Vista 64 vs Vista 32bit

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Aberforth
*stuff*

It's like talking to a brick, I swear. To realize a performance increase from a move from x86-32 to x86-64, either the application would have to be extremely bottlenecked by 64bit integer math, or highly register starved. There simply aren't any applications of the former, and the latter hasn't been a problem in ages due to well designed compilers. 64bit integers are extremely rare, so the whole thing is generally a break-even proposition; whatever performance improvement from the additional registers is usually offset by the performance penalty from longer instructions. You'll never find those kinds of performance improvements, so we don't even talk about them.

to me, it's like talking to a bunch of deluded Neanderthals, honestly. According to you, it's like -if it takes 10 seconds process 8 instructions it will probably take 20 seconds to process 16 instructions in 64bit, oh yea...sure, congrats.

 

[bsobel]

Have you ever worked with a kernel level debugger or machine code? I doubt you have.

Thats a good one. I have more code on machines than you've ever thought about writing.

And again, yes a 64bit proc can be faster in certain circumstances. But you INCORRECTLY stated at 64bit code is twice as fast as 32bit code. Your 100% wrong and before you throw out more insults you should seriously do some research as your owning yourself.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Aberforth
*stuff*

It's like talking to a brick, I swear. To realize a performance increase from a move from x86-32 to x86-64, either the application would have to be extremely bottlenecked by 64bit integer math, or highly register starved. There simply aren't any applications of the former, and the latter hasn't been a problem in ages due to well designed compilers. 64bit integers are extremely rare, so the whole thing is generally a break-even proposition; whatever performance improvement from the additional registers is usually offset by the performance penalty from longer instructions. You'll never find those kinds of performance improvements, so we don't even talk about them.

to me, it's like talking to a bunch of deluded Neanderthals, honestly. According to you, it's like -if it takes 10 seconds process 8 instructions it will probably take 20 seconds to process 16 instructions in 64bit, oh yea...sure, congrats.

No according to us (btw, one more insult to your other posters will be actionable), it it takes 10 seconds in 32bit code it will take oh, about, hmm 10 seconds with 64bit code. Unless the conditions Virge mentioned are met.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Aberforth
*stuff*

It's like talking to a brick, I swear. To realize a performance increase from a move from x86-32 to x86-64, either the application would have to be extremely bottlenecked by 64bit integer math, or highly register starved. There simply aren't any applications of the former, and the latter hasn't been a problem in ages due to well designed compilers. 64bit integers are extremely rare, so the whole thing is generally a break-even proposition; whatever performance improvement from the additional registers is usually offset by the performance penalty from longer instructions. You'll never find those kinds of performance improvements, so we don't even talk about them.

to me, it's like talking to a bunch of deluded Neanderthals, honestly. According to you, it's like -if it takes 10 seconds process 8 instructions it will probably take 20 seconds to process 16 instructions in 64bit, oh yea...sure, congrats.

(btw, one more insult to your other posters will be actionable)

You seem to have overlooked few rules yourself. My rule is: If you insult me, I'd do the same to you and this forum laws cannot override the country laws for me. Go ahead and take action- it's very fair (2 mods against one user) I don't give a damm. I only come here for information and to help other users.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Aberforth
*stuff*

It's like talking to a brick, I swear. To realize a performance increase from a move from x86-32 to x86-64, either the application would have to be extremely bottlenecked by 64bit integer math, or highly register starved. There simply aren't any applications of the former, and the latter hasn't been a problem in ages due to well designed compilers. 64bit integers are extremely rare, so the whole thing is generally a break-even proposition; whatever performance improvement from the additional registers is usually offset by the performance penalty from longer instructions. You'll never find those kinds of performance improvements, so we don't even talk about them.

to me, it's like talking to a bunch of deluded Neanderthals, honestly. According to you, it's like -if it takes 10 seconds process 8 instructions it will probably take 20 seconds to process 16 instructions in 64bit, oh yea...sure, congrats.

(btw, one more insult to your other posters will be actionable)

You seem to have overlooked few rules yourself. My rule is: If you insult me, I'd do the same to you and this forum laws cannot override the country laws for me. Go ahead and take action- it's very fair (2 mods against one user) I don't give a damm. I only come here for information and to help other users.

I have not insulted you, I've simply stated that you are wrong. Virge isn't a moderator in this forum, and neither of us would take action since we are in the thread anyhow. But so far you've posted wrong information, when corrected you start name calling. You've shown no proof of your assertation (in fact, you cant unless you write some very specific factoring algorithms to prove the point).

So, in summary 64bit apps are NOT twice as fast as 32bit apps so perhaps you'll stop spreading that misinformation.

 

[nerp]

64 bit apps are not twice as fast as 32 bit ones. I've demonstrated this to myself by running both 32 and 64 it versions of apps and run the same tests. Speed of application performance is wholly dependent on the computer being used, not the number of bits the OS can handle.

 

[Jeff7181]

Read. Learn.

 

[slicksilver]

for someone who is just browsing, listening to music, playing videos and encoding rars how significant is this? Would a 64bit Vista - 4GB combo beat the shit out of a 32bit Vista - 3GB combo ?

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: rajkanneganti
for someone who is just browsing, listening to music, playing videos and encoding rars how significant is this? Would a 64bit Vista - 4GB combo beat the shit out of a 32bit Vista - 3GB combo ?

todd's blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id5vpy2CapY

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: rajkanneganti
for someone who is just browsing, listening to music, playing videos and encoding rars how significant is this? Would a 64bit Vista - 4GB combo beat the shit out of a 32bit Vista - 3GB combo ?

todd's blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id5vpy2CapY

I hope you're not using that video to support your claim that a 64-bit processor is twice as fast as a 32-bit processor. The results of the demonstration in that video are PURELY due to the fact that the image he used was 4 GB in size, right? This has absolutely nothing at all to do with the processing capabilities of the processor and everything to do with its address space. If you take a Xeon with PAE and 8 GB of RAM (as was likely used in the demonstration) you'll have pretty much identical results to the 64-bit application.

And that blog... I started skimming to find the main points and saw, "More internal 'registers' on the CPU allows the code to be smaller, lighter, and faster..." I stopped reading at that point because it's obvious the author doesn't really understand what he's attempting to explain.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: rajkanneganti
for someone who is just browsing, listening to music, playing videos and encoding rars how significant is this? Would a 64bit Vista - 4GB combo beat the shit out of a 32bit Vista - 3GB combo ?

When I switched from Vista32 to Vista64 I saw absolutely no difference in performance for day to day activities. The most compelling reason to go 64 bit is to have access to more memory. Also, 64 bit is the future. Software will begin to make use of more memory(and will be coded for 64 bit), and 64 bit will be an advantage in that regard.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: rajkanneganti
for someone who is just browsing, listening to music, playing videos and encoding rars how significant is this? Would a 64bit Vista - 4GB combo beat the shit out of a 32bit Vista - 3GB combo ?

todd's blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id5vpy2CapY

I hope you're not using that video to support your claim that a 64-bit processor is twice as fast as a 32-bit processor. The results of the demonstration in that video are PURELY due to the fact that the image he used was 4 GB in size, right?

Yes, that too, 64bit apps can map large data

But explain why Crysis 64bit runs 18% faster in Vista 64bit. It hardly uses 1.5 gb ram.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=7

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: rajkanneganti
for someone who is just browsing, listening to music, playing videos and encoding rars how significant is this? Would a 64bit Vista - 4GB combo beat the shit out of a 32bit Vista - 3GB combo ?

todd's blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id5vpy2CapY

I hope you're not using that video to support your claim that a 64-bit processor is twice as fast as a 32-bit processor. The results of the demonstration in that video are PURELY due to the fact that the image he used was 4 GB in size, right?

Yes, that too, 64bit apps can map large data

But explain why Crysis 64bit runs 18% faster in Vista 64bit. It hardly uses 1.5 gb ram.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=7

18% != 100%

 

[bsobel]

But explain why Crysis 64bit runs 18% faster in Vista 64bit. It hardly uses 1.5 gb ram.

You need to stop trolling. Your claim was 64bit is TWICE (read 100%) as fast as 32bit. You've been shown to be wrong, now stop.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: rajkanneganti
for someone who is just browsing, listening to music, playing videos and encoding rars how significant is this? Would a 64bit Vista - 4GB combo beat the shit out of a 32bit Vista - 3GB combo ?

todd's blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id5vpy2CapY

I hope you're not using that video to support your claim that a 64-bit processor is twice as fast as a 32-bit processor. The results of the demonstration in that video are PURELY due to the fact that the image he used was 4 GB in size, right?

Yes, that too, 64bit apps can map large data

But explain why Crysis 64bit runs 18% faster in Vista 64bit. It hardly uses 1.5 gb ram.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=7

I would imagine it has a lot to do with the fact that the 64bit client doesn't have to stream texture data in and out of the program like the 32bit client does.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: rajkanneganti
for someone who is just browsing, listening to music, playing videos and encoding rars how significant is this? Would a 64bit Vista - 4GB combo beat the shit out of a 32bit Vista - 3GB combo ?

todd's blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id5vpy2CapY

I hope you're not using that video to support your claim that a 64-bit processor is twice as fast as a 32-bit processor. The results of the demonstration in that video are PURELY due to the fact that the image he used was 4 GB in size, right?

Yes, that too, 64bit apps can map large data

But explain why Crysis 64bit runs 18% faster in Vista 64bit. It hardly uses 1.5 gb ram.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=7

18% != 100%

Yes, that's a theoretical figure, it depends on the application code and OS kernel. Not even 32bit apps can achieve 100% efficiency, like for example crysis can be made to run on a old P3 system, even the crytek ceo said that but then again who'd take trouble investing tons of time and money to do that? But there are some people here who claim that 64bit run as fast as 32bit, which is totally wrong.

 

[bsobel]

Yes, that's a theoretical figure, it depends on the application code and OS kernel. Not even 32bit apps can achieve 100% efficiency, like for example crysis can be made to run on a old P3 system, even the crytek ceo said that but then again who'd take trouble investing tons of time and money to do that? But there are some people here who claim that 64bit run as fast as 32bit, which is totally wrong.

Thats not true, your getting owned for your 64bit apps are twice as fast as 32bit apps bullshit.

 

[perdomot]

Well, I just upgraded to Vista 64 with 4GB of ram and my encoding program(Videora) for use with ipod touch is actually 10 seconds slower than it was on XP. The rest of the system is quite snappy though. I thought 64 bit OS would be able to improve things like encoding.

 

[zerogear]

Vista 64 has been damn solid for me. It went through a Mobo replacement (with no reformat) and main HD replacement as well, still continuing strong. Love it, you could never have done this in XP.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: degibson
Unless you actually *need* to change, I'd recommend you stay on 32-bit. Let others work out the 64-bit issues.

There aren't really any 64-bit issues. Its more Vista issues. If you don't need DX 10 then stay on XP Pro. If you need DX 10 and have 4g ram then get Vista 64. Vista 32 is useless.

 

[suklee]

Got my Vista 64 DVD from M$, installed without a hitch. No noticeable issues so far.