How much faster is 64bit?

thegoonden · 24 Apr 2008 at 18:15

Last time I tried XP64 and Vista64, nothing worked, none of my software ran and none of my drivers loaded, and my machine seemed downright sluggish.

But the other day, on these very fora, I was told, that everything now works perfectly on either, and should require no special messing around.

While I doubt that in and of itself (I mean the vista64 disc can't have been updated, it's in a drawer), I was wondering about performance.

I'm TOLD 64 is much MUCH faster, and yet the only vista32 score (mine) on the Crysis benching thread, is far far higher than anything from vista 64 (highest 64 score for a quad core and a single GPU is 22FPS, with a much better CPU/GPU than mine, yet I scored over 25).

Could anyone post, or point me too, direct comparisons betwen 32 and 64 bit XP and Vista, on the same exact hardware.

I still don't believe that 64 bit windows is faster (not sure I believe it's working after the way Cubase exploded last time, and as for Grand Prix Legens, the other reason I keep a windows machine, it wouldn't even run).

uv · 24 Apr 2008 at 18:18

thegoonden said:
(I mean the vista64 disc can't have been updated, it's in a drawer)

Not taking into account the downloadable service pack, it's not the OS updates that have made Vista much more stable and faster, it's the driver updates

Vista64 drivers are *miles* better than they were at launch

topshot · 24 Apr 2008 at 18:55

i have had vista x64 since end of last year and have not had any issues finding stable drivers

RobH · 24 Apr 2008 at 19:56

Haven't come across anything that won't run under Vista x64 yet and all my hardware has drivers, it even found drivers for some obscure intel device on my motherboard that I didn't have a driver for in XP. Vista is really helpful when it comes to installing drivers compared to XP. Unless you have some obscure hardware (like my sony EyeToy for example) then you'll more than likely find a driver.

J.B · 24 Apr 2008 at 20:04

The only problem I've ever had is with some wireless adaptors, although when the drivers are right the wireless function is excellent.

I went from vista 32 to vista 64 and it did seem a bit more responsive, maybe that was psychological :confused:

NathanE · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:14

Just ask yourself: Do you still think 16-bit was faster than 32-bit?

If no (presumably this will be your answer, I hope!) then you also have your answer to the 64-bit vs 32-bit question.

thegoonden · 25 Apr 2008 at 01:09

Well, I was hoping to see proof that it IS faster.
Like I said, the highest scores on this very website are from my own 32 bit machine.

The difference was that going from 16-32 bit provided tangible benefits. More colours, that sort of thing. But I we can already do more colours than can be seen and 16bit is good enough for sound, so 64 really has to be MUCH faster to warrant an upgrade.

Figures?
Anyone?

marc2003 · 25 Apr 2008 at 01:19

thegoonden said:
More colours, that sort of thing.

oh dear.....

RobH · 25 Apr 2008 at 01:33

I'm a little to young to remember the 16-bit to 32-bit transition in much detail, most of the things I ran back then were DOS games and a few windows 3.1 programs which seemed to run fine under Windows 95 when that came around. I don't think speed was something I paid much attention to back then, I was just glad it worked.

thegoonden · 25 Apr 2008 at 03:19

marc2003 said:
oh dear.....

Well, OK, a slightly daft example, (silly, AND inaccurate, since really only 24bit is needed).

It just seems to me that since it doesn't /appear/ that a 64bit bus can act as 2x32 ones, the only tangible benefits of 64bit (for now, obviously in time software will be written to take advantage of the better mathematical "headroom" on offer), is the ability to access higher amounts of RAM.

And this business of my machine trouncing[1] better kit running in 64 bit, has me very curious indeed. Doubly so since it uses Dx10, which I though was all very 64bit savvy,

I do have a 64bit OS, as you can see from me sig, and it's scarey quick, but then I never tried that box in pure 32bit, it could just be gentoo going space happy with all that RAM and two cores, when it'd be chuffed enough running on a wristwatch

[1] IS 3fps in the Crysis V.High DX10 test a trouncing?

thegoonden · 25 Apr 2008 at 03:23

Sod it, I have a backup of my 32bit vista, maybe I'll try 64 again, with this new service pack, and get my own results, a quick cinebench, Crysis, aquamark, 3dmark06, 1million places of pi should do the trick.

m4cc45 · 25 Apr 2008 at 08:04

thegoonden said:
Well, I was hoping to see proof that it IS faster.
Like I said, the highest scores on this very website are from my own 32 bit machine.

No idea what scores they were on but there's several reasons anyway.

Games not using optomised code for 64-bit PC's (so you're essentially running in 32-bit)
Different resolutions / quality / effects turned on such as FSAA which may not have been done on yours so you scored higher
Different part of the game for the FPS count (less enemies, buildings, etc.)

Actually there's hundreds of reasons. If you're looking to get Vista and you have a 64-bit CPU then you would be stupid not to get X64.

M.

thegoonden · 25 Apr 2008 at 11:45

The scores in question are on this very site's standardised crysis benchmarking test (see graphics card forum).

But I think a back to back test on my own hardware will reveal of it's an upgrade or not.

Shall of course post results.

Dracata · 25 Apr 2008 at 14:47

Vista x64 with 4gb RAM runs like poop off a shovel, driver compatibility isn't really an issue now, most have caught up.

Datamonkey · 25 Apr 2008 at 14:57

Vista x64 with 8gb of ram runs even faster than poop off a shovel

Never had any big issues with 64bit vista even at launch to be honest. Im really liking it now as well. I did miss the ways of xp 64bit, but now im totally use to vista im loving it.