Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Performance win32 vs x64 on Windows XP x64 professional

Reply
Thread Tools

Performance win32 vs x64 on Windows XP x64 professional

 
 
Eric
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2007
Hi all,

I did a performance test with the same application that I compile with
VS2005 for win32 and x64. I run it on Windows XP x64 professional SP1.
The computer is a Intel Pentium D 3 GHz with 2 GB RAM.

The purpose of the test was to identify to gain in performance of an
application 64-bit vs 32-bit. My result is the win32 version is far
better than the win64 version. How can this be possible? All win32
application are emulate in 64-bits? An 64-bit application use all the
power (resource) available?

What can explain this result? Will I get the same result between Vista
32-bit VS Vista 64-bit?

P.S.: I clean the cache between each test...

Regards,
Eric

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2007
The explanation could be Compiler Options?

It is important, however, to establish that running 64bit is not one bit
faster - if you need to push more data through the system 64bit will do it
in less time, not because the system is faster but because it has a wider
data-path. The short of all this is that if you need it you will think it is
faster, if you don't need it - you won't see the advantage!

But then, even if you don't need it - as I don't, I think it is a nice
polished system that is more stable than anything else I've had.

Tony. . .


"Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I did a performance test with the same application that I compile with
> VS2005 for win32 and x64. I run it on Windows XP x64 professional SP1.
> The computer is a Intel Pentium D 3 GHz with 2 GB RAM.
>
> The purpose of the test was to identify to gain in performance of an
> application 64-bit vs 32-bit. My result is the win32 version is far
> better than the win64 version. How can this be possible? All win32
> application are emulate in 64-bits? An 64-bit application use all the
> power (resource) available?
>
> What can explain this result? Will I get the same result between Vista
> 32-bit VS Vista 64-bit?
>
> P.S.: I clean the cache between each test...
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dshai
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2007
Agreed Tony, although I do occasionally see the difference as well.

--

Dshai

Life is only limited by those living it...

"Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I did a performance test with the same application that I compile with
> VS2005 for win32 and x64. I run it on Windows XP x64 professional SP1.
> The computer is a Intel Pentium D 3 GHz with 2 GB RAM.
>
> The purpose of the test was to identify to gain in performance of an
> application 64-bit vs 32-bit. My result is the win32 version is far
> better than the win64 version. How can this be possible? All win32
> application are emulate in 64-bits? An 64-bit application use all the
> power (resource) available?
>
> What can explain this result? Will I get the same result between Vista
> 32-bit VS Vista 64-bit?
>
> P.S.: I clean the cache between each test...
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2007
Yes, me too - but keeping true to the analytical mindset of this society [
snicker. . .] what is it that we are seeing? most of the time it is not the
64bit effect but the effect of running a well greased system - I've said
this before, and I am not about to revert this opinion. XP x64 is VASTLY
better than any consumer OS when it comes to managing Virtual Resources -
this is subjectively speeding up the OS considerably, you may not be able to
verify this statement from any benchmarking, but we, the users we sit down
and watch it every time we boot the machine - the 64bits, most of us never
see!!!


Tony. . .


"Dshai" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Agreed Tony, although I do occasionally see the difference as well.
>
> --
>
> Dshai
>
> Life is only limited by those living it...
>
> "Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I did a performance test with the same application that I compile with
> > VS2005 for win32 and x64. I run it on Windows XP x64 professional SP1.
> > The computer is a Intel Pentium D 3 GHz with 2 GB RAM.
> >
> > The purpose of the test was to identify to gain in performance of an
> > application 64-bit vs 32-bit. My result is the win32 version is far
> > better than the win64 version. How can this be possible? All win32
> > application are emulate in 64-bits? An 64-bit application use all the
> > power (resource) available?
> >
> > What can explain this result? Will I get the same result between Vista
> > 32-bit VS Vista 64-bit?
> >
> > P.S.: I clean the cache between each test...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eric
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2007
I understand your point. Both projects (win32 and win64) have to same
optimization options. But the result show clearly that the test (load
CPU and memory access) was faster in 32-bit. Normaly like you said, in
64-bit I should get better performance when we use a lot a memory
access and with just load CPU the result should be similar.

Maybe is a problem with some system resources (drivers motherboard,
video card, etc) that are much optimize in win32 mode and not in win64.

Eric

Tony Sperling wrote:
> Yes, me too - but keeping true to the analytical mindset of this society [
> snicker. . .] what is it that we are seeing? most of the time it is not the
> 64bit effect but the effect of running a well greased system - I've said
> this before, and I am not about to revert this opinion. XP x64 is VASTLY
> better than any consumer OS when it comes to managing Virtual Resources -
> this is subjectively speeding up the OS considerably, you may not be able to
> verify this statement from any benchmarking, but we, the users we sit down
> and watch it every time we boot the machine - the 64bits, most of us never
> see!!!
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Dshai" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Agreed Tony, although I do occasionally see the difference as well.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dshai
> >
> > Life is only limited by those living it...
> >
> > "Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I did a performance test with the same application that I compile with
> > > VS2005 for win32 and x64. I run it on Windows XP x64 professional SP1.
> > > The computer is a Intel Pentium D 3 GHz with 2 GB RAM.
> > >
> > > The purpose of the test was to identify to gain in performance of an
> > > application 64-bit vs 32-bit. My result is the win32 version is far
> > > better than the win64 version. How can this be possible? All win32
> > > application are emulate in 64-bits? An 64-bit application use all the
> > > power (resource) available?
> > >
> > > What can explain this result? Will I get the same result between Vista
> > > 32-bit VS Vista 64-bit?
> > >
> > > P.S.: I clean the cache between each test...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Eric
> > >

> >
> >


 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2007
Hi all,

I did the same test with Vista 32-bit and Vista x64 (in win32 mode and
win64 mode) always on the same computer. The results are very
interesting.

Here is the results in order : the better to the worst

1- Windows XP 32-bit
2- Windows XP x64 (win32 mode)
3- Vista 32-bit, Vista x64 (win32 and win64 mode) => all same results
4- Windows XP x64 (win64 mode)

Like expected, the performance of Vista is lower than Windows XP
caused by the new graphics Aero, but Windows XP x64 in win64 mode have
the worst performance and it is far away from Vista. So I think the
Windows XP x64 is a turnip. The only good think that Windows XP x64
have is to permit the test application in win64 mode, but do not
expect have better performance by switching your application in win64
mode.

Regards,
Eric

On Jan 18, 12:59 pm, "Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I understand your point. Both projects (win32 and win64) have to same
> optimization options. But the result show clearly that the test (load
> CPU and memory access) was faster in 32-bit. Normaly like you said, in
> 64-bit I should get better performance when we use a lot a memory
> access and with just load CPU the result should be similar.
>
> Maybe is a problem with some system resources (drivers motherboard,
> video card, etc) that are much optimize in win32 mode and not in win64.
>
> Eric
>
> Tony Sperling wrote:
> > Yes, me too - but keeping true to the analytical mindset of this society [
> > snicker. . .] what is it that we are seeing? most of the time it is not the
> > 64bit effect but the effect of running a well greased system - I've said
> > this before, and I am not about to revert this opinion. XP x64 is VASTLY
> > better than any consumer OS when it comes to managing Virtual Resources -
> > this is subjectively speeding up the OS considerably, you may not be able to
> > verify this statement from any benchmarking, but we, the users we sit down
> > and watch it every time we boot the machine - the 64bits, most of us never
> > see!!!

>
> > Tony. . .

>
> > "Dshai" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > Agreed Tony, although I do occasionally see the difference as well.

>
> > > --

>
> > > Dshai

>
> > > Life is only limited by those living it...

>
> > > "Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > >news:(E-Mail Removed) roups.com...
> > > > Hi all,

>
> > > > I did a performance test with the same application that I compile with
> > > > VS2005 for win32 and x64. I run it on Windows XP x64 professional SP1.
> > > > The computer is a Intel Pentium D 3 GHz with 2 GB RAM.

>
> > > > The purpose of the test was to identify to gain in performance of an
> > > > application 64-bit vs 32-bit. My result is the win32 version is far
> > > > better than the win64 version. How can this be possible? All win32
> > > > application are emulate in 64-bits? An 64-bit application use all the
> > > > power (resource) available?

>
> > > > What can explain this result? Will I get the same result between Vista
> > > > 32-bit VS Vista 64-bit?

>
> > > > P.S.: I clean the cache between each test...

>
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Eric


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2007
I am sorry, but your 'results' -if we can call it that- contradicts two
years of combined experience in this group, as far as I can make out. You
have given no indication of what data you are working with, and no
indication of how you wrote your timing routine(s), and no indication of
what language you used. Furthermore, you are not telling us if any of the
results actually seem to make any sense, when compared? Or if under
analysis, they reveal some component of randomness? True benchmarking should
be using proven scientific method, and should be written in machine-code, or
it is of no more value than ordinary entertainment.

I don't doubt that you have been digging into the issue with considerable
iinterest and with much effort, and you may even have uncovered something of
great general interest to the group - but what?

I think you should publish your results to a developer's group, they will
have people present, with the basic technology in shape, who might be more
able to appreciate your work.

But they probably would like to know how you have been treating
Caching-Schemes and the Virtual Memory Subsystem, and stuff like that, which
is vastly different across those OS's.


Tony. . .


"Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I did the same test with Vista 32-bit and Vista x64 (in win32 mode and
> win64 mode) always on the same computer. The results are very
> interesting.
>
> Here is the results in order : the better to the worst
>
> 1- Windows XP 32-bit
> 2- Windows XP x64 (win32 mode)
> 3- Vista 32-bit, Vista x64 (win32 and win64 mode) => all same results
> 4- Windows XP x64 (win64 mode)
>
> Like expected, the performance of Vista is lower than Windows XP
> caused by the new graphics Aero, but Windows XP x64 in win64 mode have
> the worst performance and it is far away from Vista. So I think the
> Windows XP x64 is a turnip. The only good think that Windows XP x64
> have is to permit the test application in win64 mode, but do not
> expect have better performance by switching your application in win64
> mode.
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
> On Jan 18, 12:59 pm, "Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > I understand your point. Both projects (win32 and win64) have to same
> > optimization options. But the result show clearly that the test (load
> > CPU and memory access) was faster in 32-bit. Normaly like you said, in
> > 64-bit I should get better performance when we use a lot a memory
> > access and with just load CPU the result should be similar.
> >
> > Maybe is a problem with some system resources (drivers motherboard,
> > video card, etc) that are much optimize in win32 mode and not in win64.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > Tony Sperling wrote:
> > > Yes, me too - but keeping true to the analytical mindset of this

society [
> > > snicker. . .] what is it that we are seeing? most of the time it is

not the
> > > 64bit effect but the effect of running a well greased system - I've

said
> > > this before, and I am not about to revert this opinion. XP x64 is

VASTLY
> > > better than any consumer OS when it comes to managing Virtual

Resources -
> > > this is subjectively speeding up the OS considerably, you may not be

able to
> > > verify this statement from any benchmarking, but we, the users we sit

down
> > > and watch it every time we boot the machine - the 64bits, most of us

never
> > > see!!!

> >
> > > Tony. . .

> >
> > > "Dshai" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > >news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > Agreed Tony, although I do occasionally see the difference as well.

> >
> > > > --

> >
> > > > Dshai

> >
> > > > Life is only limited by those living it...

> >
> > > > "Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > >news:(E-Mail Removed) roups.com...
> > > > > Hi all,

> >
> > > > > I did a performance test with the same application that I compile

with
> > > > > VS2005 for win32 and x64. I run it on Windows XP x64 professional

SP1.
> > > > > The computer is a Intel Pentium D 3 GHz with 2 GB RAM.

> >
> > > > > The purpose of the test was to identify to gain in performance of

an
> > > > > application 64-bit vs 32-bit. My result is the win32 version is

far
> > > > > better than the win64 version. How can this be possible? All

win32
> > > > > application are emulate in 64-bits? An 64-bit application use all

the
> > > > > power (resource) available?

> >
> > > > > What can explain this result? Will I get the same result between

Vista
> > > > > 32-bit VS Vista 64-bit?

> >
> > > > > P.S.: I clean the cache between each test...

> >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Eric

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jud Hendrix
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2007
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:50:38 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I am sorry, but your 'results' -if we can call it that- contradicts two
>years of combined experience in this group,


Tally ho! In my experience, XP64 in 64-bit mode, runs the best of them all,
but I have to admit, I have very limited experience with Vista (and not
used it under multi-media stress). But given the heavy system-requirements,
i don't expect it to perform better, as a nice look will come with a loss.

jud
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2007
My purpose wasn't to evaluate in a precise manner the performance. I
just want to know if the gain in performance of an
application 64-bit vs 32-bit on Windows XP x64 and Vista x64 is
visible (so my test unit is seconds !!). Also, I want to evaluate the
performance of a typical use of my software. I publish my result to
start a debate on the possible causes of the performance problem with
Windows XP x64.

When you buy a car, you try it. You want to know if you like to drive
it. So I want to know what can explain my lost of RPM with Windows XP
x64 in 64-bit mode. I was expected result like I had with Vista x64
i.e. similary performance between 32-bit and 64-bit mode.

Regards,
Eric

On Jan 29, 3:25 am, Jud Hendrix <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:50:38 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >I am sorry, but your 'results' -if we can call it that- contradicts two
> >years of combined experience in this group,Tally ho! In my experience, XP64 in 64-bit mode, runs the best of them all,

> but I have to admit, I have very limited experience with Vista (and not
> used it under multi-media stress). But given the heavy system-requirements,
> i don't expect it to perform better, as a nice look will come with a loss.
>
> jud


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2007
Well, personally I cannot evaluate the results since I don't know what you
have been doing, but if you have a dual-boot setup, consider this:

Create a partition that is available to both Systems

Create random size files up to 60% of the available space.

Randomly delete half of those files.

Repeat the file creation.

Back up the partition.

// This should have the partition being wildly Fragmented

Get a Defragger that is released in both 32bit and 64bit versions.

Run both versions while restoring the backup between runs.

This is not scientific by any means, and may not be any more usefull than
your own method, but it should give you an indication of how the user
typically would experience the system at work, it would also be easier to
time, perhaps. Only suggesting this to give you a chance of getting possibly
different indications.

Also, have you checked your present algorithm if the timing routine you use
can resolve any usefull information, yours wouldn't be the first to return
with contradicting results. Seconds are pretty long inside a CPU.


Tony. . .


"Eric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> My purpose wasn't to evaluate in a precise manner the performance. I
> just want to know if the gain in performance of an
> application 64-bit vs 32-bit on Windows XP x64 and Vista x64 is
> visible (so my test unit is seconds !!). Also, I want to evaluate the
> performance of a typical use of my software. I publish my result to
> start a debate on the possible causes of the performance problem with
> Windows XP x64.
>
> When you buy a car, you try it. You want to know if you like to drive
> it. So I want to know what can explain my lost of RPM with Windows XP
> x64 in 64-bit mode. I was expected result like I had with Vista x64
> i.e. similary performance between 32-bit and 64-bit mode.
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
> On Jan 29, 3:25 am, Jud Hendrix <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:50:38 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> >
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >I am sorry, but your 'results' -if we can call it that- contradicts two
> > >years of combined experience in this group,Tally ho! In my experience,

XP64 in 64-bit mode, runs the best of them all,
> > but I have to admit, I have very limited experience with Vista (and not
> > used it under multi-media stress). But given the heavy

system-requirements,
> > i don't expect it to perform better, as a nice look will come with a

loss.
> >
> > jud

>



 
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
Windows Server 2003 X64 RC2 or SImply XP Professional X64 Edition =?Utf-8?B?UGFzY2Fs?= Windows 64bit 6 09-25-2005 05:33 PM
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition - Triail Download -- Now Available !! Mike Brannigan [MSFT] Windows 64bit 17 05-21-2005 05:02 PM
Exploring Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Christian Hougardy \(MS MVP XP\) Windows 64bit 2 05-11-2005 05:54 AM
Office Professional 97 vs Office Professional 2000 SR-1 Me/PDX Computer Support 4 04-18-2005 12:32 AM
XP professional vs. WINDOWS 2000 Professional Harold Microsoft Certification 4 12-15-2003 03:04 PM



Advertisments