 | | | Speed differences between RH8 and Winblows? | Speed differences between RH8 and Winblows? 2004-01-13 - By Edward Dekkers
Back
Steve wrote:
> At 09:54 p.m. 13/01/2004, you wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I 'm just collating some results from a test run I did using a Monte Carlo
> > code on two different computers, one was a 1.5GHz P4 running Windows 2000
> > and the other was a 2.0GHz P4 running RH8.
> >
> > The Windows machine was faster than the RH machine. I ran the test
> > again and
> > got the same result. The difference was only 10%, but it was a
> > surprise. Has
> > anyone got any idea why there was so much of a difference?
> >
> > The test case didn 't use much memory and the version of the program
> > was the
> > same in both cases (apart from running on different OSs of course).
>
>
> You have not really given enough information to explain the difference.
>
> If this is anything but a troll then you would need to provide a lot
> more information for the question to be able to be answered but is
> probably rather off topic.
>
> For a real comparison, it would be advisable to install the OS on the
> same hardware and then document what installation you preformed, the
> tests and the results and then opinions may be able to be offered after
> the hardware differences have been eliminated.
>
> Also of note, for some things windows will preform "better " than other
> OS 's (Linux only being one) - especially in an untuned environment. Some
> of the advantages of the unix type operating systems is the ability to
> cut back any un-necessary cruft to gain more CPU cycles, but these tend
> to require you to know how the OS works.
>
Just a side note - You CANNOT test something like this on two different
PCs. I 'm not advocating Linux as being faster or whatever, but the
difference between PCs is usually HUGE.
The machines we build here are on average 20% faster than any other
white box PC we get in here with the same CPU. Unfortunately most people
always think that a 2.6GHz CPU PC is faster than a 2.4GHz CPU PC but
there are SO MANY different factors which make this not so. Look at the
amount of possible configurations:
Motherboard (Some are simply faster than other due to better IO etc)
RAM (Dual Channel -vs- Single Channel, DDR SDRAM -vs- RDRAM, Speed of
the DDR SDRAM (266, 333, 400MHz), CL2 -vs- CL2.5 -vs CL3)
Hard disk (5400RPM -vs- 7200RPM -vs- 10000RPM -vs- 15000RPM, 2Mb Cache
-vs- 8Mb Cache, ATA33 -vs- ATA66 -vs ATA100 -vs- ATA133 -vs ATA150
(SerialATA))
CPU (400, 533, or 800MHz FSB with or without HyperThreading support and
enabled in the Motherboard & OS)
If you had given me results on two 100% identical PCs, with only the CPU
speed differering, fair enough, but you haven 't specified, and I know
for a fact that a 1.5GHz CPU has a VERY different supporting
architecture required than a 2.0GHz one.
Steve is right, for some things Windows IS faster, but in this case I 'd
say the test is very tainted anyway.
Regards,
Ed.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@(protected)?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
|
|
|