Windows 7 x64 vs Windows 7 x86 (Fight)

fakeasdf · May 15, 2009

System Configuration:

Install Time (Windows 7 7127)

Run Windows Updates & Disable Screen Saver & Power Settings

No Statistics on this information
WEI

Copy all necessary files to do our tests

· Virtual Dub(32 bit and 64 bit)
· Winrar(32 bit and 64 bit)
· Passmark Performance Test 7.0 (32 bit and 64 bit)
· Xvid (32 bit and 64 bit)
· AC3 ACM (32 bit and 64 bit)
· Windows 7 7127 x86 ISO (for use when doing winrar compression and decompression)
· 700 MB - 1:02:35 -AVI file with 8 pixel x 8 pixel constant video stream and Metallica Black album as the audio stream.
· 1:18 clip from Starcraft 2 Battle Report

Virtualdub – Starcraft 2(video compression, No Audio, XVID 1.0 Target Quantizer)

As a side note to this test, 64 bit XVID codecs are not well supported, nor under any major development. Hopefully this can be changed in the future. On the other hand the 64 bit OS running the 32 bit software was still faster than the 32 bit OS running the 32 bit software.

Virtualdub – Metallica (Direct Stream Video, Audio AC3 output 320 Kbps)

Unfortunatley you can’t install 32 bit ACM codecs in a 64 bit Operating System. This isn’t a major deal seeing as the ACM framework is considered legacy. Unfortunatley certain programs are still stuck on that framework.

Passmark Performance Test

32 bit results = 32 bit Operating System
64 os 32bit = 64 bit Operating System running 32 bit version of Software
This Computer = 64 bit Operating System running 64 bit version of Software

Winrar (Extract 7127 x86 ISO)

Winrar (Compress extracted x86 ISO – Compression type: Good)

Conclusion

In every test, except the installation, the 64 bit OS was faster. Even more so, the 32 bit software almost always performed better in the 64 bit OS than in the 32 bit OS (Probably due to the fact that the CPU was 64 bit and the OS runs happier). These test specifically used 3 GB of RAM to show that you don’t need 4 GB of ram to take advantage of the 64 bit OS. Although there are numbers thrown around, the main point is that a 64 bit OS will be happier than a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit CPU despite the RAM size. I will also include my Excel sheet with all of the information that I did along the way...
Other Conclusion

Switch to windows 64 bit OS (Unless of course you don't have a 64 bit CPU or there aren't 64 bit drivers for your hardware) so more software companies will see the light and I can enjoy more benefitsJ

JouRNeyToRTM · May 15, 2009

Thanks for the info

myRevenge · May 16, 2009

I can't imagine why som1 has a 64 compatable CPU works with x86 !
it's almost like that u have the option to ride a mini on 4tracks wide road

and another thing , x86 means that 3.3 gb of RAM IS ur limit ,, go and break the limit with 64

..
thanks alot for this benchmark .. great work

jimbo45 · May 16, 2009

Cheers all

"A little learning is a Dangerous thing ...." Quote W. Shakespeare (or some unknown "frenchie" -- They all spoke "Norman French" in England back then.

Oh dear there's so many assumptions leading on from these "Raw stats" that it's impossible to know where to start. So a bit of SCIENCE to add to the mix.

1) If you've got more than 4GB of RAM as a lot do these days then a 32 bit OS will waste the rest as it won't be able to see it.

2) Photoshop and other 64 bit apps really need to use 64 bit these days -- try a processing a professional quality RAW picture from a Pro DSLR which starts off as a 21 MB File before you even BEGIN to expand it for processing. Now process this with several layers ready for press say at A3 or A2 size and you are almost in the GB range. Process a lot of these pics ..... etc etc.

3) Load time for an OS will also depend on its size -- a larger OS will take longer to install -- so what's the point of saying the x-86 version installs 3 mins quicker than the x-64 bit version. There's less to install.

4) I've posted on this site (you can search in the archives) that it's actually WORSE to run a 64 bit native CPU in 32 bit mode.

5) Running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit CPU (including the OS itself) is as we all known a slightly more difficult process than running a 64 bit app -- adress transaltions etc etc -- all covered in point 4) if you search my previous posts. This also includes running the OS itself.

For your x-86 test you need to do this on a Native X-86 only CPU -- and because most 64 bit CPU's are dual core these days you won't be able to do a proper test with similar speed and performing CPU's.

6) Future apps will in general be developed for the 64 bit platform whilst legacy stuff will remain 32 bit.

7) If you have a 32 bit CPU - no argument -- but it's worth installing x-64 even if your machine only has 1GB of RAM provided it's 64 bit capable.

Another quote I believe -- not from the famous Bard but some well known 16 / 17th century writer

"Lies, Lies and Damn Statistics".

Cheers
jimbo

fakeasdf · May 16, 2009

jimbo45 said:
Cheers all

"A little learning is a Dangerous thing ...." Quote W. Shakespeare (or some unknown "frenchie" -- They all spoke "Norman French" in England back then.

Oh dear there's so many assumptions leading on from these "Raw stats" that it's impossible to know where to start. So a bit of SCIENCE to add to the mix.

1) If you've got more than 4GB of RAM as a lot do these days then a 32 bit OS will waste the rest as it won't be able to see it.

2) Photoshop and other 64 bit apps really need to use 64 bit these days -- try a processing a professional quality RAW picture from a Pro DSLR which starts off as a 21 MB File before you even BEGIN to expand it for processing. Now process this with several layers ready for press say at A3 or A2 size and you are almost in the GB range. Process a lot of these pics ..... etc etc.

3) Load time for an OS will also depend on its size -- a larger OS will take longer to install -- so what's the point of saying the x-86 version installs 3 mins quicker than the x-64 bit version. There's less to install.

4) I've posted on this site (you can search in the archives) that it's actually WORSE to run a 64 bit native CPU in 32 bit mode.

5) Running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit CPU (including the OS itself) is as we all known a slightly more difficult process than running a 64 bit app -- adress transaltions etc etc -- all covered in point 4) if you search my previous posts. This also includes running the OS itself.

For your x-86 test you need to do this on a Native X-86 only CPU -- and because most 64 bit CPU's are dual core these days you won't be able to do a proper test with similar speed and performing CPU's.

6) Future apps will in general be developed for the 64 bit platform whilst legacy stuff will remain 32 bit.

7) If you have a 32 bit CPU - no argument -- but it's worth installing x-64 even if your machine only has 1GB of RAM provided it's 64 bit capable.

Another quote I believe -- not from the famous Bard but some well known 16 / 17th century writer

"Lies, Lies and Damn Statistics".

Cheers
jimbo

Thanks jimbo, I forgot about photoshop, I have a 32 bit and 64 bit of that, I think I'll do some tests on those. I agree just posting up numbers is a tad misleading, but arguing with the facts tends to not help some people. They like to see pictures

And most people can't get past the myth that you need 4 gb of RAM to run 64 bit OS...

ukgovsucks · May 16, 2009

myRevenge said:
I can't imagine why som1 has a 64 compatable CPU works with x86 !
it's almost like that u have the option to ride a mini on 4tracks wide road
and another thing , x86 means that 3.3 gb of RAM IS ur limit ,, go and break the limit with 64
..
thanks alot for this benchmark .. great work

A bit off-topic mate, but I just had to say that the Youtube Vid you have in your signiture is fantastic. Just showing the Mrs. Usual response... "Ahh bless her!".

So sweet and brainy too! Wonderful.
She's probably a member on here!! lol.

tangcla · May 16, 2009

jimbo45 said:
2) Photoshop and other 64 bit apps really need to use 64 bit these days -- try a processing a professional quality RAW picture from a Pro DSLR which starts off as a 21 MB File before you even BEGIN to expand it for processing. Now process this with several layers ready for press say at A3 or A2 size and you are almost in the GB range. Process a lot of these pics ..... etc etc.

hehe. Try 39MB from a 22mpx 5D Mark II

tangcla · May 16, 2009

ukgovsucks said:
A bit off-topic mate, but I just had to say that the Youtube Vid you have in your signiture is fantastic. Just showing the Mrs. Usual response... "Ahh bless her!".

So sweet and brainy too! Wonderful.
She's probably a member on here!! lol.

omg that ad is so cute.

xan K · May 16, 2009

I've never given x64 any serious try. partly because I only have 2GB of ram, but mostly because of the fear of incompatibility bumps along the way. I know for sure that my webcam won't work (no drivers). some software I depend on, like Media Player Classic - Home Cinema is said not to be supported in x64 either. so, this is a tough decision for me.

p7ast1k · May 16, 2009

xan K said:
I've never given x64 any serious try. partly because I only have 2GB of ram, but mostly because of the fear of incompatibility bumps along the way. I know for sure that my webcam won't work (no drivers). some software I depend on, like Media Player Classic - Home Cinema is said not to be supported in x64 either. so, this is a tough decision for me.

huh???
i've been using x64 builds of media player classic home cinema for a couple of years now with zero problems
i don't even install any codecs anymore unless i want to encode

I grab the latest SVN builds from here:
http://www.xvidvideo.ru/content/category/1/1/2/

kensiko · May 16, 2009

xan K said:
I've never given x64 any serious try. partly because I only have 2GB of ram, but mostly because of the fear of incompatibility bumps along the way. I know for sure that my webcam won't work (no drivers). some software I depend on, like Media Player Classic - Home Cinema is said not to be supported in x64 either. so, this is a tough decision for me.

Hello,

I have the exact same feeling. For example, my computer is an answering machine (phone), the modem driver is for XP only, still, it works with Vista and Seven. But I bet it won't in 64 bits. I bet that Symantec Talkworks won't work also.

I imagine how many headaches I would get just to try to make work all the drivers and softwares I want to use. I prefer having a slower computer than these headaches. BTW, my computer is very fast, the latest add (SSD) gave it a big speed improvement.

pominator · May 16, 2009

Interesting results. To be serious however, more results would have been needed. Winrar is one of the well know application to be faster on 64 bits, I wouldn't be surprised if VirtualDub is one too. Only testing application that take advantage of 64 bits is not an objective test.

The graphics are also misleading in my opinion, the first VirtualDub suggest a 50% advantage to the 64 bits when it is in reality only of 2%.

I understand your point, it is necessary for people to adopt 64 bits if we want to see more 64 bits program. It is all to the community advantage over time. Their is no need to make people dumb to arrive to this goal though. I don't want say that 64 bits is slower or faster, I only say that the picture isn't simple and clear as you might want us to believe.

Pom

edit: Indeed pointing to the fact that some old hardware may not work under 64 bits would have been the minimum.

xan K · May 16, 2009

p7ast1k said:
huh???
i've been using x64 builds of media player classic home cinema for a couple of years now with zero problems
i don't even install any codecs anymore unless i want to encode

I grab the latest SVN builds from here:
XvidVideo.RU - MPC HomeCinema (x86/x64)

wow, I didn't know that. so, is it fully working with DXVA H.264 hardware acceleration ?

btw, that page is cool. now I can always have the latest version. I think I might be getting an x64 W7 copy soon along with another webcam (long overdue).

zrtom · May 16, 2009

Nice. Thank you.

p7ast1k · May 16, 2009

xan K said:
wow, I didn't know that. so, is it fully working with DXVA H.264 hardware acceleration ?

btw, that page is cool. now I can always have the latest version. I think I might be getting an x64 W7 copy soon along with another webcam (long overdue).

yeah i get dxva with hi def vids

PotatoMan83 · May 16, 2009

I can use 64bit with my setup, but choose x86 because I do not like the 2 program files folders, and then having to dig for 64bit alternatives of the applications I like. x86 performs better for my system than 64.

Rampage1999 · May 16, 2009

Just found winrar x64 this morning..

i was a happy camper.

12eason · May 16, 2009

Most of those result stress the cpu and memory most which are obviously going to perform better with x64. However, the biggest bottleneck on a computer nowadays is the hard-drive and that is the thing that is stressed more by x64 during typical use.

I would hazzard a guess that even the hard-drive benchmark you ran only tested read-write performance on identical filesizes on both x64 and x86. In typical use the x64 system will be pushing anything upto twice the data back and forth to the hard-drive as the x86 system. The tests should allow for that fact.

fakeasdf · May 16, 2009

kensiko said:
Hello,

I have the exact same feeling. For example, my computer is an answering machine (phone), the modem driver is for XP only, still, it works with Vista and Seven. But I bet it won't in 64 bits. I bet that Symantec Talkworks won't work also.

I imagine how many headaches I would get just to try to make work all the drivers and softwares I want to use. I prefer having a slower computer than these headaches. BTW, my computer is very fast, the latest add (SSD) gave it a big speed improvement.

Drivers aside of course. When drivers are an issue, you stick with what works...

12eason said:
Most of those result stress the cpu and memory most which are obviously going to perform better with x64. However, the biggest bottleneck on a computer nowadays is the hard-drive and that is the thing that is stressed more by x64 during typical use.

I would hazzard a guess that even the hard-drive benchmark you ran only tested read-write performance on identical filesizes on both x64 and x86. In typical use the x64 system will be pushing anything upto twice the data back and forth to the hard-drive as the x86 system. The tests should allow for that fact.

I'm not sure where you got your stat on that, feel free to share, you might want to read up on DMA, tons of data transfers ocurr outside of CPU realm, which is then limited to your BUS speed and the 64 vs 32 architecture is irrelevant...

pominator said:
Interesting results. To be serious however, more results would have been needed. Winrar is one of the well know application to be faster on 64 bits, I wouldn't be surprised if VirtualDub is one too. Only testing application that take advantage of 64 bits is not an objective test.

The graphics are also misleading in my opinion, the first VirtualDub suggest a 50% advantage to the 64 bits when it is in reality only of 2%.

I understand your point, it is necessary for people to adopt 64 bits if we want to see more 64 bits program. It is all to the community advantage over time. Their is no need to make people dumb to arrive to this goal though. I don't want say that 64 bits is slower or faster, I only say that the picture isn't simple and clear as you might want us to believe.

Pom

edit: Indeed pointing to the fact that some old hardware may not work under 64 bits would have been the minimum.

Pom, I only have so much time I can use during work

The performance test did a pretty extensive test, so i don't feel bad.

Second, I used both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of the software in the x64 OS. And I don't feel bad about the graphs, I just stuck the numbers into excel and let it graph it... Anyone who is actually interested in the difference would look at the times listed to the left, I agree tho, it does look mislead, twas unintentional.

Third, the point of the thing was to show that overall a 64 bit OS ran faster than a 32 bit os, despite the RAM (I only used 3). Whether or not you believe it really isn't an issue to me.

Fourth, I agree, where old hardware with a lack of drivers is an issue, stick with what works (as stated above). Granted, seeing as most hardware running a 64 bit machine is to some degree newer (AMD athlon was 2003, and Intel didn't come out with consumer 64 bit cpu's til a couple years later) most hardware is pretty well supported with 64 bit drivers. I know there are exceptions, but few, and that's an exception to the use 64 bit OS rule.

12eason · May 16, 2009

fakeasdf said:
I'm not sure where you got your stat on that, feel free to share, you might want to read up on DMA, tons of data transfers ocurr outside of CPU realm, which is then limited to your BUS speed and the 64 vs 32 architecture is irrelevant...

Sorry, but how does that relate to what I've said? Do you deny that 64bit apps and OS require upto twice the hard drive space/use as 32 bit apps and OS?

How about you test boot times, application load times etc. Maybe you could factor in increased fragmentation due to larger files and slower disk reads due to having to use slower portions of the disk. These issues wouldn't affect your idealised tests, but on average joes computer that has been in regular use for a year, they are enough to bring the system to a standstill.

Windows 7 x64 vs Windows 7 x86 (Fight)

New member

Attachments

My Computer

Banned

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

PotatoMan83

Guest

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer