Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Windows 32 vs 64 bit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Windows 32 vs 64 bit

    I have a question regarding the performance gains between Windows 32bit vs 64 bit, running on an Opteron 64 bit AMD.

    Some are saying that there will be no performance gains and some are saying there is.

    Do you know of any reviews on the subject and whether there are improvements going to a 64 bit OS?
    OK I know it's not just the OS, it's the application as well, I'm trying to put a business case to Adobe to support 64bit OS's with 64 bit code and everything, and all I'm getting back is... There is no difference other that the amount of memory supported.

    Thanks,
    Elie

  • #2
    Unfortunately, the answer is "it depends". With high end SQL, Exchange, AD servers, the performance improvement can be stunning. Mostly because so much more of the active data can be cached in RAM. There's one case study I read where a SQL query was taking up to 20 hours to complete, but now takes only 20 minutes using W2K3 x64/SQL 2005 x64.

    On a desktop, there's very little that benefits greatly right now, particularly because the average desktop can't handle more than 4GB anyway. I haven't worked with any high-end workstations that would really benefit from 64bit, so I can't comment. I can't really think of any desktop applications that need to work with such huge datasets though. Maybe if you're doing wildly complex CAD or graphics stuff, but otherwise...
    Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive, bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine. -- Dr. Perry Cox

    Comment


    • #3
      Sure, you gain performance... but there's lots of stuff that still doesn't WORK on 64-bit Windows.
      The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

      I'm the least you could do
      If only life were as easy as you
      I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
      If only life were as easy as you
      I would still get screwed

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gurm
        Sure, you gain performance... but there's lots of stuff that still doesn't WORK on 64-bit Windows.
        Very true. If you're thinking of running XP x64 on your general purpose desktop machine, DON'T!!!

        Right now, it's good for specific tasks. Like if you have a single big 64-bit app that has a dedicated server or workstation. If you're going to be installing anything else, like utilities, games, etc, don't bother with x64.
        Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive, bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine. -- Dr. Perry Cox

        Comment


        • #5
          All I can contribute is that my new Core 2 Duo rig seems to multitask more smoothly with Windows XP x64. It's very subtle though. Windows XP x86 runs like a champ too.

          fyi, it's a dev rig. I run multiple versions of SQL server, Visual Studio, and some other dev tools.

          The added smoothness might only be becuase the OS can see all 4GB of my installed RAM.
          Last edited by schmosef; 18 September 2006, 12:08.
          P.S. You've been Spanked!

          Comment


          • #6
            Why would you need x64 to see 4GB of RAM? 32-bit XP supports 4GB just fine.
            Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive, bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine. -- Dr. Perry Cox

            Comment


            • #7
              schmo, Windows XP is NT 5.1, Windows XP64 is NT 5.2 (same as Windows 2003), so perhaps that's the reason for slight differnce... (or placebo )

              And BTW, I have only vague understanding of basic implications of 64 vs 32bit...but I seem to have heard that using 64bits effectivelly halves your cpu caches/bus tranfer speeds/etc., how much of this has anything to do with reality?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by agallag
                Why would you need x64 to see 4GB of RAM? 32-bit XP supports 4GB just fine.
                Just make sure you disable your page file, as 4GB is the max 32bit OS's can see, including the page file
                We have enough youth - What we need is a fountain of smart!


                i7-920, 6GB DDR3-1600, HD4870X2, Dell 27" LCD

                Comment


                • #9
                  Then how come W2K3 can use up to 128GB in certain configurations? It's called Physical Address Extension. Look it up.
                  Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive, bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine. -- Dr. Perry Cox

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks guys for the input, the OS alone will not help for sure, you need the applications to support 64 bit processing as well, that's why I'm bugging Adobe about providing support for their next version of software.

                    So to conclude, I think everyone agrees that 64bit will be faster if not more effecient processing etc, you just need the OS as a base to support it, and then the applications.

                    I wish there were benchmarks out there to compare, I will check google.

                    Cheers,
                    Elie

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Maybe this will help:
                      Microsoft support is here to help you with Microsoft products. Find how-to articles, videos, and training for Microsoft Copilot, Microsoft 365, Windows, Surface, and more.


                      I've recently been round and round about this with the idiot MIS director here.
                      He ordered us a new server for our Oracle tax database.
                      Without consulting us or his own DBA staff.
                      16 gigs of ram running Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition.

                      On top of that, windows Oracle is written as a single process, so it is limited to using 2gb under 32 bit windows
                      (it can use some of the extra ram as buffers though)



                      ... and 6 hard drives, 2 for the OS and 4 for the DB.
                      The current server has a 12 drive array and two controlers dedicated to the database.
                      (it's an old Proliant 7000 with 4 Xeon 750 4 meg cache procs and 4 gigs of ram)

                      He says "Trust me, It'll be really fast."
                      Right.
                      Sigh...
                      Chuck
                      秋音的爸爸

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wow. He must be smart.
                        Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive, bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine. -- Dr. Perry Cox

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Time for some info from forgeten by everybody Nicram :P

                          I made some test. To bad not in windows OS but it should give You some more information about what difference is between 32bit OS & 64bit OS.
                          OS: OpenBSD 3.9 (release, generic kernel for both platforms). Using same config (for networking, startup, even user profiles) files to make sure that both installations work identically.

                          First 64 bit version:
                          Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3
                          Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc.
                          Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com>

                          OpenBSD 3.9 GENERIC#462 amd64
                          Ubench CPU: 63882
                          Ubench MEM: 27203
                          --------------------
                          Ubench AVG: 45542
                          Second 32 bit version:
                          Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3
                          Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc.
                          Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com>

                          OpenBSD 3.9 GENERIC#617 i386
                          Ubench CPU: 41718
                          Ubench MEM: 34505
                          --------------------
                          Ubench AVG: 38111
                          This simple open source benchmark software was compiled using default libs & gcc so i think it show the results of using native 64 bit apps in 64 bit OS (same with 32 bit mode).

                          DMESG from both sessions are in attachment. Oops, attachments doesn't work, so...

                          A CRAY is the only computer that runs an endless loop in just 4 hours...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Almost everyone here is focusing exclusively on the extra address space. Sure, that's very important for some apps, especially fat bastards like Oracle DBs.

                            But something more important to most programs: the extra registers. x86-64 has many more general purpose registers, and code that's compiled to use them, rather than transferring stuff into the smaller x86 pool, and benefit greatly, depending on the app.
                            Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X