If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
8.1 to 10
On 17/05/2016 00:56, Drew wrote:
Mostly use Firefox but will probably mess around with edge to see if I can make it useable. Windows 10 also contains Internet Explorer 11 and you can easily find it by typing Internet in the search bar or some call it Cortana. this is the space next to the start button. When you see Internet Explorer pop up above the search box, just right-click on it and pin it to taskbar. So now you have EDGE and Internet Explorer. Of course, you already know about FF so I want say anything here. You can also install Google Chrome to make a full set of browsers on your machine. You can then choose your own poison depending on the day of the week. I don't understand what do you mean by "useable"? You can't tweak Edge in any shape or form. Can you explain how do you intend to do make it useable? I hope you did a clean install as upgrading from Windows 8.1 can sometimes slow things down because Windows 10 starts thinking about almost everything when it doesn't need to do anything if it is a clean install. I am using Windows 10 and I've never had any problems so far. -- /*This post contains rich text (HTML). if you don't like it then you can kill-filter the poster without crying about it like a small baby so that you don't see this poster's posts ever again.*/ /*This message is best read in Mozilla Thunderbird as it uses 21st century technology.*/ |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
8.1 to 10
Paul wrote:
Tim wrote: Drew wrote in : Curious and considering it. Recent custom build with Intel core 17 4790, 16 gigs of ram, 256 gig ssd for c:, 2tb drive for docs and such. Also using several externals for backups and other storage. On this type of system where 8.1 seems to run well and very fast. The question is would win 10 be the same or better? I am not a fan of some of the new features, but on my system Win10 seems to run faster than 8.1 did. My System: AMD A10 5700K four core CPU, 24 GB of RAM (this will probably be the last PC I build, so I wanted to be ready for anything!), had a 128GB SSD for boot drive that was very nice till it died one day without warning. Am leary now of replacing it with another SSD. I have three WD Black 2TB drives, two in a RAID 1 array and one standalone, plus several other drives. I have a big honking CPU cooler, and have been able to run two video transcodes at the same time without raising the CPU temp more than a degree or two, and without maxing the system. Win10 works for me. There are some benchmarks here, which cover more areas than I'd be able to cover. What I really want to see, is this suite run on a dual core processor, because I feel the dual core highlights the details of the OSes better. http://www.techspot.com/review/1042-...-vs-windows-7/ Tomshardware did a test a while back, where they used a hex core processor overclocked to 4GHz, and then benchmarked it. Which tends to swamp out any details of "wasteful-ness" in any particular OS tested. Their conclusion at the time is that gameplay wasn't affected by OS used. It's so hard to find someone willing to test with gutless hardware. More people own gutless hardware, than own $2000 computers. Paul I ran off a set of my own benchmarks. Time in minutes. 7Zip of Win81 System32 folder in TAR format (a 3,062,530,048 byte test.tar -- test.tar.7Z). 7ZIP 7Z "Normal" setting used. Shorter times are better. "Normal" was used, so the dictionary size needed for large thread counts wouldn't be an issue. And it was getting too slow to benchmark with "Ultra" settings. SuperPI computes PI, and is used by hardware enthusiasts as a benchmark of single-thread performance. Allowing hardware with "turbo" behavior to excel. An OS that schedules a thread to stay parked on one core, might be able to disable the other cores (C state optimization). I don't think my hardware has the necessary prerequisites for this. Someone running an AMD processor might see more SuperPI differentiation versus OS version. SuperPI 7ZIP 1T 2T 4T (on 2C 2T E8400 CPU) 1.5XS 9.34 (WinXPx32) 3:19.546 21:32 12:09 11:16 Win7SP1x64 3:18.791 21:01 11:48 10:46 Win81x64 3:19.656 20:59 11:59 10:44 Win10x64 3:21.813 21:08 12:10 10:52 1T 12T 24T (on 6C 12T 4930K CPU) Win7SP1x64 1:59.028 15:22 2:09 2:00 Win81x64 1:59.197 15:29 2:09 1:58 Win10x64 2:00.044 15:38 2:10 2:01 Strictly speaking, the WinXP set isn't part of the results, because we're comparing a 32 bit OS, to the other six 64 bit OSes. But it's interesting anyway, to see that WinXP gives a bit more horsepower, when over-subscribed. The "1T" case, is one thread of execution. A single core does the 7Z compression in that case. The middle column in the results (2T/12T), is when every logical core has a thread of execution. This is the default choice the GUI in 7ZIP makes when you run a compression of this type (7Z). The right-most column, is when over-subscribing the logical cores. The 7ZIP menu allows running two threads per logical core. If an OS "holds back" cycles, you might see the right-most column give a bit more performance than the middle column. When you compare these two rows, you can see that Win10 does a better job when over-subscribed. And the ratio of 21:08 to 10:52 is almost exactly double the performance. (WinXPx32) 3:19.546 21:32 12:09 11:16 Win10x64 3:21.813 21:08 12:10 10:52 Yet, when you compare these two rows, Win7 is winning. Win10 still seems to be holding back a bit. Across the board. Win7SP1x64 3:18.791 21:01 11:48 10:46 Win10x64 3:21.813 21:08 12:10 10:52 In the last three rows, if any CPU cycle reservation is going on, it's not apparent on a 6 core machine. This is why you shouldn't benchmark on monster machines, hoping to find "nuances". The 2 core machine (first four rows) is a better place to study behaviors. Two threads per logical core -----------+ One thread per logical core -----+ | (Reference for scaleup) ---+ | | | | | v v v 1T 12T 24T Win7SP1x64 1:59.028 15:22 2:09 2:00 Win81x64 1:59.197 15:29 2:09 1:58 Win10x64 2:00.044 15:38 2:10 2:01 With the six core processor with hyperthreading, you would expect 6x faster operation without hyperthreading, and a bit more with hyperthreading enabled. The result is around 7.5x, so the hyperthreading adds around another 1.5 cores of performance (20%). I would have liked to run Cinebench, but without a video driver for the "2 Core machine" video card in Windows 10, I couldn't run a full matrix of test results. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|