![]() ![]() Lastly the the ability to lock an application to a specific core has existed since win2k (if not NT), i'm sure you know what i'm talking about, affinity. What all this means is that on older hardware xp will run faster and win7 will scale better on cpu's with more and more cores. my guess is that windows 7 probably also hardware accelerates the 2d desktop as well.įurthermore, vista was a much more threaded OS than xp which also led to it being more responsive (check to see the number of active threads of comparably configured xp and vista installs) at the expense of higher ram usage (as you know, the more threads the more memory is needed) and win 7 is more threaded still. a quick look through vista documentation revealed that the gui was gpu accelerated which accounted for the speed difference, however the non-Aero interface under vista was not hardware accelerated. windows 7 feels "snappier" than vista and vista felt snappier than xp and the reason is simple: Aero is hardware accelerated, i ran both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions of vista and realized what was happening when i was shutting off services to optimize vista (the way we used to optimize xp and 2k), when i shut off Aero vista went from being significantly snappier than xp to being significantly slower than xp (in my case xp 64). The balance of kernel vs user mode thread scheduling can be adjusted to suit the general use of the OS (e.g., audio/video, gaming, server etc) and applications can be locked to a specific processor core - this prevents threads being switched between cores (even single threaded). ![]() Windows 7 also has new stuff under the hood that can affect performance. There's really bugger all difference between the two except that Windows 7 feels snappier (which I can attest to). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |