XP or Vista?
XP or Vista?
which puts out units faster, or is it exactly the same?
-Austin
Screamin' BCLK:
775 System (Overclocking Platform): Q8400/Q8300/E8400/E7400/E7500 - GA-EP45-UD3R v1.1 - 4GB (2x2) OCZ Reaper HPC DDR2 1066 CL5 2.1v Corsair TX-750w
Gamer: Asrock Z77 Extreme4, i7 3770K @4.6GHz, ThermalTake Armor A90 modded, 2x4GB GSKILL RipjawsX DDR3 2133 CL9, Corsair HX-750w, MSI GTX660 Twin Frozr
Server2012: Q9300 - 8GB DDR2 - Asus P5QL Pro - Corsair CX430 - Mirrored 2TB Seagate's with 2TB WD cav for fileshare backups, 1TB WD for OS backups
Screamin' BCLK:
775 System (Overclocking Platform): Q8400/Q8300/E8400/E7400/E7500 - GA-EP45-UD3R v1.1 - 4GB (2x2) OCZ Reaper HPC DDR2 1066 CL5 2.1v Corsair TX-750w
Gamer: Asrock Z77 Extreme4, i7 3770K @4.6GHz, ThermalTake Armor A90 modded, 2x4GB GSKILL RipjawsX DDR3 2133 CL9, Corsair HX-750w, MSI GTX660 Twin Frozr
Server2012: Q9300 - 8GB DDR2 - Asus P5QL Pro - Corsair CX430 - Mirrored 2TB Seagate's with 2TB WD cav for fileshare backups, 1TB WD for OS backups
Re: XP or Vista?
SMP i guess
-Austin
Screamin' BCLK:
775 System (Overclocking Platform): Q8400/Q8300/E8400/E7400/E7500 - GA-EP45-UD3R v1.1 - 4GB (2x2) OCZ Reaper HPC DDR2 1066 CL5 2.1v Corsair TX-750w
Gamer: Asrock Z77 Extreme4, i7 3770K @4.6GHz, ThermalTake Armor A90 modded, 2x4GB GSKILL RipjawsX DDR3 2133 CL9, Corsair HX-750w, MSI GTX660 Twin Frozr
Server2012: Q9300 - 8GB DDR2 - Asus P5QL Pro - Corsair CX430 - Mirrored 2TB Seagate's with 2TB WD cav for fileshare backups, 1TB WD for OS backups
Screamin' BCLK:
775 System (Overclocking Platform): Q8400/Q8300/E8400/E7400/E7500 - GA-EP45-UD3R v1.1 - 4GB (2x2) OCZ Reaper HPC DDR2 1066 CL5 2.1v Corsair TX-750w
Gamer: Asrock Z77 Extreme4, i7 3770K @4.6GHz, ThermalTake Armor A90 modded, 2x4GB GSKILL RipjawsX DDR3 2133 CL9, Corsair HX-750w, MSI GTX660 Twin Frozr
Server2012: Q9300 - 8GB DDR2 - Asus P5QL Pro - Corsair CX430 - Mirrored 2TB Seagate's with 2TB WD cav for fileshare backups, 1TB WD for OS backups
Re: XP or Vista?
Don't think it really makes any noticeable difference either way.
Now with GPU2 folding, the Vista client tends to have a lower CPU overhead so you can fold more on the CPU as well.
Dan
Now with GPU2 folding, the Vista client tends to have a lower CPU overhead so you can fold more on the CPU as well.
Dan
(<- Clickable)-
dicecca112
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:40 am
- Contact:
Re: XP or Vista?
Vista people have had issue setting it up, XP hasn't. Best bet is either a Ubuntu VM or NotFred VM http://reilly.homeip.net/folding/vm.htmlDMB2000uk wrote:Don't think it really makes any noticeable difference either way.
Now with GPU2 folding, the Vista client tends to have a lower CPU overhead so you can fold more on the CPU as well.
Dan
Re: XP or Vista?
Remember, I'm talking about NVIDIA GPU folding here.....this is still under debate. Sure task manager shows lower cpu usage in Vista compared to XP but I haven't seen anything more than a marginal difference in "true" CPU use. In XP you can usually run 3-4 GPU's on a single processor before you start to degrade production. Vista is the same.DMB2000uk wrote:Don't think it really makes any noticeable difference either way.
Now with GPU2 folding, the Vista client tends to have a lower CPU overhead so you can fold more on the CPU as well.
Dan
One very important advantage that Vista has is that the system does not feel like it's running on 64MB of RAM like it does GPU folding in XP. This makes Vista an ideal OS to GPU fold on for a machine that is used frequently.
XP has an advantage of being able to address more GPU clients than Vista. Vista seems to only be able to use 5 GPU's. For someone wanting to set-up a dedicated GPU folding box with 3-4 multiple GPU's like 4870x2/4850x2 or 9800GX2 you'd be best served running in XP.