Vista 64 vs Linux 64

[PoppaGeek]

I have a dual 8356 Opteron and 2 1354 Opterons that were all running Ubuntu 64. Thanks to the generosity of someone here I am able to move them to Vista 64. I have Vista 64 DVDs and I like it ok as I run it on my desktops. I have been putting the Opterons in cases with lots of filtering and fans and moving to the garage for the summer. The Linux monitoring programs do not support the chip sets and with Vista I will be able to keep an eye on temps when it gets 90 degrees here.

I installed Vista 64 on the dual 8356 last night. All I did was install Vista 64 with Service pack 1 and the updates. Nothing except HWMonitor and Boinc was installed and HWMonitor is not running. No changes were made to BIOS settings or hardware. BoincView under Est Speed now shows 1.9 GFLOps whereas with Linux 64 it showed 2.1 GFLOps.

Has anyone else noticed a difference in crunching performance between these two OSes? I am not too sure I am going to do the other 2 Opterons until I see if the RAC is that much different. I guess I'll know in a week or 2 just wondering if anyone else has seen this.



EDIT: Watts went up too. From 219 under Linux to 235 under Vista. Not surprised I've seen this before but about to go back to Linux.

[PoppaGeek]

No comments? No one ever notice a difference?

[kiwi]

I did but I tested Linux x64 vs xp (x64 ans x86) a long time ago


You could try vista SP2 or Windows 7 but I would just stick with linux, it is good for crunching

[PoppaGeek]

I did but I tested Linux x64 vs xp (x64 ans x86) a long time ago


You could try vista SP2 or Windows 7 but I would just stick with linux, it is good for crunching

Good idea!

[anubis]

Yep, pre SP2 vista is not a good idea, a resource hog

[PoppaGeek]

While a 20 gig hd was fine for Ubuntu it is evidently not for Vista. I cannot install SP2 as I do not have 7 gig free. I turned off System Restore and Memory dump and deleted all the xtra stuff like games and still less than 2 gig free. Will swap around some drives tomorrow or may just put Linux back on.

I may install Vista on one of the other Opterons that has a 250 gig hard drive and monitor heat from it and stay with Linux on the rest.

[[XC] moddolicous]

Its been a while since I've been crunching, but I was always surprised that no one ever did a real comparison between OSes. Lots of people here have 2 or more of the same rig, and I know the WU between the machines wouldn't be the same, but if you make the machines the same except for the OSes for a week I think it would be interesting to see what happens. IIRC, linux allows for more WUs to be completed, but Windows (vista, 7, xp, etc) allow for higher points per day?

[terryww]

linux has better int & fp performance. look on intel.com site for win vs linux benchmarks. saw sometimes but forgot the url. google has better memory

[PoppaGeek]

Its been a while since I've been crunching, but I was always surprised that no one ever did a real comparison between OSes. Lots of people here have 2 or more of the same rig, and I know the WU between the machines wouldn't be the same, but if you make the machines the same except for the OSes for a week I think it would be interesting to see what happens. IIRC, linux allows for more WUs to be completed, but Windows (vista, 7, xp, etc) allow for higher points per day?

I agree and decided to re-install Vista on a larger drive so I can install SP2. Will let it go for 2-4 weeks and compare it with how it did under Linux. Same machine no difference except hard drive.

[[XC] serlv]

PoppaG, check your PMs...

[D_A]

linux has better int & fp performance. look on intel.com site for win vs linux benchmarks. saw sometimes but forgot the url. google has better memory

There is also the problem of compiler efficiency. Windows compilers are often more efficient (certainly more aggressive in their optimisations) which, if not allowed for in the coding stage, can negate the advantages of the OS, at least to a degree.

(I live exclusively in Linux, I'm just trying to be fair)

Honestly, I'll be surprised if Vista out performs 64bit Linux. Actually I'd be surprised if it performed much better than a machine that's powered off completely, but we'll just have to wait and see.

[[XC] serlv]

actually i'd be surprised if it performed much better than a machine that's powered off completely...

ouch! Lol

[D_A]

Credit where credit is due ... Vista did make 7 look pretty damn good and gave all those newbie programmers something to practice their drinking skills on.

[PoppaGeek]

I am a bit surprised. Finally got to install SP2 and BoincView now shows 2.3 GFLOps.
Linux 64 was 2.2 GFLOps, 122w idle 219 100% load.
Vista 64 w/SP2 2.3 GFLOps 165w idle and 233-234w 100% load.

I am OS agnostic and have nothing to prove one over another. Each has it advantages. After 7 days and again 14 I will post the RAC here or you can check it on Free-DC.

Shows 37c on CPUs. Sounds low. Ambient is 26.2c.

[CaptMorgan]

Go Linux

[anubis]

PoppaGeek : SP2 is what vista was supposed to be like, well actually Win7 is what vista was supposed to be

[[XC] moddolicous]

So any preliminary results? I'm kind of interested

[PoppaGeek]

15 results give 2486 for Vista64 SP2, Ubuntu 64 was 2450. All same hardware, only difference was OS.

[D_A]

That's close enough that variations in validation and project efficiency could take it either way.

[Dahmer]

But with the Linux setup only using 219W at load compared to Vista using 233-234 I'ld so go Linux