4 ms·

This reveals one weakness of the Windows development model: if something isn’t a feature that is driven with a PM behind it, it won’t happen. On the other hand,

This reveals one weakness of the Windows development model: if something isn’t a feature that is driven with a PM behind it, it won’t happen. On the other hand, if some obscure internal thing isn’t optimal yet, you can bet some obsessed hacker is going to tackle it one day. How many schedulers has Linux had already?

derision 7y ago
I don't necessarily consider that a weakness
- MrBuddyCasino 7y ago
  Ok, its a trade-off. The year of the Linux desktop is surely coming soon. I must say I did not expect the scaling performance difference to be so large though.
bonzini 7y ago
Three, four if you count Con Kolivas's.
jdsully 7y ago
I’m not sure about the Windows ORG, but office always made time for dev led architectural improvements. Back in the old days it was called Milestone Zero. I’d be absolutely shocked if Windows didn’t have a similar process.
908B64B197 7y ago
Performance for more than 64 cores on the retail non-server OS seems like feature not a lot of users are asking for...
- detaro 7y ago
  Do the server variants do better? If yes, one would at least wonder why the variants you'd expect on high-end workstations didn't get the same options.
  - 908B64B197 7y ago
    I don't know, they didn't benchmark it and I don't have the config to try it myself. My gut feeling is that it's possible the thread scheduling was tweaked so that the UI is more responsive for the Workstation variant, since there's generally a user sitting in front of it who might be doing something else while some video renders or code compile. Server, on the other hand, cares less for that and if a process really wants to max out CPU (like a build or a rendering job) it should be allowed to do that since there likely won't be any sudden UI users on the machine.
  - Traster 7y ago
    The charts in the article literally show the enterprise version scales well where the "Pro" version doesn't. I'd suggest that this is largely because 64 threads is the point at which you should be moving from "Pro" to "Enterprise" Windows. Frankly, I don't think this is unreasonable, you can go to several computer vendors websites and what they consider high end can be as few as 6 cores.
    - sixbrx 7y ago
      It looks like this difference might just be a fluke, normal sample variation. Tom's hardware could not replicate and AMD has weighed in affirming there's no difference with Enterprise versions if same build numbers are used: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-threadripper-3990x-performance-windows-10-enterprise

derision 7y ago

I don't necessarily consider that a weakness

MrBuddyCasino 7y ago
Ok, its a trade-off. The year of the Linux desktop is surely coming soon. I must say I did not expect the scaling performance difference to be so large though.

bonzini 7y ago

Three, four if you count Con Kolivas's.

jdsully 7y ago

I’m not sure about the Windows ORG, but office always made time for dev led architectural improvements. Back in the old days it was called Milestone Zero. I’d be absolutely shocked if Windows didn’t have a similar process.

908B64B197 7y ago

Performance for more than 64 cores on the retail non-server OS seems like feature not a lot of users are asking for...

detaro 7y ago
Do the server variants do better? If yes, one would at least wonder why the variants you'd expect on high-end workstations didn't get the same options.
- 908B64B197 7y ago
  I don't know, they didn't benchmark it and I don't have the config to try it myself. My gut feeling is that it's possible the thread scheduling was tweaked so that the UI is more responsive for the Workstation variant, since there's generally a user sitting in front of it who might be doing something else while some video renders or code compile. Server, on the other hand, cares less for that and if a process really wants to max out CPU (like a build or a rendering job) it should be allowed to do that since there likely won't be any sudden UI users on the machine.
- Traster 7y ago
  The charts in the article literally show the enterprise version scales well where the "Pro" version doesn't. I'd suggest that this is largely because 64 threads is the point at which you should be moving from "Pro" to "Enterprise" Windows. Frankly, I don't think this is unreasonable, you can go to several computer vendors websites and what they consider high end can be as few as 6 cores.
  - sixbrx 7y ago
    It looks like this difference might just be a fluke, normal sample variation. Tom's hardware could not replicate and AMD has weighed in affirming there's no difference with Enterprise versions if same build numbers are used: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-threadripper-3990x-performance-windows-10-enterprise