Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Benchmark: XP32 vs XP64 - Is there really any benefit to x64 yet?

Reply
Thread Tools

Benchmark: XP32 vs XP64 - Is there really any benefit to x64 yet?

 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Yes. Different benchmarks have wildly different results on the same two
machines, supposedly testing similar things. I use this Ferrari every day.
At first, I used it in 32-bit some of the time, and 64-bit some of the time.
By the time I'd had it 3 weeks, I used it in x64 Edition 95% of the time.
And now I haven't booted into 32-bit XP in weeks. That tells me all I need
to know about how fast the OS is, and how compatible with my program mix.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Dennis Pack wrote:
> Charlie:
> Before x64 was released using CPP builds on a dual boot machine
> benchmark tests available at the time were very close (within about 100
> points) and the video drivers available in x64 were very slow compared to
> the x86 drivers available. But that was comparing apples to apples. At the
> same time rendering a video clip on the same machine took 71 minutes in
> x86 and 51 minutes with x64. I gave up on benchmark tests because were
> slanted towards different areas, some AMD vs P4 or ATI vs NVidia.
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I'd have to say that it simply shows that benchmarks are interesting, but
>> don't reflect what I see on my machines. Not suprising. Now it's
>> certainly true that I don't think MS Word runs one bit faster in x64
>> Edition. But then, I didn't expect it to. And since my overall machine
>> seems to run somewhat faster, I'm happy. As we see new applications that
>> are native 64-bit, we'll see the whole thing shift. I'm not surprised
>> that it's not materially different yet (and I'd have to say that the
>> scores are pretty close) from a benchmark standpoint. It _is_ after all
>> the same chip. And there's not inherent reason we'd expect x64 to run
>> significantly differently. What will change, though, is as native apps
>> take advantage of the greater memory address space, more and bigger
>> registers, and other enhancements, we'll see significant speed
>> improvements in those apps. --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Will wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've run a 3D benchmark on my PC, first with XP 32 and then with x64. I
>>> used 3DMark 2005 to run the test.
>>>
>>> The overall scores are as follows
>>>
>>> Windows XP 32: 5630
>>> Windows XP 64: 5525
>>>
>>>
>>> I was shocked that the performance is acctually worse on x64.
>>>
>>> So this has left me scratching my head thinking what are the real
>>> benefits
>>> of XP x64? Yes, we can stick in tons of RAM but I'm quite happy with my
>>> 2GB.
>>> How long will it be before developers other than MSFT start writing
>>> 64bit code? 18 months - longer?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are we running Windows XP 64 just for the sake of it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Will



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dennis Pack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Charlie:

I agree fully. The only time I boot x86 is to verify that it's
up to date, because I have one old DOS program that I use twice a year and
don't want to give up.





"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%230ovY$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yes. Different benchmarks have wildly different results on the same two
> machines, supposedly testing similar things. I use this Ferrari every day.
> At first, I used it in 32-bit some of the time, and 64-bit some of the
> time. By the time I'd had it 3 weeks, I used it in x64 Edition 95% of the
> time. And now I haven't booted into 32-bit XP in weeks. That tells me all
> I need to know about how fast the OS is, and how compatible with my
> program mix.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Dennis Pack wrote:
>> Charlie:
>> Before x64 was released using CPP builds on a dual boot
>> machine
>> benchmark tests available at the time were very close (within about 100
>> points) and the video drivers available in x64 were very slow compared to
>> the x86 drivers available. But that was comparing apples to apples. At
>> the
>> same time rendering a video clip on the same machine took 71 minutes in
>> x86 and 51 minutes with x64. I gave up on benchmark tests because were
>> slanted towards different areas, some AMD vs P4 or ATI vs NVidia.
>>
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I'd have to say that it simply shows that benchmarks are interesting,
>>> but
>>> don't reflect what I see on my machines. Not suprising. Now it's
>>> certainly true that I don't think MS Word runs one bit faster in x64
>>> Edition. But then, I didn't expect it to. And since my overall machine
>>> seems to run somewhat faster, I'm happy. As we see new applications that
>>> are native 64-bit, we'll see the whole thing shift. I'm not surprised
>>> that it's not materially different yet (and I'd have to say that the
>>> scores are pretty close) from a benchmark standpoint. It _is_ after all
>>> the same chip. And there's not inherent reason we'd expect x64 to run
>>> significantly differently. What will change, though, is as native apps
>>> take advantage of the greater memory address space, more and bigger
>>> registers, and other enhancements, we'll see significant speed
>>> improvements in those apps. --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>> Will wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've run a 3D benchmark on my PC, first with XP 32 and then with x64. I
>>>> used 3DMark 2005 to run the test.
>>>>
>>>> The overall scores are as follows
>>>>
>>>> Windows XP 32: 5630
>>>> Windows XP 64: 5525
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was shocked that the performance is acctually worse on x64.
>>>>
>>>> So this has left me scratching my head thinking what are the real
>>>> benefits
>>>> of XP x64? Yes, we can stick in tons of RAM but I'm quite happy with my
>>>> 2GB.
>>>> How long will it be before developers other than MSFT start writing
>>>> 64bit code? 18 months - longer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are we running Windows XP 64 just for the sake of it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Will

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Yup. Run the DOS program in a virtual machine. Perfect solution for
something you use this rarely.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Dennis Pack wrote:
> Charlie:
>
> I agree fully. The only time I boot x86 is to verify that it's
> up to date, because I have one old DOS program that I use twice a year and
> don't want to give up.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%230ovY$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Yes. Different benchmarks have wildly different results on the same two
>> machines, supposedly testing similar things. I use this Ferrari every
>> day. At first, I used it in 32-bit some of the time, and 64-bit some of
>> the time. By the time I'd had it 3 weeks, I used it in x64 Edition 95%
>> of the time. And now I haven't booted into 32-bit XP in weeks. That
>> tells me all I need to know about how fast the OS is, and how compatible
>> with my program mix.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Dennis Pack wrote:
>>> Charlie:
>>> Before x64 was released using CPP builds on a dual boot
>>> machine
>>> benchmark tests available at the time were very close (within about 100
>>> points) and the video drivers available in x64 were very slow compared
>>> to the x86 drivers available. But that was comparing apples to apples.
>>> At the
>>> same time rendering a video clip on the same machine took 71 minutes in
>>> x86 and 51 minutes with x64. I gave up on benchmark tests because were
>>> slanted towards different areas, some AMD vs P4 or ATI vs NVidia.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> I'd have to say that it simply shows that benchmarks are interesting,
>>>> but
>>>> don't reflect what I see on my machines. Not suprising. Now it's
>>>> certainly true that I don't think MS Word runs one bit faster in x64
>>>> Edition. But then, I didn't expect it to. And since my overall machine
>>>> seems to run somewhat faster, I'm happy. As we see new applications
>>>> that are native 64-bit, we'll see the whole thing shift. I'm not
>>>> surprised that it's not materially different yet (and I'd have to say
>>>> that the scores are pretty close) from a benchmark standpoint. It _is_
>>>> after all the same chip. And there's not inherent reason we'd expect
>>>> x64 to run significantly differently. What will change, though, is as
>>>> native apps take advantage of the greater memory address space, more
>>>> and bigger registers, and other enhancements, we'll see significant
>>>> speed improvements in those apps. --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>
>>>> Will wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've run a 3D benchmark on my PC, first with XP 32 and then with x64.
>>>>> I used 3DMark 2005 to run the test.
>>>>>
>>>>> The overall scores are as follows
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows XP 32: 5630
>>>>> Windows XP 64: 5525
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was shocked that the performance is acctually worse on x64.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this has left me scratching my head thinking what are the real
>>>>> benefits
>>>>> of XP x64? Yes, we can stick in tons of RAM but I'm quite happy with
>>>>> my 2GB.
>>>>> How long will it be before developers other than MSFT start writing
>>>>> 64bit code? 18 months - longer?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we running Windows XP 64 just for the sake of it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dennis Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Exactly. The proof is in real world usage; stability and that je ne sais
quoi pas feeling that it runs better. Yeah, maybe I'm just deluding myself
because I had to pay for 64 bit, but I only boot into XP Pro to make sure
it's still there...


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%230ovY$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yes. Different benchmarks have wildly different results on the same two
> machines, supposedly testing similar things. I use this Ferrari every day.
> At first, I used it in 32-bit some of the time, and 64-bit some of the

time.
> By the time I'd had it 3 weeks, I used it in x64 Edition 95% of the time.
> And now I haven't booted into 32-bit XP in weeks. That tells me all I need
> to know about how fast the OS is, and how compatible with my program mix.


>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Will
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
As an interesting FYI - I read somewhere that that the background wallpaper
can have a detrimental effect on the graphics card.

In my x86 system, wallpaper was turned off.

I have subsequently disabled wallpaper and ran 3DMark 2005 again.

Resulted in a score of 5619 !!



"Will" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:43805865$0$203$(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
> Hi,
>
> I've run a 3D benchmark on my PC, first with XP 32 and then with x64. I
> used 3DMark 2005 to run the test.
>
> The overall scores are as follows
>
> Windows XP 32: 5630
> Windows XP 64: 5525
>
>
> I was shocked that the performance is acctually worse on x64.
>
> So this has left me scratching my head thinking what are the real benefits
> of XP x64? Yes, we can stick in tons of RAM but I'm quite happy with my
> 2GB.
>
> How long will it be before developers other than MSFT start writing 64bit
> code? 18 months - longer?
>
>
> Are we running Windows XP 64 just for the sake of it?
>
>
> Will
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dennis Pack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
I've never tried VM yet. But it's a good project when I get the time.


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yup. Run the DOS program in a virtual machine. Perfect solution for
> something you use this rarely.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Dennis Pack wrote:
>> Charlie:
>>
>> I agree fully. The only time I boot x86 is to verify that it's
>> up to date, because I have one old DOS program that I use twice a year
>> and
>> don't want to give up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%230ovY$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Yes. Different benchmarks have wildly different results on the same two
>>> machines, supposedly testing similar things. I use this Ferrari every
>>> day. At first, I used it in 32-bit some of the time, and 64-bit some of
>>> the time. By the time I'd had it 3 weeks, I used it in x64 Edition 95%
>>> of the time. And now I haven't booted into 32-bit XP in weeks. That
>>> tells me all I need to know about how fast the OS is, and how compatible
>>> with my program mix.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>> Dennis Pack wrote:
>>>> Charlie:
>>>> Before x64 was released using CPP builds on a dual boot
>>>> machine
>>>> benchmark tests available at the time were very close (within about 100
>>>> points) and the video drivers available in x64 were very slow compared
>>>> to the x86 drivers available. But that was comparing apples to apples.
>>>> At the
>>>> same time rendering a video clip on the same machine took 71 minutes in
>>>> x86 and 51 minutes with x64. I gave up on benchmark tests because were
>>>> slanted towards different areas, some AMD vs P4 or ATI vs NVidia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> I'd have to say that it simply shows that benchmarks are interesting,
>>>>> but
>>>>> don't reflect what I see on my machines. Not suprising. Now it's
>>>>> certainly true that I don't think MS Word runs one bit faster in x64
>>>>> Edition. But then, I didn't expect it to. And since my overall machine
>>>>> seems to run somewhat faster, I'm happy. As we see new applications
>>>>> that are native 64-bit, we'll see the whole thing shift. I'm not
>>>>> surprised that it's not materially different yet (and I'd have to say
>>>>> that the scores are pretty close) from a benchmark standpoint. It _is_
>>>>> after all the same chip. And there's not inherent reason we'd expect
>>>>> x64 to run significantly differently. What will change, though, is as
>>>>> native apps take advantage of the greater memory address space, more
>>>>> and bigger registers, and other enhancements, we'll see significant
>>>>> speed improvements in those apps. --
>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>
>>>>> Will wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've run a 3D benchmark on my PC, first with XP 32 and then with x64.
>>>>>> I used 3DMark 2005 to run the test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The overall scores are as follows
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows XP 32: 5630
>>>>>> Windows XP 64: 5525
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was shocked that the performance is acctually worse on x64.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this has left me scratching my head thinking what are the real
>>>>>> benefits
>>>>>> of XP x64? Yes, we can stick in tons of RAM but I'm quite happy with
>>>>>> my 2GB.
>>>>>> How long will it be before developers other than MSFT start writing
>>>>>> 64bit code? 18 months - longer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we running Windows XP 64 just for the sake of it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
New version of Virtual Server Standard Edition is $99 USD list price. Tough
to beat at that price, and it runs just fine on x64 Edition. (note that
Virtual PC does NOT run on x64 Edition, however.)

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Dennis Pack wrote:
> I've never tried VM yet. But it's a good project when I get the time.
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Yup. Run the DOS program in a virtual machine. Perfect solution for
>> something you use this rarely.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Dennis Pack wrote:
>>> Charlie:
>>>
>>> I agree fully. The only time I boot x86 is to verify that
>>> it's up to date, because I have one old DOS program that I use twice a
>>> year and
>>> don't want to give up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> message news:%230ovY$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Yes. Different benchmarks have wildly different results on the same two
>>>> machines, supposedly testing similar things. I use this Ferrari every
>>>> day. At first, I used it in 32-bit some of the time, and 64-bit some of
>>>> the time. By the time I'd had it 3 weeks, I used it in x64 Edition 95%
>>>> of the time. And now I haven't booted into 32-bit XP in weeks. That
>>>> tells me all I need to know about how fast the OS is, and how
>>>> compatible with my program mix.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>
>>>> Dennis Pack wrote:
>>>>> Charlie:
>>>>> Before x64 was released using CPP builds on a dual boot
>>>>> machine
>>>>> benchmark tests available at the time were very close (within about
>>>>> 100 points) and the video drivers available in x64 were very slow
>>>>> compared to the x86 drivers available. But that was comparing apples
>>>>> to apples. At the
>>>>> same time rendering a video clip on the same machine took 71 minutes
>>>>> in x86 and 51 minutes with x64. I gave up on benchmark tests because
>>>>> were slanted towards different areas, some AMD vs P4 or ATI vs NVidia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> I'd have to say that it simply shows that benchmarks are interesting,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> don't reflect what I see on my machines. Not suprising. Now it's
>>>>>> certainly true that I don't think MS Word runs one bit faster in x64
>>>>>> Edition. But then, I didn't expect it to. And since my overall
>>>>>> machine seems to run somewhat faster, I'm happy. As we see new
>>>>>> applications that are native 64-bit, we'll see the whole thing
>>>>>> shift. I'm not surprised that it's not materially different yet (and
>>>>>> I'd have to say that the scores are pretty close) from a benchmark
>>>>>> standpoint. It _is_ after all the same chip. And there's not
>>>>>> inherent reason we'd expect x64 to run significantly differently.
>>>>>> What will change, though, is as native apps take advantage of the
>>>>>> greater memory address space, more and bigger registers, and other
>>>>>> enhancements, we'll see significant speed improvements in those
>>>>>> apps. --
>>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've run a 3D benchmark on my PC, first with XP 32 and then with
>>>>>>> x64. I used 3DMark 2005 to run the test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The overall scores are as follows
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Windows XP 32: 5630
>>>>>>> Windows XP 64: 5525
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was shocked that the performance is acctually worse on x64.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So this has left me scratching my head thinking what are the real
>>>>>>> benefits
>>>>>>> of XP x64? Yes, we can stick in tons of RAM but I'm quite happy with
>>>>>>> my 2GB.
>>>>>>> How long will it be before developers other than MSFT start writing
>>>>>>> 64bit code? 18 months - longer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we running Windows XP 64 just for the sake of it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dennis Pack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Thank You.


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> New version of Virtual Server Standard Edition is $99 USD list price.
> Tough to beat at that price, and it runs just fine on x64 Edition. (note
> that Virtual PC does NOT run on x64 Edition, however.)
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Dennis Pack wrote:
>> I've never tried VM yet. But it's a good project when I get the time.
>>
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Yup. Run the DOS program in a virtual machine. Perfect solution for
>>> something you use this rarely.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>> Dennis Pack wrote:
>>>> Charlie:
>>>>
>>>> I agree fully. The only time I boot x86 is to verify that
>>>> it's up to date, because I have one old DOS program that I use twice a
>>>> year and
>>>> don't want to give up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> message news:%230ovY$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Yes. Different benchmarks have wildly different results on the same
>>>>> two
>>>>> machines, supposedly testing similar things. I use this Ferrari every
>>>>> day. At first, I used it in 32-bit some of the time, and 64-bit some
>>>>> of
>>>>> the time. By the time I'd had it 3 weeks, I used it in x64 Edition 95%
>>>>> of the time. And now I haven't booted into 32-bit XP in weeks. That
>>>>> tells me all I need to know about how fast the OS is, and how
>>>>> compatible with my program mix.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis Pack wrote:
>>>>>> Charlie:
>>>>>> Before x64 was released using CPP builds on a dual boot
>>>>>> machine
>>>>>> benchmark tests available at the time were very close (within about
>>>>>> 100 points) and the video drivers available in x64 were very slow
>>>>>> compared to the x86 drivers available. But that was comparing apples
>>>>>> to apples. At the
>>>>>> same time rendering a video clip on the same machine took 71 minutes
>>>>>> in x86 and 51 minutes with x64. I gave up on benchmark tests because
>>>>>> were slanted towards different areas, some AMD vs P4 or ATI vs
>>>>>> NVidia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> I'd have to say that it simply shows that benchmarks are
>>>>>>> interesting,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> don't reflect what I see on my machines. Not suprising. Now it's
>>>>>>> certainly true that I don't think MS Word runs one bit faster in x64
>>>>>>> Edition. But then, I didn't expect it to. And since my overall
>>>>>>> machine seems to run somewhat faster, I'm happy. As we see new
>>>>>>> applications that are native 64-bit, we'll see the whole thing
>>>>>>> shift. I'm not surprised that it's not materially different yet (and
>>>>>>> I'd have to say that the scores are pretty close) from a benchmark
>>>>>>> standpoint. It _is_ after all the same chip. And there's not
>>>>>>> inherent reason we'd expect x64 to run significantly differently.
>>>>>>> What will change, though, is as native apps take advantage of the
>>>>>>> greater memory address space, more and bigger registers, and other
>>>>>>> enhancements, we'll see significant speed improvements in those
>>>>>>> apps. --
>>>>>>> Charlie.
>>>>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've run a 3D benchmark on my PC, first with XP 32 and then with
>>>>>>>> x64. I used 3DMark 2005 to run the test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The overall scores are as follows
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Windows XP 32: 5630
>>>>>>>> Windows XP 64: 5525
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was shocked that the performance is acctually worse on x64.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So this has left me scratching my head thinking what are the real
>>>>>>>> benefits
>>>>>>>> of XP x64? Yes, we can stick in tons of RAM but I'm quite happy
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> my 2GB.
>>>>>>>> How long will it be before developers other than MSFT start writing
>>>>>>>> 64bit code? 18 months - longer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are we running Windows XP 64 just for the sake of it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Barb Bowman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
did you ever write anything on using Virtual Server on x64? if not,
great topic...

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 15:50:38 -0800, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>New version of Virtual Server Standard Edition is $99 USD list price. Tough
>to beat at that price, and it runs just fine on x64 Edition. (note that
>Virtual PC does NOT run on x64 Edition, however.)

--

Barb Bowman
MS Windows-MVP
Expert Zone Columnist
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?TWFyYXRvbm1hbm5lbg==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
Are your scores CPU?

In that case I scored the following:
XP 32: 5681
XP 64: 5834

--
Asus P5WD2 Premium (955X Express)
P4 3.73 GHz EE
RAPTOR 2 x 74GB in RAID 0
DDR2 PC8000 2GB
GeForce 7800GTX
Samsung 24" TFT
Enermax 660W
Plextor PX-712SA


"Will" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've run a 3D benchmark on my PC, first with XP 32 and then with x64. I used
> 3DMark 2005 to run the test.
>
> The overall scores are as follows
>
> Windows XP 32: 5630
> Windows XP 64: 5525
>
>
> I was shocked that the performance is acctually worse on x64.
>
> So this has left me scratching my head thinking what are the real benefits
> of XP x64? Yes, we can stick in tons of RAM but I'm quite happy with my 2GB.
>
> How long will it be before developers other than MSFT start writing 64bit
> code? 18 months - longer?
>
>
> Are we running Windows XP 64 just for the sake of it?
>
>
> Will
>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
any difference of NTFS version for Xp32 and XP64? gs Windows 64bit 12 04-02-2006 04:48 PM
any problem from using Xp64 to copy fiels in XP32? jg Windows 64bit 1 02-23-2006 01:07 AM
Dual boot XP64 and XP32 =?Utf-8?B?QmVlcnRqZQ==?= Windows 64bit 13 12-13-2005 01:18 PM
XP64 & XP32 on the same computer =?Utf-8?B?ZWNfbGFja2V5?= Windows 64bit 1 11-11-2005 01:10 PM
XP64 & XP32 dual boot - can they share an MS Office 2000 install? Goody2shoe Windows 64bit 32 07-10-2005 11:50 PM



Advertisments