Top
90°

Tests Show Win XP Still Fastest for Multicore

Windows XP SP2 outpaced Windows Vista SP1 and Windows 7 beta by leaps and bounds during multiprocess workload testing (concurrent database, messaging workflow, and multimedia tasks) on our dual-core and quad-core test beds. However, as you can see from the Scalability figures below, the improvement in performance of XP when moving from dual-core to quad-core paled to the gains of Vista and Windows 7, showing that the later operating systems take better advantage of multiple cores.

Read Full Story >>
weblog.infoworld.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Speed-Racer3165d ago

Well this was obvious... Windows 7 to speak is technically still a lot heavier than XP, just the resource management was way better than XP. XP is a very light system and can do quite a lot, but obviously is outdated now to newer scalability tech, etc.

SiLeNt KNighT3164d ago

yep gotta agree. its like comparing firefox to opera. opera is a great browser and the footprint is fairly small but firefox has all the add ons that add to the memory usage but make the total experience better. opera will get the basic job done faster but firefox does it more efficiently. if you turn off a lot of the functions so W7 is almost the same as XP you will notice a huge difference in speed. the added functions in W7 make the overall process minimally slower than XP but at the same time makes the work process more efficient than XP. its a trade off im willing to take. ive been using W7 for a few weeks and will make the switch almost as soon as it comes out in aug.

SaiyanFury3164d ago

Yeah XP is optimized for a single core environment. Adding a fast dual core CPU of course the results are better. I'm waiting for my new HDD to test the Windows 7 beta on my own system once I get my new HDD to install it on. I've seen Windows 7 perform on a 3 year old AMD single core CPU and it was fast. Faster than XP on the same chip. The article can try to undermine Windows 7, but with personal testimony, Windows 7 was faster to perform. With my Core 2 Duo clocked at 3.5GHz, I'm sure it'll do just fine.

drewdrakes3164d ago

I disagree with your Opera analogy. Opera is better than Firefox. Its just "cool" right now to use Firefox for some reason.

SiLeNt KNighT3164d ago

its cool to disagree but you give no reason why. opera works well for what it does but firefox has more functions and makes the process more efficient. From looking at pictures on cooliris, no script, WOT, FireFTP, adblock, pdf converter, video downloader, the add on list goes on and on. you can customize firefox to pretty much any use you need. Opera...is a browser. does its job well but thats pretty much it. if you disagree i would at least like to hear the reason behind it. maybe ill agree with you and make the switch but saying firefox is overated?? i feel naked when i use chrome or safari, again both great browsers that let you surf the net but for what i use in an internet browser firefox blows the others away.

same goes for W7>XP. its my opinion but i like the added functions of W7 as opposed the 4.3 seconds faster that XP will do for the life of the machine. minimal speed increase is no match for speed AND functionality which is the new W7.

oohWii3164d ago

Where was the test software produced. Was the software made to run under windows XP. If so, perhaps they should create new software they is designed to work under the newer operating systems. I notice that futuremark has redone they PCmark software to include a vista version.

Sometimes these what's faster stories leave a lot of information out.

drewdrakes3164d ago

You say Opera is just a browser yet it comes with Voice functions out of the box which are easily programmable and mouse gestures that I wouldnt go without for the rest of my life. You say Firefox is efficient, well Opera is more efficient.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3164d ago
InSpectre3165d ago

The headline here says windows XP is faster, but the article says the exact opposite. I wonder if anyone even reads past the first paragraph of articles like this?

Speed-Racer3165d ago

It's only fast in one test..the rest of tests can't count cause of XP's inability to succeed in those fields.

Foxgod3164d ago

Really, then how come Xp runs worse then both vista and win7 on my I7 ?

Goodfella783164d ago

Why im still using windows xp on my pc,,,,,and will continue to use it for the long haul.in my opinion microsoft have lost there mojo since 2005,,,peace out

JCDenton3164d ago (Edited 3164d ago )

Did you even read the article?

"Windows Vista and Windows 7 take better advantage of multiple cores than Windows XP, but not enough to overcome XP's greater efficiency."

"...However, as you can see from the Scalability figures below, the improvement in performance of XP when moving from dual-core to quad-core paled to the gains of Vista and Windows 7, showing that the later operating systems take better advantage of multiple cores."

Meaning, XP is wrong choice if you want to take full advantage of multi-core CPUs.