Windows 7 - Windows 7 x64 vs Windows 7 x86 (Fight)

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

Thanks for the info

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

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...

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.

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

omg that ad is so cute.

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/