every godamn test on internetz says that clock for clock it's 5% faster AT BEST.

1700 1900 single core? It can only be lower in multicore, not higher, but you tested it, you would have posted it if it were higher. You choose a scenario where memory would make up for the use of cores.

Dude, please....i7 2600Kis good cpu. Go buy whatever. I told you that you can save money, you don't need it. But hey, it's your money. ;)

"If you check this, the 2600K ticks at 3.8Ghz, while the 4790K ticks at 4.4Ghz. "

what the hell does this mean or prove? You can't get your 2600K to 4.4? You can't up the core voltage to 2.2/3V? Amazing... Clock for clock was always ASSUMED at my end, I am sorry if that made confusion. Clock for Clock differences are minimal at best. You are better off investing in 5xxx series and getting 6 core i7, 4xxx is waste of money at this point.

Csimbi	(11:59 AM CEST - Aug,12 2015 )
But who'd run it clock for clock? You can overclock the 2600K to where the 4790K runs at stock. The 2600K will be left behind when you overclock the 4790K. Hence, the clock for clock comparisons are useless. I also like that it uses less power. It pays for it in the long run.

Tom

(02:32 PM CEST - Aug,12 2015 )

i5 2500K. Still see no reason to overclock. Fastest ram I could get with Samsung SSD. Haven't invested anyhting really in upgrades. 6TB NAS also affordable. No need for compression or tweaking for games. Some people like to think they are getting more by overclocking. I see it as a waste of time. When I have to overclock I'll upgrade what's needed. Years without upgrades and no overclocking tells me I know what I'm doing.

Csimbi

(02:42 PM CEST - Aug,12 2015 )

Tom> i5 2500K. Still see no reason to overclock. Fastest ram I could get with Samsung SSD. Haven't invested anyhting really in upgrades. 6TB NAS also affordable. No need for compression or tweaking for games. Some people like to think they are getting more by overclocking. I see it as a waste of time. When I have to overclock I'll upgrade what's needed. Years without upgrades and no overclocking tells me I know what I'm doing.
I don't overclock unless needed, either. Agree, not needed.

gx-x

(04:43 PM CEST - Aug,12 2015 )

Csimbi> But who'd run it clock for clock?
You can overclock the 2600K to where the 4790K runs at stock.
The 2600K will be left behind when you overclock the 4790K.
Hence, the clock for clock comparisons are useless.

I also like that it uses less power. It pays for it in the long run.

every normal tester when reviewing cpus will test clock for clock to determine architecture improvements over the previous generation.
Yes, 4790K is clocked higher by default and uses a tad less power (it will pay it self off in around 500 years :D ) but there are lower clocked i7's also. Overclocking 4790K will not go far. Lucky people get it to 4.9/5GHz with very good cooling, average is 4.6/7 GHz. You can reach that with 2600K with same voltage that you will reach it with 4790K.

Also, if you are not overclocking, why are you buying K series? There is no difference between K and non-K except unlocked multiplier on K that is meant for -overclocking. Zero difference, none, nada, zilch, waste of money.

Csimbi	(06:16 PM CEST - Aug,12 2015 )
Not with the electricity prices we have here, lol Why K-series? Because I want to be able to overclock when needed.

Tom	(09:21 PM CEST - Aug,12 2015 )
Csimbi> Not with the electricity prices we have here, lol Why K-series? Because I want to be able to overclock when needed. It's never needed, that's just it. If you need a bit more, you need new hardware. I've never given it a thought. Just another topic people try and use to act/feel smart. Look at me I overclock. Who cares...

gx-x	(09:26 PM CEST - Aug,12 2015 )
you can get 400MHz more on non-K by bumping the Turbo multiplier by 5. That when "more" is needed and intel Turbo Boost kicks in, it will kick in at 400MHz higher. You can even lock it to always stay at that clock, but then there that electricity bill and whatnot :)

Csimbi

(01:02 PM CEST - Aug,13 2015 )

Tom> Csimbi> Not with the electricity prices we have here, lol

Why K-series? Because I want to be able to overclock when needed.

It's never needed, that's just it. If you need a bit more, you need new hardware. I've never given it a thought. Just another topic people try and use to act/feel smart. Look at me I overclock. Who cares...
Dunno. It used to be lots of fun when we were younger - who can crank out more from the same metal.
Yeah. Nowadays it's not that much fun.
But still, fine-tuning an inefficient system is a good thing to do. All these high clock memories are just overclock-able versions of the same thing, tested and selected in the factory. Getting a better module is still worth it, due to the lower timings I described earlier. That's what my messages were about (and not overclocking).

gx-x

(01:21 PM CEST - Aug,13 2015 )

when we were younger... :) Good reference.
I built custom water cooling from car radiator, aquarium pump converted it to work externally, WB machined on CNC in my friends garage etc.
I was overclocking Duron 600 to 1200mhz, yep that was fun. :) Nowadays, intels are boring unless you are looking at synthetic benchmark results because at around ~3.6GHz~4GHz i5 or i7 perform very similarly. You can even buy ball to the wallz overclocked AMD 5xxx CPU, same with intel 4790, it's already clocked to an average clock that people achieve at that stock voltage.
That's no fun.
Fun was, buying e8200 c2d and DFI motherboard and making 4GHz 24/7 stable OC out of the cheapest e8xxx wolfdale. Closest we have to that now is buying i5/7 2500/2600 and ruining it @4.5GHz 24/7 but it's almost pointless if you are not avid gamer, a person that spends 5 hrs a day gaming using 500+$ graphics card.
There is no point in running i5/i7 @ 4.5+ GHz if you are not using gtx 970 at least.

All comments

Add your comment (free registration required)