xp pro x64 slower than xp pro 32bit?

[WesM63]

Its been a long time since i've tried x64, so i figured i'd give it a try. Installed xp pro x64 on my new raptor x 150gb with my Q6600. Installed all the drivers etc and ran super pi at 3.2ghz (356x9,267mhz mem), 21seconds? Somethings off, on a old xp pro 32bit install at the same clock speed I get 16seconds in super pi.

In stock form (2.4ghz, 266mem), xp pro x64 26seconds super pi. 21seconds on an old install of xp pro 32bit.

Whats the deal here? Is x64 slow, is it the version of super pi i'm using? Is there a x64 version of super pi?

[stealthbomber]

If it's a 32bit app it will always run slightly slower in XP64 than in XP32, the difference is usually very small, try the 64bit version if there is one.

[rogueagent6]

Well since XP64 actually emulates 32 bit for 32 bit apps, then I would say that's your problem. You will always see higher latencies when you add layers, especially emulation, but it does it very well. I've been using WinXP 64 for quite awhile and won't switch until I get Vista 64, once certain hardware vendors get their driver issues sorted out. :rolleyes:

[zanzabar]

u also have an intel chip and they dont like 64bit they do allot better on 32 bit

[rogueagent6]

u also have an intel chip and they dont like 64bit they do allot better on 32 bit

Have anything to back that up?

[lawrywild]

There's something wrong here. x64 is not 5 seconds slower in 1M than x86... I don't know what but a reinstall with freshly downloaded drivers etc would probably fix it.

[zanzabar]

Have anything to back that up?

if it was better at x64 command sets then why wouldent lintel bench things on the platform, all of the server applets are in 64 and 32, and when u are testing cpu/ram u use server benches

[lawrywild]

It's bollocks that x64 is worse on Intel than x86. The truth is that the speed increase on Intel was only slight whereas the increase of AMD64 was quite huge.

[shiznit93]

I am typing this from xp pro x64 sp2 eval. and I have to say it is definitely faster than xp pro 32 ever was. I should have switched to this OS ages ago, I will remain on it until Vista refresh rate issues get fixed. All my drivers work perfectly including X-FI, for Nvidia get the new forceware 162.18 from guru3d. The only problem I had was that the boot installer didn't recognize the ICHR9 Sata controller and I don't have a floppy drive to load the driver at boot so I had to switch it to IDE mode in the bios to install the os, now when I try swith it back to AHCI mode it boots to blue screen. Is there a way to fix this w/o reinstalling?

[RAW-Raptor22]

Does Win XP x64 negatively affect 3dmark scores?

[shiznit93]

never installed 3dmark, but i can tell you that CS:S runs a little faster than in Vista x64. Mythos beta runs a lot slower though, I'm getting ~80 in the city, its was 100 flat in Vista x64 and would have been higher w/o vsync. This is why I don't bother with 3dmark, games can often perform very differently.

[RAW-Raptor22]

I use 3Dmark, and have run Windows XP x64 since January of 2006, great OS, especially with the added NT5.2 SP2 patch. I was just curious if the OS that I like is negatively impacting my scores... :(

[alpha0ne]

I've been using Pro 64bit for the past week and find it a little 'snappier' than Pro 32bit

I'll do a few runs of Pi to see what the differences are

PLEASE NOTE I ORIGINALLY SHOWED THE 32bit RESULT FIRST, NOT THE 64bit AS PREVIOUSLY STATED

Heres 2x32M @ 3.40GHz using 32bit

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/722/32m34ghzvp2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

And heres the 64bit using all the same settings

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/9720/32m34ghz64bitbz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I bet you/anyone cant get any closer than that :eek: :D

[RAW-Raptor22]

I've been using Pro 64bit for the past week and find it a little 'snappier' than Pro 32bit

I'll do a few runs of Pi to see what the differences are

Heres 2x32M @ 3.40GHz using 64bit

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/722/32m34ghzvp2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I'll post back later with 32bit

Sounds good man! :)

I'll be looking forward to the results! :D

Raptor22

[alpha0ne]

64bit results now posted............................both 32 and 64bit show ~ 16m 29s times so 32bit = 64bit :up:

[WesM63]

There's something wrong here. x64 is not 5 seconds slower in 1M than x86... I don't know what but a reinstall with freshly downloaded drivers etc would probably fix it.

This is on a fresh install with freshly downloaded drivers.

I do agree that something has to be going on.

[zanzabar]

whats the core affinity set to

[WesM63]

whats the core affinity set to

???????

[zanzabar]

u could have super pi only using 1 core instead of both or the software load unbalanced witch would couse some lag

[[cTx] Nooc]

I haven't had one problem with my Windows XP x64. I don't know if everything runs slower, but I definitely can't notice it.

[Ashraf]

Is Windows XP Professional only the option for you, WesM63? If not, you could get a copy of Windows Vista 64-bit because I've asked njkid32 the same question. He said Windows Vista is a good OS for 64-bit because it runs faster than running on 32-bit.

[alpha0ne]

8M using 32bit

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/3042/8m34ghz32bitom0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

8M using 64bit

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/7396/8m34ghz64bitjd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Both ~ the same

[Ashraf]

alpha0ne, I appreciate you taking the time to test both 32-bit and 64-bit. :up:

64-bit seems like a good choice.

[WesM63]

Ashraf,
No I can get Vista 64bit, but would rather not. I'm trying to stick with xp until I have to switch to vista.

I'll look into the core affinity thing when I get home. Right now i'm in southern ohio at some craptastic hotel.

[lawrywild]

I know it was a fresh reinstall but I meant reinstall again ;)

[rogueagent6]

if it was better at x64 command sets then why wouldent lintel bench things on the platform, all of the server applets are in 64 and 32, and when u are testing cpu/ram u use server benches

Wouldn't make a difference what OS you are testing with, see this:

Host Name: C2D-E6600
OS Name: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) XP Professional x64 Edition
OS Version: 5.2.3790 Service Pack 2 Build 3790

Host Name: BETA-BOX
OS Name: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Server 2003 for Small Business Server
OS Version: 5.2.3790 Service Pack 2 Build 3790

As you can see, XP64 and Server 2003 use the EXACT SAME kernel... And besides, alpha0ne's test prove there is no performance penalty for running XP64 on Intel chips. :rolleyes: