Gameguru Mania

ggrobot · Elite Member Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 53617

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 sam

Read more...

Source: GGMania headlines
GGMania.com - Daily Gaming and Tech news

Csimbi · Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:10 pm Post subject:

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 · Elite Member Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 4289

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. Rolling Eyes

And look at that huge time difference between all 3. Wheewwww!!!

zarlin · Junior Member Joined: 26 Jun 2010 Posts: 180

Tom wrote:

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. Rolling Eyes

And look at that huge time difference between all 3. Wheewwww!!!

Well it looks like you know it Rolling Eyes

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2655

Tom · Elite Member Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 4289

Yes, I know. The other sentence is just sarcasm. note the Wheewwww
Surprised

Csimbi · Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:29 pm Post subject:

Tom · Elite Member Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 4289

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 · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2655

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 · Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:32 pm Post subject:

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2655

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 · Junior Member Joined: 26 Jun 2010 Posts: 180

Csimbi · Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 12:34 am Post subject:

@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 · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2655

Csimbi · Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:59 am Post subject:

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.