Print 103 comment(s) - last by Cypherdude1.. on Oct 16 at 6:21 PM

Microsoft has focused on strong multicore support in Windows 7 to deliver superior performance. These improvements will really kick in when developers start using Visual Studio 2010, a software development suite that offers greatly improved tools to leverage the power of multiple CPUs.

Jon Devaan is head of Windows Core Operating System Division and led the Windows 7 multicore improvements.  (Source: CNET)
The company is taking multi-core performance very seriously

Microsoft is ready to put the Windows Vista era behind it and is moving on to a Windows 7 world starting October 22. Among Windows 7's greatest strengths is a combination of power and efficiency.  Faster and with new APIs like DirectX 11, the new OS looks to deliver impressive results, assuming driver makers can live up to their end of the bargain and write efficient drivers for the new OS. 

One strength of Windows 7 that's not always talked about, but is lurking under the surface of many of the operating system's advancements is its improved use of multiple cores.  With Intel and AMD flooding the market with multi-core designs, the gigahertz war is dead and a new war is brewing -- a battle for the most cores, and the most efficient cores.

Microsoft has enthusiastically jumped on the opportunity to utilize this power with Windows 7.  The new OS can support up to 256 cores, versus 64 in Vista.  Jon DeVaan, senior vice president of Microsoft's Windows Core Operating System Division says this change was particularly weighty.  He states, "One dimension is support for a much larger number of processors and getting good linear scaling on that change from 64 to 256 processors.  There's all kinds of depth in that change."

The improvements that enabled the increased number of cores also will improve performance with standard consumer numbers of cores -- typically 2 to 4 -- via improvements in cache and workload balancing.  Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 also features greatly improved support for multi-threading and should allow Windows applications makers to make more efficient Windows 7 apps that leverage multiple cores.

Evans Data analyst Janel Garvin says that is perhaps the most important change.  He states, "An operating system is never going to be able to take an application that isn't already parallel and make it so. Developers still need to multi-thread their apps.  Microsoft has done surprisingly little until recently to help developers write parallel applications, except for their alliance with Intel to promote Parallel Studio."

He continues, "However, in the last year they've made some announcements and promises for Visual Studio 2010 about enhanced tools for parallel programming. It's likely that the success of Parallel Studio has impressed upon them the importance of providing Windows developers with the tools they need to remain competitive going into the future when manycore will be the standard."

Visual Studio 2010 offers many improvements including Task Parallel Library (used for performing tasks like loops simultaneously when circumstances permit), Parallel Language Integrated Query (PLINQ) (used for parallel data operations), Microsoft Concurrency Runtime (scheduling and resource management), Asynchronous Agents Library (provides improved inter-thread messaging), and finally the Parallel Pattern Library (geared for C++ users).

Despite the vast improvements even Mr. DeVaan acknowledges the art of exploiting multiple cores is still evolving.  He adds, "As an industry, we're going to be working hard to make it work better and working with broad set of developers to target (multicore programming) without undue work.  Will these approaches really accomplish it? That's an open question."

With Microsoft's primary competitor Apple also focusing on multi-threading with its developer-geared Grand Central Dispatch multitasking model built into Snow Leopard, the ability to properly leverage multiple cores is a crucial task for Windows 7.  And it appears that the upcoming OS will be rising to the occasion.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: MHz wars are not dead, just reduced
By omnicronx on 10/13/2009 3:57:04 PM , Rating: 3
To say the speed wars is over is a gross over-simplification of the current situation.
Clock speeds are now just one of the factors to consider.
You just explained yourself why the MHZ wars are over (The day clock speed became one of the many factors). They were called the MHZ wars, not the speed wars, because of the everlasting battle between AMD and Intel to achieve the highest clockspeed. Every chip architecture by each manufacturer was faster then the previous. (i.e P2 started where p1 left off, p3 started where p2 left off and so on).

Essentially the MHZ war died when Intel hit the reset switch and released the CD2, restarting the cycle, removing the GHZ moniker from the packaging and changing to model numbers instead. At that point it became the race of better efficiency per clock cycle. (AMD obviously had a helping hand in pushing Intel towards this path too, but this was the defining moment)

There is no gross oversimplification in any sense, it is pretty clear cut. Whether that fits your definition of 'MHZ wars' is irrelevant. The MHZ wars was a specific time period that is now over.

By Belard on 10/14/2009 3:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
At that point it became the race of better efficiency per clock cycle. (AMD obviously had a helping hand in pushing Intel towards this path too, but this was the defining moment)

To a large degree, I agree with you.
After all, the intel PDC (Pentium Dual Core) 2160 at 1.8Ghz (A $60 CPU) is easily faster than the Pentium Extreme Edition 3.6Ghz $1000 CPU from 2-3 years earlier.

But even before C2D, AMDs at 1~2Ghz lower clock rates were faster than Netburst in many areas. For ray-tracing/video encoding - Netburst was better.... but still people bought into the 3Ghz P4 game and got a slower and hotter Dell. :)

Yeah... AMD, who always had LESS money for R&D could only do so much and dropping the ball on the first Phenoms was very painful. If they were HALF smart, they should have come up with a completely new name than "Phenom II" so we have these stupid long names: Phenom II X4 960 (UGH) Something simple like "Blasto X4 225" would have been better. But NOW, AMD's line of CPUs are performing well and priced pretty good against the retiring Core2 line.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki