Vista x86 versus x64

[DasFox]

I saw posts on this subject before, but I don't see them know. I'm running Vista Ultimate x86 on my game box right now with a Opty 165 in it, and it does seem nice, but since this is just a box for gaming, all the drivers are out there for x64 for my box, so I wanted to give x64 a try and see if I gain some performance in speed with the Architecture compiled for 64bit I was certainly hoping MS did a nice job of this, and that the advantages would be readily noticeable.

Any thoughts here on this?

ALOHA

 

[drag]

It's x86-64 or AMD64 or whatever.

x64 is Itanium and I don't think that Vista has a version for that yet.

 

[drag]

The way I see it you'll only see very modest performance gains for a modest increase in RAM usage.

If your software will work fine and your hardware supports it and you have plenty of RAM (say >2-3 gigs) then I don't see any reason why you'd not want to run x86-64.

 

[slaughter111]

I'm running Ultimate on all the systems in my signature, but the dual dualcore opteron worstation is running the x64 version. Since Vista is a new, immature OS, the 32bit version seems to run most games faster than x64 version, albeit by only a couple frames in most cases. The only advantage you get with x64 right now is the fact that you can run 4GB or more without not seeing all your RAM in the OS. And with SuperFetch, you actually get tangible gains with more RAM vs. XP which does nothing with the extra RAM.

 

[DasFox]

Well I was hoping 64bit would run a lot faster.

Anyone else?

THANKS

 

[Frintin]

Not going to run a super duper amount faster. Not going to run much faster at all really.

 

[Agentbolt]

Right now 64 bit is going be SLOWER or the same. You won't see a noticeable speed increase.

In a year or two it should be faster. Of course, that's what they told us two years ago...

 

[drag]

Maybe it'll only be faster with native 64bit applications or something like that.

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: drag
It's x86-64 or AMD64 or whatever.

x64 is Itanium and I don't think that Vista has a version for that yet.

Yeah IA64 is server only.

 

[Aberforth]

64bit is faster. I'm tired of telling this

http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmark.html - they tested using 512 MB RAM so you don't need loads of RAM to see the difference

 

[imported_eppenoire]

Thank-you, I am tired of this constant thread of people talking out of their hat about 64 bit being slower than 32. While, there are not enough applications supporting 64 bit, to make the transition an essential one, there is noticable performance increase for power users. Firingsquad even did an article that showed Vista 64 was faster in several titles, Oblivion and Quake 4 vs XP or Vista 32.

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
64bit is faster. I'm tired of telling this

http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmark.html - they tested using 512 MB RAM so you don't need loads of RAM to see the difference

LOL, tell it tell it.

Well as far as the OS is concerned yes it should run faster, but of course without many x64 complied apps it leaves something to be desired, and that is why I asked, meaning if it might run 32 apps a little quicker.

THANKS

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: eppenoire
Thank-you, I am tired of this constant thread of people talking out of their hat about 64 bit being slower than 32. While, there are not enough applications supporting 64 bit, to make the transition an essential one, there is noticable performance increase for power users. Firingsquad even did an article that showed Vista 64 was faster in several titles, Oblivion and Quake 4 vs XP or Vista 32.

You wouldn't happen to know where this article is I can read?

THANKS

 

[DasFox]

I found this if that's it?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_nvidia_forceware_performance/

THANKS

 

[Nothinman]

64bit is faster. I'm tired of telling this

Right, your link says 10.9% faster overall and if you look a number of their "benchmarks" were actually slower in the 64-bit version. So it's not always faster and since you're using 32-bit apps most of the time on Windows the difference will be minimal anyway.

 

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

64bit is faster. I'm tired of telling this

Right, your link says 10.9% faster overall and if you look a number of their "benchmarks" were actually slower in the 64-bit version. So it's not always faster and since you're using 32-bit apps most of the time on Windows the difference will be minimal anyway.

faster in some benchmarks.. that makes real world differences. I can now run benchmarks a bit faster. wheeee!

 

[Nothinman]

faster in some benchmarks.. that makes real world differences. I can now run benchmarks a bit faster. wheeee!

But benchmarks are important because they give you common ground for comparisons. Real world usage is impossible to gauge because everyone's workload and workflow is different. And certain benchmarks like the bzip2 routines can make a noticable difference since compression usually takes a significant amount of time and isn't I/O limited.

Yes, using benchmarks to justify stupid crap like defragging your filesystem or overclocking your system when the normal usage doesn't fit the benchmark is really stupid. But without benchmarks you have no way to reliably know if there really is any difference between the configurations.

 

[CloE]

if you got the ultimate vista. just run 32bit now until all drivers and apps supports it then clean install x64 later down the road, you have to format the HD once a year anyway(virus, adwares, porn?)

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: CloE
if you got the ultimate vista. just run 32bit now until all drivers and apps supports it then clean install x64 later down the road, you have to format the HD once a year anyway(virus, adwares, porn?)

What rubbish are you talking about? You are suggesting to go for x64 when it becomes mainstream and format hard disc??Do you realize how hard it is to migrate from one OS to another? As a developer I?m still slowing migrating my developer stuff to vista since November 2006 and still not finished, PC is not all about games, adware or virus or porn in your case there are some useful stuff that people do, data is precious. An OS is not a toy.

Vista is a new operating system in 5 years so choosing x64 would be the sanest idea at present if you have the right hardware, why do you want to shell out another 250 bucks when x64 becomes mainstream and then re-format your hdd. Always go for the best, More and more applications are now being optimized for x64 environment, this is a 64bit era.

Don't give stupid suggestions, this is a tech forum - if you are in a doubt just don't answer. Always remember to give genuine opinions that doesn't harm user in anyway.