Ran a comparison on a Q6600 (no hyperthreading), at 2.4Ghz stock with 2.752 GB brand new RAM allowed, in dual boot, first W10, then Ubuntu, each a quick load set of 20 i.e., first fetch 20 on Linux, then immediately booted to W10 to fetch 20 to complete first, so as to ensure the sets came from as close the same batches as possible.

The results are:

Ubuntu, mean CPU time 1.53 hours.
W10, mean CPU time 2.35 hours.

Not quite double the speed, but Windows was a hefty 53.5% slower at processing, close enough from what we've historically seen for all the AD Vina based sciences. If going by elapsed time, the difference is 1% greater. Too much time lost in W10 by services such a TiWorker, Search indexers and whot not, doing actually anything on W10 had a disturbing negative impact on efficiency [but than this clunker is 10years+, with a BIOS that's beyond and adaptability, and a SATA HD drive]

Credits.. dog year points don't interest a BOINC cruncher:

Ubuntu, credit total 882,50 (28.86/hour)
W10, credit total 912.50 (20,39/hour)

Not quite the same percent, but since Windows dwarfs Linux, the mean statistics system effective knocks down Linux [hey you bastardi... you want too much per unit of time]

However we twist this, most important: Linux crunchers punch out 53.5% more results on OpenZika.

Once again QED.