32M: WinXP vs Win2k3

Trying dual boot config with WinXP PRO SP2 and Windows 2003 Enterprise 32bit R2 trial and though Win2k3 would be faster for 32M but it's consistently slower than WinXP PRO SP2 and only start getting within 1-2s of winxp times if i disable most services in Win2k3 :(

Best average 32M @3000mhz with 166 divider and 250mhz 2-2-2-0 7-12-2212 with trrd 0, idle cycle limit 0, preamble 4ns

WinXP PRO SP2 = 24m 00.969s (ranges between 23m 59s to 24m 01s)
Windows 2003 = 24m 02.718s (ranges between 24m 02s to 24m 07s)

I thought Win2k3 is meant to be way faster than WinXP for 32M Super Pi ?

Any tips ? :D


.

Nice investigation you've performed here G.! I'll be interested to read replies too as I can't even get good times with 32M while my 1Ms are pretty good...

Server 32bit --> 64bit:confused:

From my experience Windows Server 2003 Enterprise edition
without service pack 1 was much faster than WinXP PRO SP2.

For me, what I do after installing 2003 is enable 'no ctrl+alt+del startup',
and disable 'system event tracking'. Both through 'gpedit.msc'...

Above are all I do, and 32mb SPI times with 2003 server were a lot
faster than WinXP PRO SP2 for me.

Do you use any special tweaks with XP PRO SP2?
I think it might be that you're XP SP2 PRO is tweaked really good. :)

Otherwise think something went wrong with you're 2003 server CD. :D
Could it be the R2 trial edtion's specific prob? Mine is a retail version..

I also have WinXP SP2 and Server 2003 on dual boot, with all that stuff disabled (like formyfaith - CTRL-ALT-DEL, Shutdown tracker, etc...). But to be honest, I'm not seeing any shatterring differences - both are giving me same times, almost literally...

i used both but not Enterprise version of Win03 server......i guess that may be the difference donno

so far my fastest times by a small margin are with XP+SP2

Guess they're pretty close when it comes to 32M i thought it would be something ground breaking for 32M on win2003 with dramatic reduction in times heh

example with WinXP Pro SP2 2x 512MB OCZ PC3500 GoldGX UTT BH-5 but with looser 2-2-2-5 7-14-2222 timings about equals (well actually beats) fully tweaked Win2k3 time of 24m 02s (and i had to disable alot of services on win2k3 for that)

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SL...estSPD_tnn.jpg

More Tweaked 32M run on WinXP PRO SP2
http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SL...estSPD_tnn.jpg

Yep, that's why I said Server 2003 is over-hyped :D

Oh well all that configuring and installing of Win2k3 wasted heh

There are 32bit and 64bit win2k3 editions. 64bit should be faster.

Check this interesting link out:
http://www.goreblast.com/superPI.htm

I now have windows server 2003 enterprise installed on 2 machines including my benching rig. My Dothan can overclock like 60-80mhz highter on Windows XP. In superpi 32m XP is just as fast. In 1m server 2003 is a little fater at the same clock, but it's not worth it cause the Dothan is more stable with XP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by formyfaith

For me, what I do after installing 2003 is enable 'no ctrl+alt+del startup',
through 'gpedit.msc'...

---

How to do that? :D I've disable the even tracking, but not this thing.

Win2k seems to be the fastest OS for 32M here. :)

which version of 2k3 should be used? i have a variety from web edition to datacanter server edition, and dont see the differences here

hmm tried win2k3 sp1 again on E6700 still 4-5 seconds slower clock for clock then my winxp pro sp2 run

E6700
@10x400 = 4004mhz
1:1 400mhz 4-4-4-10 memory

WinXP Pro SP2 = 13min 22.290s
Win2K3 SP1 = 13min 27.141s

strange is first 3 iterations on win2k3 is alot faster than winxp pro sp2, but then it slows down and blows out to 4-5 seconds slower ??


edit:
More interesting results at 10x400 = 4004mhz 1:1 4-4-4-10 32M

WinXP Pro SP2
no maxmem = 13min 22s
with maxmem = 13min 18-19s

Win2K3 SP1
no maxmem = 13min 26-27s
with maxmem = 13min 18-19s

Well, it is a matter of preferences and how deep you want to go when tweaking that OS. My experience is that 2003 is faster when seriously tweaked and with 2GB or more RAM.

But, when quad-cores are here XP is out of the equation anyhow..;)