Alex its easy to compare X1/X2 by looking at the CPU meter in the CB on different OSs. It doesn't require any special skill just a glance. On Vista one core is always way above all the others. On Windows 8 they all are even.  

This is also what Noel reports in his blog on Windows 8. 

I see a lot written about intel speedstep, how do you switch it off? I've looked in the UEFI dual bios on my machine but I can see no reference to it. 

What should I be looking for, and, is it necessary to have it on/off?

Try setting your Windows power profile to performance mode.

Ah ok, thanks John, I've already done that. 

I shall fret no more. :-)

Have you noticed better core scheduling? I have.  

Hi John,


I've not seen a major difference in core scheduling between Win7x64 and Win8x64.
ie: The X2 demo tune "Where Did We Go Wrong?" plays at the same approximate load.

Subjectively, I think Win8x64 responds to navigation just a little "snappier" than Win7x64.

Jim Roseberry

Have you noticed better core scheduling? I have.  

Hi John,


I've not seen a major difference in core scheduling between Win7x64 and Win8x64.
ie: The X2 demo tune "Where Did We Go Wrong?" plays at the same approximate load.

Subjectively, I think Win8x64 responds to navigation just a little "snappier" than Win7x64.

  Interesting. It could be that no OS would ever have the gall to give you problems. LOL 

> It doesn't require any special skill just a glance. On Vista one core is always way above all the others. On Windows 8 they all are even.

This is exactly the observed behaviour when core parking or speedstep is turned off.

Please understand the difference between power management saving of CPU cores vs core scheduling - they are two entirely different things, although both manipulate which core should be used next... so it's easy to misunderstand that they are both one and the same.

Also note changing power profile to performance does nothing here in this scenario without a registry hack for core parking, at least in Windows 7 and Vista: 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=1861804

Now Win 8 may have different defaults, so the easiest way to compare like with like is to turn off core parking or powerNow in the BIOS which should override all this stuff I'm talking about for both OS's and give a more faithful benchmark comparison. When people are testing this I notice that nobody even mentioning this as a factor, hence I said earlier that I'm not satisfied with these tests.

I have a strong feeling that what you and people are benchmarking are actually saying is that you/they prefer the default settings supplied with Windows 8 which is not the same as saying Windows 8 is more efficient. Also people running upgraded copies of Win 8 may have different behaviour to a clean install of Win 8 (they maybe using the Windows 7 default settings).

Cheers...

CakeAlexS


> It doesn't require any special skill just a glance. On Vista one core is always way above all the others. On Windows 8 they all are even.

This is exactly the observed behaviour when core parking or speedstep is turned off.

Please understand the difference between power management saving of CPU cores vs core scheduling - they are two entirely different things, although both manipulate which core should be used next... so it's easy to misunderstand that they are both one and the same.

Also note changing power profile to performance does nothing here in this scenario without a registry hack for core parking, at least in Windows 7 and Vista: 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=1861804

Now Win 8 may have different defaults, so the easiest way to compare like with like is to turn off core parking or powerNow in the BIOS which should override all this stuff I'm talking about for both OS's and give a more faithful benchmark comparison. When people are testing this I notice that nobody even mentioning this as a factor, hence I said earlier that I'm not satisfied with these tests.

I have a strong feeling that what you and people are benchmarking are actually saying is that you/they prefer the default settings supplied with Windows 8 which is not the same as saying Windows 8 is more efficient. Also people running upgraded copies of Win 8 may have different behaviour to a clean install of Win 8 (they maybe using the Windows 7 default settings).

Cheers...

Alex I have a Q6600. It does not support speed step. Further I do know quite a bit about computers. I build them. 

Been doing so for over a decade. The reason I ask Jim things is because I respect him. Does that mean I don't know the answers? You would be making an error if you thought so. 

Nor do I need a lecture on this subject from you. You presume way too much.

Let me put it another way when I need your help I will ask for it. 

You have been on here for a couple years I have been here since before there was a forum. I have forgotten more than you ever knew. What you should do is go back and read my posts from the very beginning to get a handle on what I do know.

You should try to contain yourself here and learn from the rest of us. Not try to lecture people that have been doing this a very long time.

I hope I have made myself clear. 

> Alex I have a Q6600. It does not support speed step

Oh dear John...
Have you read a specification of a Q6600 when it comes to Intel Speed step?

http://ark.intel.com/products/29765/Intel-Core2-Quad-Processor-Q6600-8M-Cache-2_40-GHz-1066-MHz-FSB

Sorry not on this motherboard.