Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Is 64-bit WinXP faster than 32-bit WinXP?

Reply
Thread Tools

Is 64-bit WinXP faster than 32-bit WinXP?

 
 
Man-wai Chang
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2006

--
.~. Might, Courage, Vision. SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 5.10) Linux 2.6.16.8
^ ^ 15:17:01 up 2 days 19:00 load average: 1.00 1.07 1.13
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bioboffin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2006
Yes. See discussion here:

http://www.passmark.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=298





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Man-wai Chang
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2006
Bioboffin wrote:
> Yes. See discussion here:
>
> http://www.passmark.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=298


22% only?

--
.~. Might, Courage, Vision. SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 5.10) Linux 2.6.16.8
^ ^ 17:59:01 up 2 days 21:42 load average: 1.00 1.00 1.00
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
 
Reply With Quote
 
Man-wai Chang
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2006
Man-wai Chang wrote:
> Bioboffin wrote:
>> Yes. See discussion here:
>>
>> http://www.passmark.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=298

>
> 22% only?
>


Is that 22% advantage a result of faster clock speed, or really due to
64-bit addressing and mathematics?


--
.~. Might, Courage, Vision. SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 5.10) Linux 2.6.16.8
^ ^ 18:02:02 up 2 days 21:45 load average: 1.03 1.03 1.00
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bioboffin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2006
Man-wai Chang wrote:
> Bioboffin wrote:
>> Yes. See discussion here:
>>
>> http://www.passmark.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=298

>
> 22% only?


They don't take into account improved preloading into virtual memory
capabilities which affects how fast applications run. Subjectively, I find
x64 'feels' a lot faster.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bioboffin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2006
Man-wai Chang wrote:
> Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> Bioboffin wrote:
>>> Yes. See discussion here:
>>>
>>> http://www.passmark.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=298

>>
>> 22% only?
>>

>
> Is that 22% advantage a result of faster clock speed, or really due to
> 64-bit addressing and mathematics?


As they were comparing a (dual boot) win 32 installation with a win 54
installation on the same machine, it can't have anything to do with the
clock speed.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2006
Ah, but 22% is bordering on 'huge'. If people start seing that kind of
increase from a processor upgrade, everybody starts thinking about having a
vacation.

But to really have a figure that means something, you would have to take a
statistic figure on the performance of your own chip over the duration of
the sort of excercise you exposed it to, and compare that to the same kind
of statistic calculated for 'that other' chip over a comparable period after
you upgrade. Then you could see what kind of benefit you had from the
upgrade.

Benchmarks really only compare to themselves, they are really only another
kind of religion. Someone else running the same BM as you could arrive at a
different result, and if you run different BM's you can have differing
results every time.

But I agree, it feels significantly faster, and I run BM's to, myself - that
is the important part. If you go out and spend your money and don't feel
there's a benefit, no matter what the Benchmarks said, you would feel
cheated. But if the BM agrees with you own experience, then the fun really
beginns.


Tony. . .


"Man-wai Chang" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Bioboffin wrote:
>> Yes. See discussion here:
>>
>> http://www.passmark.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=298

>
> 22% only?
>
> --
> .~. Might, Courage, Vision. SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
> / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
> /( _ )\ (Ubuntu 5.10) Linux 2.6.16.8
> ^ ^ 17:59:01 up 2 days 21:42 load average: 1.00 1.00 1.00
> news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk



 
Reply With Quote
 
Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2006
I noticed that Office 2003 installs really fast, Photoshop 7 opens really
fast, it still boots really fast, so I guess there are some performance
improvements.
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

"Man-wai Chang" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> --
> .~. Might, Courage, Vision. SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
> / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
> /( _ )\ (Ubuntu 5.10) Linux 2.6.16.8
> ^ ^ 15:17:01 up 2 days 19:00 load average: 1.00 1.07 1.13
> news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk



 
Reply With Quote
 
DP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2006
Yup. One thing I've noticed both with a 64-bit amd single core running 32
bit windows and with a 64-bit dual-core running x64 that programs install
very quickly. I like that.


"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I noticed that Office 2003 installs really fast, Photoshop 7 opens really
>fast, it still boots really fast, so I guess there are some performance
>improvements.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2006
This is on a AMD Sempron 2600, 1.6 GHz.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"DP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yup. One thing I've noticed both with a 64-bit amd single core running 32
> bit windows and with a 64-bit dual-core running x64 that programs install
> very quickly. I like that.
>
>
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>I noticed that Office 2003 installs really fast, Photoshop 7 opens really
>>fast, it still boots really fast, so I guess there are some performance
>>improvements.

>
>



 
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
Re: What is faster Intel Q 6700 or Intel E 8400? With WinXP Pro? Paul Computer Information 1 10-19-2008 08:12 AM
WinXP 64 Faster.............. Kue2 Windows 64bit 2 10-06-2007 07:41 PM
rules engines: faster implementation than methods invocations? NOBODY Java 2 10-30-2004 04:19 AM
Comment : ASP.NET Performs 10 Times Faster than J2EE =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBQYXVsLiBBIChNQ1AgSUQjIDMwMTUxNzYp?= ASP .Net 6 07-07-2004 12:46 PM
Anything faster than stat() ? Ken Tucker Perl 1 07-08-2003 06:29 AM



Advertisments