Generating thumbs in thumbnail view of large image folders seem MUCH faster on Intel hardware..care to explain why?

[thirdlegstump]

For example I have this folder full of high res 2336x3504, 3002 images to be exact. When I delete the thumbs.db folder and refresh the window view to generate and scroll as things load, things feel MUCH smoother and uber quick on the Intel rig. Initial icon loading is near instantaneous on the Intel rig while the AMD is still quite fast but not as shazam as the Intel. The P4 isn't even optimized much with a bunch of processes running while the AMD is pretty slim. The window size is exact on both machines when I did the test. Important hardware specs are as follows:

AMD rig:
NF7S-2
2800+ Barton (running 11x200)
2x512MB CH-5 at 200/400 2.5-3-3-11
2x120GB Seagate IDE 7200RPM 8MB
1x200GB Seagate IDE 7200RPM 8MB
9700PRO 128
M-Audio Delta 1010 rack interface
XP Pro

Intel rig:
P4B533
2.53GHz P4
1x512MB generic unknown timings
3x200GB Seagate IDE 7200RPM 8MB
Matrox G450 32MB Dual head
Yamaha RPC-1 interface
XP Pro

What b da deal yo?

 

[thirdlegstump]

shazam?

 

[Gurck]

The XPs had their weak points vs Intel, I'd guess the same test would be more balanced with an a64 vs a newer Intel chip.

 

[bluemax]

I suspect the 120GB vs. 200GB drive......

 

[halfadder]

The thumbnail routine might have been coded in a way that favored the P4.

Sort of reminds me how Win2K boots much faster on P4 than it does on Athlon XP.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I can't really say, unless you are seeing the effects of HT, or the image-decoding routines were coded to support SSE/SSE2 if present, or if there is predominantly a disk I/O performance issue. The video cards/drivers might have an effect on that too.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I can't really say, unless you are seeing the effects of HT, or the image-decoding routines were coded to support SSE/SSE2 if present, or if there is predominantly a disk I/O performance issue. The video cards/drivers might have an effect on that too.

True... some motherboard chipsets have higher IDE performance and/or CPU usage than others...

...and the platters are larger on a 200GB drive, which should also increase performance a bit.

...and Intel has a higher CPU/memory clock rate which may possibly move data a little faster in some cases.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Well they're both loading the images off of the same exact 200GB Seagate and the P4 rig has a much slower video card. Also overall it seems to be quicker even if it has slower 133MHz memory while the AMD rig has 200MHz memory. Everything tells me the AMD should be quicker for most tasks other than 3D and video.

 

[sandorski]

Video card likely has little affect on the outcome. There are some situations where faster mhz seems to matter. Perhaps this is one of those situations.

 

[Arcanedeath]

The Intel system has much better IDE performance, Nvida has historicly had issues w/ IDE performance and their drivers causing issues. w/ IAA on the Intel system it doesn't supprise me it out performs a similar spec'd or even slightly bettery spec'd AMD system on NForce 2, When I moved from my Sis735 and prior to that I815e systems to an Nforce2 Ultra system I noticed a large drop in IDE performance oriented things (ie more cpu usage and less throput) so I'm willing to be thats where your issue is, as thats an almost completly I/O bound app.