vista 32 or 64 bit?

[aj_4176]

Bit of a n00b question guys.

I have Abit AN8 Ultra motherboard and I am looking to get Vista 64 bit (Home Premium). On Abit's website so far they have XP64 bit drivers listed and no sign of Vista yet. Will these drivers be compatible for me to install Vista or do I need to wait for the Vista drivers.

 

[FatRakoon]

FatRakoon, thanks for taking the time to benchmark this stuff.

I'll eat my hat for my earlier comments that 32bit was faster The reason was that I had benchmarked my XP system back in 2005 when x64 first came out - most probably the drivers available at the time were not up to scratch.

For my own purposes, is it just AMD processors that dont need to emulate the 64bit commands? Do the newer Intel procs not offer this functionality?

So if this is the case there will be no software OR hardware emulation - bizarre.



Would anyone be interested in seeing a Vista x86 vs x64 benchmark?

Thats cool mate... Did it for myself as much as anyone else.

Dotn eat the hat... Artificial dyes contain arsenic... LOL

Seriously mate. My first ever play with XP64 was to download the trial from MS... At the time, my only 64Bit CPU was the Winchester 3200, and funniy enough, the Neo2 Mobo that I am doing those tests on right now too! and I installed it to a Maxtor 40GB Drive and a few thigns didnt work...

1 - The Modem... BT Voyager 100 ( or was it a 105? )
2 - The Printer ( Epson C42 )
3 - The IDE Card, although I only used the card with my Apps and Media Disks, and so the other drives connected to the Mobo were fine

Of course at the time, not being able to access the internet due to the Modem drivers, I had alos failed to get the drivers for the IDE/Printer too!

Anyway, fom the playing about I did do, I thought that XP64 was way quicker than XP32 and I immediately ordered a copy.

When it came, I was a lot less imprssed with it... Its as if they tweaked the trial version but then bloated the full finished article... Im sure they did because I have still got the trial, and I did compare it a little against the full package on my DFI LanParty & Newcastle 3000 and thath too also felt better with the trial version? - Im sure the trial version will activate as full actually if I used the license from the full.. Hmmm... I'll give that a go I think. I just wonder...

--

Yes, the Intels are doing the same as the AMD... Because they are ripping off the AMD instruction set.

No software or hardware Emulation.

Well, no, there is no need... They way Vista and the programs designed for it work, is that if you are running x64 thn it will use the 64Bit optimized code, and if its 32bit then it will use 32Bit code, so the program will run optmised for whichever your using 32 or 64bit

I think?

 

[FatRakoon]

Bit of a n00b question guys.

I have Abit AN8 Ultra motherboard and I am looking to get Vista 64 bit (Home Premium). On Abit's website so far they have XP64 bit drivers listed and no sign of Vista yet. Will these drivers be compatible for me to install Vista or do I need to wait for the Vista drivers.

Listen mate... Its a question about VISTA... We are all noobs in this area, some know more than others, but no matter what you may think, no one knows all that much about it just yet... Not really.

Anyway...

No, they have to be VISTA drivers

XP Drivers go into XP Home, Pro, and MCE ( most into 2K too )
XP64 Drivers go into XP64

Server 2003 has both 32 and 64bit flavours so thats another story

But Vista is Vista.

They are either VISTA drivers or they are not.

 

[testa12]

Well, the benchmarks on Vista are now finished.

I ran the tests in almost identical fashion to FatRakoon's, with slightly different benchmark app versions as i was unable to find his versions for download. In addition, Vista has it's own benchmark utility so I've included its results.

System:
AMD 4000 (2.42GHz)
2GB 3200 RAM
80GB Maxtor DiamondMax
ATI x1900xtx
ASUS A8N-SLi

(All settings as stock and at factory default)

For each set of tests, I did a fresh format and install of Vista Ultimate. Logged on and ran Windows Update, downloaded and installed all available updates from Windows Update. Installed the test apps then rebooted.

Windows Update provides updated drivers for the graphics card and sound card.

I noted that WU in the x86 edition gave me two additional drivers not available for x64

* NVIDIA - media - nForce MIDI UART
* NVIDIA - system - nForce4 PCI-Express Root Port

Also noted in x64, Device Manager shows two unknown devices whereas in x86, there are no unknown devices present.

AquaTest v3
-------------
Vista 32 : 57367
Vista 64 : (would not run)

3DMark 01
-------------
Vista 32 : 18745
Vista 64 : 18293

3DMark 03
-------------
Vista 32 : 13988
Vista 64 : 14073

Super PI (time to calculate 8M)
-------------
Vista 32 : 6m 56s
Vista 64 : 6m 55s

Performance Test 6.1
-------------
Vista 32 : 372.1
Vista 64 : 367.9

Vista Perf Test
-------------
Vista 32 : 4.3 (CPU with base score)
Vista 64 : 4.2 (CPU with base score)


So, all in all things are looking pretty much neck and neck. Looks as if the x64 edition may suffer slightly from lack of driver support. I find this somewhat confusing as it was discussed earlier that if a driver would be released for Vista, it would be available for BOTH versions - I'd certainly expect this to be the case with drivers coming from Windows Update

 

[FatRakoon]

Wow yes, Vista32 and 64 are supposed to be done on parallel with each other and that does indeed include the drivers, but that shows the opposite then?

What devices are these?

Anyway, right as we speak, I too am now running Vista32 on that system... Only difference is that I am out of ID drives so I have used a SATA, but apart from that, its still a Seagate 80GB.

SuperPI was interesting... It gave me ... ( Just checking my notes ) ...

49.310 on a 1MB SuperPI ( ModXS )

Ill hang on cos the 3DMark2001 tests is close to finishing and thats giving me...

12,658

Well below that of XP

Im going to run AquaMark3 now, and see where I find that.

Oh, fairs fair however, its just installed 10 minutes ago and I have NOT YET done any kind of updates.


----

ADDITIONAL - AQUAMARK3 gave me 31,739

Oof!

Time to update I think?

 

[stoofa]

Well I'm assuming you're referring to 32bit emulation

The only reason they're referred to as AMD64 extensions is that AMD designed them and this is what they were originally called. Intel rubbished the whole excercise and continued to push its Itanium instead. When Intel finally saw which way the wind was blowing it sheepishly copied the instructions for its processors but couldn't even bring itself to do the decent thing and credit AMD for them so it came up with its own name, EM64T, although the instructions are fully compatible. Intel have now renamed these extensions "Intel 64 Architecture", again completely ignoring AMD's lead in this area.

Many of us continue to refer to these instructions as AMD64 to emphasise that which Intel would rather everyone didn't know, that they were caught half asleep in the 64-bit-on-the-desktop market and ended up having to copy the design of their greatest rivals.

Intel still had the better way of dealing with the move from 32bit to 64bit but again they were held up by software houses refusing to play ball.
16bit to 32bit was a pretty minor update and doing things in two stages - 32bit with 16bit emulation and then 32bit was the correct way forward.
However we would be far better off having a true 64bit CPU now rather than something that is a hybrid.

Intel usually win these battles and rightly so - because without the likes of Intel forcing things forward the software houses certainly wouldn't advance anything.

Intel's and AMD's current solutions are extremely similar - however to say Intel simply copied AMD, refuse to give credit etc is not really true.
Both Intel and AMD's solutions are based on open specifications.
Sure both Intel and AMD have their own proprietry way of doing some aspects which are compatible with one another - but certainly not just a direct copy and claim it is their own technology.

Intel had the better idea, they couldn't get the software houses on board so were forced to back track slightly.
Think where we could be now if we were using true 64bit CPU's that didn't require any 32bit emulation.
This is where we could be right now if AMD had been brave enough to follow Intel's lead with regards 64bit implimentation.

 

[yaboy]

will this be ok for oem ultimate 64bit?


3800 x2 dual core @ 2.4
asus a8n-e nforce 4 ultra
x1900xt
2gb mushkin dual channel
1x 320 1x 250 s-ata ii hdds

also, i wonder if vista finally supports dual core?

 

[testa12]

will this be ok for oem ultimate 64bit?


3800 x2 dual core @ 2.4
asus a8n-e nforce 4 ultra
x1900xt
2gb mushkin dual channel
1x 320 1x 250 s-ata ii hdds

also, i wonder if vista finally supports dual core?

That spec should work fine on Vista. Remember there have been substantial improvments both to speed and device support in the RTM version since RC2.

 

[testa12]

Wow yes, Vista32 and 64 are supposed to be done on parallel with each other and that does indeed include the drivers, but that shows the opposite then?

What devices are these?

They were two NVIDIA devices (on the motherboard). I listed them up in the post with the benchmarks.

* NVIDIA - media - nForce MIDI UART
* NVIDIA - system - nForce4 PCI-Express Root Port

Anyway, right as we speak, I too am now running Vista32 on that system... Only difference is that I am out of ID drives so I have used a SATA, but apart from that, its still a Seagate 80GB.

Would be interested to hear about your experiences with Vista x64 vs x86 if you have both versions. In my own opinion, I wasnt too happy with the lack of driver support so I'm going to stick with 32bit for the moment.

I'm not necessarily recommending others do the same, because I have the choice of running either version as I chose. I will wait a few months for the x64 drivers to mature a little before I make the switch. For now, I'm happy with the stability, compatability and performance with the x86 edition.

 

[JaseUK]

will this be ok for oem ultimate 64bit?


3800 x2 dual core @ 2.4
asus a8n-e nforce 4 ultra
x1900xt
2gb mushkin dual channel
1x 320 1x 250 s-ata ii hdds

also, i wonder if vista finally supports dual core?

You can check go here and it will assist greatly, by scanning yer PC: -
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx

It advised me to purchase Vista Business, "I think not, Ultimate all way for me thankyou"

 

[Vertigo]

Intel still had the better way of dealing with the move from 32bit to 64bit but again they were held up by software houses refusing to play ball.
16bit to 32bit was a pretty minor update and doing things in two stages - 32bit with 16bit emulation and then 32bit was the correct way forward.
However we would be far better off having a true 64bit CPU now rather than something that is a hybrid.

Intel usually win these battles and rightly so - because without the likes of Intel forcing things forward the software houses certainly wouldn't advance anything.

Intel's and AMD's current solutions are extremely similar - however to say Intel simply copied AMD, refuse to give credit etc is not really true.
Both Intel and AMD's solutions are based on open specifications.
Sure both Intel and AMD have their own proprietry way of doing some aspects which are compatible with one another - but certainly not just a direct copy and claim it is their own technology.

Intel had the better idea, they couldn't get the software houses on board so were forced to back track slightly.
Think where we could be now if we were using true 64bit CPU's that didn't require any 32bit emulation.
This is where we could be right now if AMD had been brave enough to follow Intel's lead with regards 64bit implimentation.

Sorry but you're labouring under the misapprehension that Intel were targeting the desktop market with their "pure 64 bit" Itanium solution when this was never the case.

This isn't a case of Intel trying to penetrate the desktop 64 bit market with the Itanium and failing due to software support, they publicly stated that they didn't see any need for 64 bit on the desktop. The Itanium was only ever designed for the server markets, where it has had some limited success. They were happy to continue supplying 32-bit processors to the desktop world.

AMD were the ones with the foresight to realise that there was a market for 64 bit on the desktop but that people would/could not be asked to make the move to totally new 64 bit architecture and run existing 32 bit software purely via emulation which is why they designed the 64 bit extensions to the existing x86 architecture.

Intel never lobbied Microsoft to produce a version of a desktop OS for the IA-64 architecture of the Itanium in the way AMD did with their 64-bit extensions. It was AMD's persistence that gave us Win XP x64 and started the ball rolling in this market. When Intel finally woke up to the need for 64 bit on the desktop they had no choice but to copy AMD's extensions to the x86 instruction set as Microsoft had already stated they weren't going to support yet another variation on these. Whilst Intel never claimed these extensions as their own, they were forced to copy the ones AMD had designed and never acknowledged this fact.

If you still believe that the IA-64 architecture would have made any inroads into the desktop market then consider that, even in its intended server market, many customers were very reluctant to make the jump to a totally new architecture. It is for this reason that the Opteron made such inroads into this market as customers were much more inclinded to go with the 64/32-bit "hybrid" solution than with a total shift to IA-64. The Opteron processor was effectively the salvation of AMD and not only made them a geniune player in the server market but also formed the basis of the Athlon 64 desktop processors which have given them the performance edge for several years now, until Intel finally took it back with the Core processors.

Intel got complacent and arrogant, totally misreading the need for 64 bit on the desktop and spending billions developing a new "pure 64 bit" architecture for the server market, support for which from hardware vendors is on the wane. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft withdraw all support for the IA-64 architecture within the next few years and it simply fades into the annals of history as a very bad idea and a serious waste of money.

 

[Caged]

Intel never lobbied Microsoft to produce a version of a desktop OS for the IA-64 architecture of the Itanium in the way AMD did with their 64-bit extensions.

They still made a version of XP for IA-64 though.

 

[NathanE]

Basically the buck stopped with Microsoft. They made the ultimate choice.

When they saw AMD64 they knew it would make their life a lot simpler so they went for it. It's pretty rare in history that a chip maker such as Intel or AMD actually listen to the demands of software developers but in this case AMD got it spot on.

As far as 64-bit instruction sets go, AMD64 is crap. It's just a hack upon a hack upon a hack of an already hacked instruction set. But it works. And doesn't sacrifice backward compatibility too much.

I think if Microsoft had foreseen the future of virtual machine emulation back then, and the possibility of adding hardware virtualisation instructions to chips then they may have made a different decision. I think once the 64-bit transition is over then it is anyone's game. AMD64 won't last forever, I give it a decade at most. IA-64 is just lying dormant but from a technical standpoint it will be "ready" to be on the desktop in probably 5 years. It will be trivial for Microsoft to upgrade WOW64 to support emulation of AMD64-compiled applications onto IA-64. It will be software emulated, sure, but because there's no translation between 32 and 64-bits the performance losses can be much much less. All it would need to do is translate instructions and the endianness of 64-bit words (IA-64 uses big endian). But having said that, it's totally possible that Intel could add EM64T to a future IA-64 chip. It would be nowhere near as difficult as adding full blown x86 support.

 

[Vertigo]

They still made a version of XP for IA-64 though.

They did!? Never knew that.

As far as 64-bit instruction sets go, AMD64 is crap. It's just a hack upon a hack upon a hack of an already hacked instruction set. But it works. And doesn't sacrifice backward compatibility too much.

Granted, but no more of a hack than any of the endless extensions to the x86 architecture which came before it. You could argue that Intel tried to do the "right" thing by making a clean break with a new architecture but frankly I think this was arrogant and doomed to failure. The market dictates what you can get away with and AMD realised that they needed a compromise.

 

[FatRakoon]

You could argue that Intel tried to do the "right" thing by making a clean break with a new architecture but frankly I think this was arrogant and doomed to failure. The market dictates what you can get away with and AMD realised that they needed a compromise.

Yes, for now, the World is not yet ready to change.

However, in the past, there has always been the need to change... Todays PCs can adapt, but very soon, we are going to have to change the course, and so thats when Intel will already have the edge.

AMD will get left behind I recon unless they too develop a true 64 bit CPU

Its not really somethign that people need to worry about actually...

Going from a 32/64 Bit CPU with a 32/64Bit OS to a pure 64/64 is not going to be a major change in the way we do our work ( Games )

I mean, Linux can do it just fine, it has done it. so why cant Windows?

They can, very easily.

 

[testa12]

Well, Intel and AMD arguments aside I think the software dev world really has to catch up in order for 64bit computing to take off.

Right now, I can't think of any mainstream applications that are making use of this new architecture other than Exchange 2007.

Granted, Linux may already have a good selection but lets face it most people/companies are running Windows servers and desktops.

For the vast majority, 64bit is of little use right now although undoubtably, it does show promise. Similar to dual core, in many respects it simply isn't being leveraged by software developers - in particular, games makers.

So both companies pioneering this new technology are going to be taking risks as it has only recently been established, they can make mistakes too. I'm not sure that slating Intel or AMD for what they have brought to the marketplace is in order.


Lets wait and see this year for whats coming out to really make people want to make the transition to 64bit. For now, 32bit computing is the norm and will remain the best choice for general computing.

64bit remains as technology for the enthusiasts until the balance starts to shift.

 

[JaseUK]

Come on guys you're getting me worried, I have, like a lot of other folk ordered the 64bit version of vista.

If and only if I decided to change my mind and go for the 32bit do u think OcUK would change my order. It is the same price after all.

 

[testa12]

I dont think there's anything wrong with going 64bit. I was just pointing out that x64 is not yet fully established in the mainstream.

Throughout this year, and with Vista especially, 64bit will surely gather momentum.

Basically, the problems I faced are with NVIDIA drivers, this is actually well publicised and a lot of people are miffed that they havent pulled their fingers out already and posted up so much as a beta driver.

Stick with x64 for the long term


Hey, the more people complaining cos there's no 64bit support, the more the vendors are going to start getting their act together!

 

[NathanE]

Come on guys you're getting me worried, I have, like a lot of other folk ordered the 64bit version of vista.

If and only if I decided to change my mind and go for the 32bit do u think OcUK would change my order. It is the same price after all.

Who/what has got you worried? Most people here will agree that Vista x64 is the way to go as long as you can put up with a few driver annoyances in the first month or two. In the long term Vista x64 will become the mainstream OS.

In terms of software - well Vista x32 already breaks quite a lot of backward compatibility with "fussy" applications in particular. So you're going to have headaches which ever way you decide to go. Just you will have a few more with x64 but it will pay off in about 6 months time.

 

[Elevon]

Come on guys you're getting me worried, I have, like a lot of other folk ordered the 64bit version of vista.

If and only if I decided to change my mind and go for the 32bit do u think OcUK would change my order. It is the same price after all.

Hehe no need to worry,I'm ordering 64 bit version too,FYI Nvidia have released official Vista 32 and 64 bit Forceware 97.46 drivers today,my friend has been using 64 bit version of XP for over a year now,he has been playing all the same games as I have(I'm using 32 bit XP) and never had any problems.You get better Vista security with 64 bit version anyway.