Newbie : Is WinXP 32 bit worth it on a AMD64 machine ?

[vinayag]

Guys, please do not flog me to death as this might be a stupid question !!!

I got a new AMD64 machine (AMD64 2800 and Asus A8N + 1GB Ram) and installed WinXP 32 bit OS on the machine. It just does not seem to do anything better or faster than my previous Athlon 2200. Am I missing something here ? Is there a BIOS setting somewhere which tells the CPU whether to run on 64 or 32 bit mode ?

Do I necessarily have to install WinXP x64 to gain full use of the machine ? What happens to the 32bit drivers then ? Will they load ?

 

[theMan]

First of all, your cpu is faster than your old 2200 run some sandra benchmarks. i wouldnt install x64, it will be hard and complicated with all the drivers. but if you must, go ahead. it wont give you to much of an advantage.

 

[justly]

The XP 2200+ and the A64 both run at 1.8 GHz so the main differences are the increased bandwidth and reduced latency due to the integrated memory controller. While those can make a big difference in some things it doesn't necessarily mean you will see this benifit in all situations. If you have a bottleneck somewhere else in your system (like a mediocre video card or hard drive) then these benifits might be even less obvious.

You might get more help/information if you describe some of the things you do with your computer and the rest of your system specs.

The difference betewwn 32 and 64 bit should have minimal effect on speed unless you are using a app that is optomized for 64 bit (there seems to relatively few of these right now). 64 bit windows will also require 64 bit drivers, 32 bit drivers won't work.

 

[Coolin]

justly: You cannot compare two different cores by reading their MHz. That's just like comparing Intels and AMDs using MHz. The Athlon 64 outperforms the Athlon XP at equal MHz.

vinayag: Your new machine is faster, you just probably have not stressed it enough to see the difference. When worked to their limits, you should see that your new system is faster.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: Coolin
justly: You cannot compare two different cores by reading their MHz. That's just like comparing Intels and AMDs using MHz. The Athlon 64 outperforms the Athlon XP at equal MHz.

Thats true in the grand scheme of things, but technically there is not that much of a difference between the actual processing power of the AXP and the A64. The A64 excells because of its reduced latency and bandwidth, if neither one of those areas have a big effect on how a person uses thier system then MHz/GHz is what is left (for the most part). This is why I asked the OP to "describe some of the things you do with your computer and the rest of your system specs".

vinayag: Your new machine is faster, you just probably have not stressed it enough to see the difference. When worked to their limits, you should see that your new system is faster.

True again, and again that is why I asked "describe some of the things you do with your computer and the rest of your system specs".

 

[akugami]

Going to 64 bit Windows is a bad choice at this time. Why? Because of insufficient driver support. A lot of the available drivers are still beta drivers, if they're available at all.

For general computing, the Athlon XP 2200 and the Athlon 64 will be similar performance wise. If you're doing heavier stuff like gaming it should be noticeably faster unless your bottleneck is an older video card.

 

[vinayag]

You guys are right. In terms of everyday usage of office, emails and browsing, I do not find ANY difference between the systems.

However, when I tried some heavy duty stuff like huge photo rotation and force breaking encryption on zip files, I found the newer machine upto 5-10 times faster. MY older athlon would take about 15 minutes to rotate a HUGE picture. The AMD64 does it in 3 minutes flat !!!

Games like NFS2-UG2 look visibly faster too thougth I did not measure Frames.

Thanks.

 

[grooge]

Originally posted by: vinayag
You guys are right. In terms of everyday usage of office, emails and browsing, I do not find ANY difference between the systems.

Well ... you dont just type fast enough to see the difference in office, e-mail... The computer is waiting for you all the time when doing office task.. a fast one will wait longer between 2 action of your part, and a slower one less longer.. But it wait anyway.

You are just not efficient enough .. that your fault!!!

A fast computer idle at the same speed than a slower one...

 

[NightCrawler]

Windows XP x64 is awesome, everything is faster but it's not ready for primetime so I recommend dual booting with 32 bit windows.

C drive = 32 bit windows
D drive = 64 bit windows

 

[chucky2]

vinayag- For general usage, there will be no difference a human can detect between your two systems.

One question though: When you did your fresh install of Windows XP 32-bit on your new system...you did install the chipset drivers, correct? If not, definitely go back and do this...

 

[UhhhhRaymond]

Glad you found some positive difference between the two...

'Justly' hinted on this subject, but I'm curious what you have for hard drive in your system now? Make, model, buffer memory, RPM? That might be your biggest bottleneck to "feeling" any real world difference between the two. Perhaps a drive you transferred over from your Athlon XP 2200 machine to this new one is a slower 5400/7200 RPM drive even though it may be ATA100?

If you put something like a 73GB Western Digital Raptor on the A8N SATA150 controller, instead of, for example, a 7200 RPM drive with 2MB buffer IDE controller... you'd see a difference in things like startup time, app launching, installing, file copying.

An acquaintence of mine went from a pretty nice Barton 2500+, A7N8X NF2U, with 512MB dual DDR400, and Western Digital WD200BB IDE - to an Athlon64 3000+, VNF4 Ultra, 1GB dual DDR400, and Raptor WD740 SATA and says everyday running around in Windows feels twice as fast.

I won't know myself until I get our first Athlon64 in the house built this week. But we are jumping all the way from a 1.3GHz PIII, 256MB PC100, BX chipset and WD800JB drive to the following, so not a very fair comparison to your situation!



Antec SLK1650B
OCZ ModStream 520W
Chaintech VNF4 Ultra
Athlon64 3700+ (San Diego) Retail Box
Rosewill 2x1GB DDR400 CAS2.5-3-3-7
Western Digital Raptor 73GB SATA
Asus Radeon X700LE 128MB PCI-e
Plextor PX-712A DVD±R/RW
Zonet 56K Fax Modem
Windows XP Home OEM
Office 2003 Basic OEM

 

[haze111]

Originally posted by: chucky2
vinayag- For general usage, there will be no difference a human can detect between your two systems.

One question though: When you did your fresh install of Windows XP 32-bit on your new system...you did install the chipset drivers, correct? If not, definitely go back and do this...

chucky2, I am building a 64-bit machine this week and will be installing WinXP Pro 32-bit. Can you give me some more detail on what to look for regarding the chipset drivers? Is there something specific to look for?

 

[vinayag]

I have Seagate 80GB 7200 RPM ATA133 drives (Not sure if it is 2MB or 8MB) for the boot disk. Chipset drivers (nForce) are installed. Do you feel that moving to a SATA disk will make a jump in speed ?

That aside, I have a wierd idea that a bigger disk might be a tad slower that a bigger capacity disk given that both are 7200rpm drives. So I always use my older 80GB hard disk as the boot device. Do you guys think it makes any sense to move to a 160GB newer IDE disk as boot device ? Both are the baraccuda Seagate series, thought the 160gb one was purchased last year and the 80gb one is older.

If you feel that a SATA disk will make a good jump in boot/load, Im prepared to invest !!!