Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Benchmarking Core Duo 2 vs Amd X2 64bit?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 13, 2006 7:55:44 PM

Hi all!

When benchmarking CPU's what consideration is taken regarding how the benchmarking programs is compiled and optimized for specific architectures? At microsoft channel9 the VC++ compiler team member described that no optimizations where made for dual core check this video link Channel9 VC++ compiler backend

Therefore I think benchmarking a cpu should be done in an optimized way. Anyone knows about the differences in VC++ compiler and the Intel C++ compiler? Has Amd an own c++ compiler that optimizes for their own architecture?

How does Conroe VS AMD x2 perform in 64 bit environments with optimized benchmarking programs? That would be interesting to know, their FULL potential...
May 13, 2006 11:15:56 PM

Those of us who have purchased A64's in the past 3 years are anxiously awaiting the performance increase from 64bit vista with optimized 64bit programs. We'll let you know when we know ourselves. Great thing is every A64 ever made is 64bit so we'll have a huge sample for results. Conroe's 64bit is an unknown factor right now. I imagine it is still using AMD64 extention's though.
May 13, 2006 11:38:46 PM

Quote:
Yep, nice three year interest free loan you provided...

:roll:

So your saying I should have invested in a energy money-pit from intel instead? That doesnt make much sense.
Related resources
May 14, 2006 12:24:22 AM

Here's a link to a preview of Clovertown (translated by Google). If you look at the screen shot of the Cinebench, you can see it says 64bit version. It get's a 362 in the single threaded. That link from Jumping Jack looks legit too. But keep in mind that that bench was done on a Memron that was OC'ed ~50%.
May 14, 2006 1:03:12 AM

Quote:
Yep, nice three year interest free loan you provided...

:roll:

So your saying I should have invested in a energy money-pit from intel instead? That doesnt make much sense.

I do beleive he is getting at the fact the purchase of your A64 shouldn't have been around the 64bit aspect as soo much as the K8's superiority over Netburst.
May 14, 2006 1:36:10 AM

Quote:
Yep, nice three year interest free loan you provided...

:roll:

So your saying I should have invested in a energy money-pit from intel instead? That doesnt make much sense.

I do beleive he is getting at the fact the purchase of your A64 shouldn't have been around the 64bit aspect as soo much as the K8's superiority over Netburst.
Which makes me angry because I never purchased it for that reason along with most others. There seems to be a certain bunch of individuals on here seem to think otherwise. It was and still is simply faster and cooler than any P4. The 64bit is a bonus which will help extend the life of a good percentage of the machines sold in the past 3 years to vista and beyond.
May 14, 2006 2:39:10 AM

To be fair it isn't really AMD's fault that the primary OS in the market has never really put any weight behind the 64 bit architecture. They swear by backwards compatibility too much for that, and the other software companies follow suit.
May 14, 2006 3:11:57 AM

I'm going to go with K8MAN on this one.
May 14, 2006 3:39:05 AM

Fair enough but its one of those things thats going to take some time for it to be utilised. I'd liken it to ATI and their quality dynamic branching on their X1k cards.
May 14, 2006 4:02:18 AM

The way I see that overclocked Memrons performance compared to the non-OC'ed Woodcrest benchmarks (as the also had a multithreaded bench) is that the Conroe is getting limited by the FSB. Hence why it scales so well when the FSB was OC'ed. But that's just shooting in the dark.

As far as the usefulness of 64bit, I would have to disagree with you. Sure support sucks, but I find that Windows Pro x64 to be much better of an OS then 32bit Pro. I don't use it on my system, because I've got a 5 year old processor in this rig. But I've built computers for some of my family members and thus have a lot of exposure to x64. And it is a faster OS. Has better memory management. In the old day's I liked that software wasn't compatible with it, because a lot of spyware didn't work in x64. Those were good times. Of course there's no benchmark to measure the general performance of the OS (GUI performance and what not).

And if you don't think 64bit wont become important in the future, you're sorely mistaken. Current 32bit XP can't effectively use more then 2 gigs of RAM. If there's one trend I've noticed in the IT world that never changes, its bloat. My next computer will have 4 gigs of RAM, no doubt about that in my mind. Weither it's a Conroe system or a AMD64 system is something I'll wait to decide upon.
May 14, 2006 4:11:35 AM

Oh, sorry that I thought you were one of those 64 bit is not needed folks.

As for AMD introducing 64bit to the desktop market, you have to keep in mind it's the same processor they made for their server market. It wouldn't have made sense for them to develop another processor for the desktop market.

To get back on topic: If these benchmarks are any indication of Conroe's performance in 64bit, then Intel did a good job. P4s suffered running 64bit code, whereas AMD64s usually ran 64 bit code faster then 32 bit (provided graphics drivers and all that didn't mess with the performance). That Woodcrest 2.0 Ghz single thread test is right about where a AMD64 2.0 Ghz is in terms of performance. While that might not sound great, it just goes to show that at the very least Conroe doesn't lose performance under 64 bit. Of course this is just one benchmark, and by no means the last word. But it looks like we'll have a nice CPU fight coming up.
May 14, 2006 4:32:28 AM

Will 32bit CPU's have any issues running more flash memory as part of the superfetch feature of vista? IE could you stick 4gig's of flash mem in a 32bit p4 system with 2gig's of real ram and have it utilize it all?
May 14, 2006 4:33:08 AM

Quote:
You must have a special script that issues a bone jarring page to some pager everytime a Conroe bench appears :)  .... interesting data.

Jack


Finger on the pulse my friend... :) 
May 14, 2006 4:41:29 AM

Quote:
Three years seems a long time to wait to take full advantage of your CPU

Some more adventurous guys have shown alot of potential with x86-64 based linux distro's and I myself have been using 64bit XP for a long while and will be getting the 64bit version of the newest build of vista as soon as I get a blank DVD to test it for myself. I say we have been waiting anxiously because we've been waiting for Intel, MS and the rest of the industry to catch up because it is out of our power to make anything happen.
May 14, 2006 4:42:15 AM

Quote:
And you bring up a good point, the question is "is 3 years too long"?


In this case I would say no. Its guaranteed to be used. I also doubt they'd have done anything useful with the extra transistors required. They'd probably have saved them.

Quote:
I have been pounding this pretty good, AMD did the right thing.... they did. Here is where it turned to their favor -- AMD did it and kept backward compatibility -- which sorta sealed it don't you think?


Exactly.

Quote:
But during a conversion like this, if you make your backward compatibility sooo good, there is not as much motivation to move forward eh?


Ah but we have motivations.
May 14, 2006 4:46:01 AM

Indeed it is great either way. I'm looking forward to reviewing some of the retail motherboards that support more overclocking features. And hopefully a multiplier unlocked Core 2 Extreme.

Anyways back on topic, here is a really interesting comparison that Coolaler did. Here is SuperPi on the same processor and clockspeed (3.01GHz), same memory timings, same SuperPi executable, but one is one WinXP Pro and one is on WinXP 64.

32-bit: 16.859 <-- http://www.coolaler.net/conroe/42.gif

64-bit: 16.719 <-- http://coolaler.kj.idv.tw/conroe/XP64/xp64_7.gif

So we even see a slight improvement just from moving to a 64-bit OS in the benchmark. It certainly appears that Conroe/Merom do not have a hobbled 64-bit implementation.
May 14, 2006 4:49:48 AM

Quote:
To be fair it isn't really AMD's fault that the primary OS in the market has never really put any weight behind the 64 bit architecture. They swear by backwards compatibility too much for that, and the other software companies follow suit.


Yeah, and it is fair to point out a general lack of industry support at the driver level -- most all companies will put resources into projects when there is a clear path to ROI (return on investment), for 64-bit most (including MS) did not see the ROI.

MS did the same to Intel on 64-bit as well only sporting out one version of IA-64 for Itanium, then dropping all support for it.

In short, Intel was of the mind 3 years ago that 64-bit was the future just the future several years out, AMD was of the mind that 64-bit was needed immediately, i.e. when Athlong 64 came out.... recall the bickering in the press :)  ... Intel was correct, but AMD did a good job marketing the performance of 32-bit.

Just curious, how well do you think the first spin of Athlon 64's might run Window's Vista and the associated DX10 games K8MAN refer's to?

Jack



Actually, MS released 3 versions (Server, Ent server, Pro) for Itanium and dropped support for Pro. True though because Intel didn't create X64, Dell didn't push it.
May 14, 2006 4:52:46 AM

Quote:
This is where you and I disagree, and I respectfully disagree -- a CPU made 3 years ago (say an Athlon 64 2400+) may run Vista, but not well. A CPU made a year ago (Athlon 64 X2 3800+ or better, a P4 D 3.2 G or better) will run vista well so then yeah. But each time Vista get's pushed out, the worst it gets for the 64 bit fans.


Define run well. Without it being finished and benchmarked we can't really say would could and what couldn't.

Quote:
And is it really a guarantee?


Yes. XP-64 has good gains with 64bit apps, booting up alone is much faster.

Quote:
I mean, AMD is already talking about extra 64-bit instructions -- what if they do it, Vista depends on it, then it renders all previous CPU's inoperable -- unlikely true, but not impossible.


Well I'll wait and see on that one.
May 14, 2006 4:59:07 AM

Quote:
Yes. XP-64 has good gains with 64bit apps, booting up alone is much faster.

Correct :D 
The little blue loading bar goes about a 1/3(2 seconds?) of the way across on mine and then goes straight into windows. XP32 on the same machine takes 5-10 seconds on that screen.
May 14, 2006 5:03:51 AM

Hmm, I agree that 64-bit windows in better in many ways, but I've seen traces of WinXP boot path workloads, and I'm pretty sure it is largely limited by harddrive thrashing during that stage of boot (when it is showing the blue bar). I can't back that up, just thought I'd mention it. That is when many of the drivers are being read from disk and loaded right?

It is nuts how much the harddrive access pattern during winXP boot looks like random reads (geometrically). It is devious, I would think that MS would have worked on the data layout a bit better for boot.
May 14, 2006 5:13:06 AM

Quote:
The little blue loading bar goes about a 1/3(2 seconds?) of the way across on mine and then goes straight into windows. XP32 on the same machine takes 5-10 seconds on that screen.


About that (been a while since I used it). A friend of mine got it and told me and I told him he was full of sh!t. Got a copy from work and I took it home and tried it out and was very impressed.

Quote:
By well, I mean put windows XP on a 1 GHz CPU with 512 Meg of ram. My neighbor works for a small developer who is on the beta-XP program


Beta vista you mean? Its memory limited rather then cpu, especially with all the useless bs like superfetch chugging all the memory.
May 14, 2006 5:27:48 AM

I'd did a fair bit of testing with regards to memory. You need twice as much memory as you do with XP to get the same amount of performance.

So for example 512 on Vista is like 256 on XP. 1GB is like 512 and so on.

I did that on my AXP 2600 (@ stock), A64 3000 (@ stock), A64 3500 (@ 2.6) and a P4c 2.4 (@ 3.0).
May 14, 2006 5:38:13 AM

Quote:
The fact that 3 years has passed and 64-bit computing is still in the back alley corners of the enthusiast community is decent evidence as such.


Well that's Microsoft's (and to a lesser extent Intel's) fault. The hardware is there we just need some software.
May 14, 2006 5:45:50 AM

If it werent for the greedy memory maker's keeping prices high for a couple of years in a row 64bit may have taken off as more people would have had access to more memory.
May 14, 2006 5:52:24 AM

Not a car analogy! :p 

Quote:
Ahhh, you see there you go, the environment was not ready for it, again, economics of scale and capabilities... same reasone we are stuck on oil and not driving H-powered electric cars. We have the HW, we have technology to make Fuel Cell cars, but economically there is no motivation for it -- oil, as expensive as it is now, has not driven the ecosystem to demand the alternative. Same with 64 bit, the ecosystem has not driven the demand for 64 bit on the DT. It just hasn't, otherwise we would be at 64 bit today.


Well if we're going to do car analogies I might as well stick with it. I'd say its more like a car maker not releasing a new model and just sticking with the old one.

Quote:
If it werent for the greedy memory maker's keeping prices high for a couple of years in a row 64bit may have taken off as more people would have had access to more memory.


WTF memory prices are only high at introduction.
May 14, 2006 6:00:27 AM

Forgive me if i'm wrong but didnt Samsung get dealt the largest lawsuit in US history because of artificial price fixing 2 years ago? I believe all of the other big players out there did too although not to the same extent.
/opinion
Samsung, like intel, used dirty tactics to get themselves so large that no lawsuit would even make a dent and now that they've partnered with apple and the ipods and MS with the new hybrid hdd's for windows they are set for a years to come.
/end opinion
May 14, 2006 6:01:57 AM

I thought it was to keep prices artificially low.
May 14, 2006 6:11:26 AM

Quote:
All the peices are there or is it a market lull that is simply waiting for Vista to make the move.


Correct, there's too much invested in 32bit XP and 2000.
May 14, 2006 6:11:41 AM

Quote:
If it werent for the greedy memory maker's keeping prices high for a couple of years in a row 64bit may have taken off as more people would have had access to more memory.


This is true, not sure if you can call it greedy though, DRAM is a low margin business, NAND flash is decent, NOR is attrocious -- hence AMD's exit and future Intel NOR exit as they are setting the stage. The economics of DRAM are similar as CPU's in terms of die costs, shrinks, etc. So until DRAM made it to 80 nm and lower, costs were going to stay higher than what could support more DRAM.

Also, software is not yet exploiting RAM in excess of 4 gigs on the DT, in server yes, and in server 64-bit is crucial.

What is interesting is the slow adoption of 64-bit in general, AMD pioneered it, Intel capitulated, and periphrial vendors were slow to get driver support (i.e. nVidia, ATI, etc), but about a year ago that infrastructure came into place -- so why not a stronger push to 64 bit? This is a more interesting question to explore as we have to this point been debating why 64-bit 3 years ago. In otherwords, why not 64-bit now? All the peices are there or is it a market lull that is simply waiting for Vista to make the move.

Jack
I bet Vista + DX10 + new powerful GFX cards that can do so much more will bring 64bit into the high-end mainstream.
May 14, 2006 6:14:30 AM

Quote:
It's an appropriate analogy -- technology is there to not use oil, why not simply stop using oil?


Its more expensive and the alternatives are worse (from what I've seen) 64bit neither of those.

Quote:
Itanium will die shortly.


Hopefully.

Just to add something else to my XP and 2000 comment theres a lot invested but the leap was evolutionary rather then revolutionary with vista (that is going to piss off a lot of linux fanboys)
May 14, 2006 6:23:21 AM

I find it very interesting that AMD mass produced A64 bit cpu's 3 years ago which means that anyone that bought an AMD cpu within those 3 years probably has a 64 bit cpu and can now run Windows vista when it comes out. Everyone with an intel within that last 3 years is still stuck with 32 bit and will have to upgrade. The only problem is that AMD screwed themselves by doing this. With so many 64 bit cpus sold where is the motivation to upgrade your cpu when your hardware is already future proof. The only thing I you would want to upgrade for would be more speed which the only people doing that would be the enthusiasts. Now a true speed enthusiast would want the fastest cpu no matter which brand it was which means all people upgrading would go for Intels new chip. So Its good for all people that got a 64 bit cpu now because you don't need to spend more money on hardware but this will suck for AMD because they just lost there market drive (at least thats what I think).
May 14, 2006 6:28:43 AM

Its too bad Intel hacked X86-64 into netburst rather than the p6 platform otherwise Intel would have a strong base for Vista as well. The p4 version is for the most part just there so it will run. Improvements are miniscule at best.

BTW I'd like to thank everyone on the reasonable discussion. I miss it.
May 14, 2006 6:29:44 AM

Quote:
the difference is AMD is a small motor boat, Intel is like an cruise ship with a small rutter, it takes Intel 10x longer to make a turn than it does AMD.


It is rudder. :lol:  :wink:
May 14, 2006 6:33:28 AM

Quote:
Hmmmm, need to think this abit.... Hydrogen Fuel Cell, pure water exhaust, completely enviro friendly... everyone wins. Though agree, biofuel, ethanol, biodiesel -- those would be worst but I was taking the fuel cell approach -- technology has been demonstrated, prototypes are on the road. Why not a push?


Bah screw the environment! :p  From what I've read have problems, meh.

Anyways a serious point, the IT industry moves much faster then the car industry.

Quote:
On 64 bit, not true, see response to K8MAN above.... Retail does not drive the market.... it is low margin, and more or less tolerated but not the motivator. Commercial, IT managers, costs, roll out, 64-bit conversion would be enormously expensive for even small companies.


It does in a way, both markets are important. 64bit really is a server technology but it makes sense to move it to the desktop as AMD only have one architecture where Intel had the PM, P4 and Itanium. Now Intel have server, mobile and desktop covered with one architecture. More memory isn't really an issue for desktop and mobile but the extra registers help. I hope that makes some sense (tired).
May 14, 2006 6:33:31 AM

Yeah, but in the end it was good for "the Intel company" not to go into 64 bit. They now will have a big drive of customers for the Intel 64 bit with there new cpus.

Which this scares me because it makes me wonder how many sales is AMD hoping to make once (vista is out) now that they have already sold people on there 64 bit cpus 3 years ago.
May 14, 2006 6:36:20 AM

Quote:
BTW I'd like to thank everyone on the reasonable discussion. I miss it.


The horde isn't around.

I'll just add another thing, with vista, the 64 and 32bit versions are both on the same dvd (ala most linux distros) and installs 64bit if it detects a 64bit cpu. It's somewhat related.
May 14, 2006 6:37:41 AM

By the way, Jumpingjack good point on if the old 64 bits from AMD will run well with Vista. I forget that Vista is a CPU/Memory hog and will eat up a lot of power.
May 14, 2006 8:20:14 AM

Anyone have any info about what kind of improvements and 64bit optimisations are made in DX10.
I heard that there would be new 64bit file system for Vista, something like SQL base hold on the RAM and on the HD. Any info about this?
May 14, 2006 7:17:28 PM

Leveraging the power of the GPU to help with desktop functions is brilliant.
Did I read somewhere that it will natively support unix and linux code in a virtual console? That in itself will open doors that the linux community has been praying for - And I guess by extension, all of us geek types :p 
May 14, 2006 7:31:30 PM

Quote:
This is where you and I disagree, and I respectfully disagree -- a CPU made 3 years ago (say an Athlon 64 2400+) may run Vista, but not well. A CPU made a year ago (Athlon 64 X2 3800+ or better, a P4 D 3.2 G or better) will run vista well so then yeah. But each time Vista get's pushed out, the worst it gets for the 64 bit fans.


Define run well. Without it being finished and benchmarked we can't really say would could and what couldn't.

Quote:
And is it really a guarantee?


Yes. XP-64 has good gains with 64bit apps, booting up alone is much faster.

Quote:
I mean, AMD is already talking about extra 64-bit instructions -- what if they do it, Vista depends on it, then it renders all previous CPU's inoperable -- unlikely true, but not impossible.


Well I'll wait and see on that one.

Of course it boots faster nothing runs on it to slow down the boot process.
May 14, 2006 7:35:39 PM

Quote:
Will 32bit CPU's have any issues running more flash memory as part of the superfetch feature of vista? IE could you stick 4gig's of flash mem in a 32bit p4 system with 2gig's of real ram and have it utilize it all?


Hah, haven't stayed in touch with Vista found what you mean:

Quote:
Windows Vista is designed to help make you more productive as you work with your PC throughout the day with new features like Sleep, Windows SuperFetch, Windows ReadyBoost, and Windows ReadyDrive.

Windows SuperFetch helps manage memory to get the most out of available RAM while Windows ReadyBoost helps make PCs more responsive by using flash memory devices (like USB thumb drives) to boost performance. Windows ReadyDrive takes advantage of new hybrid hard disks—hard disks with integrated flash memory—to help improve battery life, performance, and reliability. With Windows Vista, your system is ready when you are.


Don't know, haven't played with it. I wonder how this fits in with the Robson (sp?) technology.

That’s why Robson is being created, to accommodate superfetch. It's really nothing special though just flash memory onboard the Southbridge, I'm personally more interested in the RAID performance from the addition of the flash memory.
May 14, 2006 7:41:05 PM

Quote:
If it werent for the greedy memory maker's keeping prices high for a couple of years in a row 64bit may have taken off as more people would have had access to more memory.


This is true, not sure if you can call it greedy though, DRAM is a low margin business, NAND flash is decent, NOR is attrocious -- hence AMD's exit and future Intel NOR exit as they are setting the stage. The economics of DRAM are similar as CPU's in terms of die costs, shrinks, etc. So until DRAM made it to 80 nm and lower, costs were going to stay higher than what could support more DRAM.

Also, software is not yet exploiting RAM in excess of 4 gigs on the DT, in server yes, and in server 64-bit is crucial.

What is interesting is the slow adoption of 64-bit in general, AMD pioneered it, Intel capitulated, and periphrial vendors were slow to get driver support (i.e. nVidia, ATI, etc), but about a year ago that infrastructure came into place -- so why not a stronger push to 64 bit? This is a more interesting question to explore as we have to this point been debating why 64-bit 3 years ago. In otherwords, why not 64-bit now? All the peices are there or is it a market lull that is simply waiting for Vista to make the move.

Jack
I bet Vista + DX10 + new powerful GFX cards that can do so much more will bring 64bit into the high-end mainstream.

Programmers will this has nothing to do with MS or Intel anymore this is the software industry saying HA we don't work to your tune anymore. They will come around but they will come around when they want to.
May 14, 2006 7:42:23 PM

Quote:
All the peices are there or is it a market lull that is simply waiting for Vista to make the move.


Correct, there's too much invested in 32bit XP and 2000.

Another good point, nicely done.... yes, when you are knee deep in it, sometimes you simply need to run it till it will run no more. Just like Itanium, which Intel should drop like a dirty rag, but won't because they are past the point of no return and cannot accept the loss without another go at it.

Itanium will die shortly.

I will have to disagree with you on the Itanium's death, the technology will move forward regardless of the sales and market penetration.
May 14, 2006 7:52:08 PM

with a good size flash buffer, you won't need raid. High-speed strataflash is a good 15x faster than a sata drive.

Lets say you love BF2. Since you launch it alot, its gonna be on your start menu. This is where "superfetch" comes in.
Everytime you launch BF2, there is a certain setup of files that are loaded (main menu, gamespy mini-browser, etc). Vista will remember that, and have those files already loaded into flash.
Once our game magically insta-loads, you'll hear your hard drive going nuts streaming into flash what your ddr2 cant hold. So instead of dipping down into a pagefile, or hitting the disk for your next level, it will already be waiting for you.

This will greatly reduce those aweful micro-stutters when you look at a new texture for the first time, and for like .004 picoseconds everything freezes. Damn I hate that.
May 14, 2006 8:50:06 PM

Core 2 will make itanium die. There are what 1.7 billion transistors in the newest itanium? That is a lot of potential space to fill with quad-core chips.
May 14, 2006 9:02:57 PM

Quote:
All the peices are there or is it a market lull that is simply waiting for Vista to make the move.


Correct, there's too much invested in 32bit XP and 2000.

Another good point, nicely done.... yes, when you are knee deep in it, sometimes you simply need to run it till it will run no more. Just like Itanium, which Intel should drop like a dirty rag, but won't because they are past the point of no return and cannot accept the loss without another go at it.

Itanium will die shortly.

I will have to disagree with you on the Itanium's death, the technology will move forward regardless of the sales and market penetration.

I could be wrong of course, Intel has sunk soooo much into the project it will be hard to let it go. Itanium is a good design, it just did not find a market.... I am wondering if the same will happen to Cell, though Cell has a decent market waiting to receive it with open arms.

Jack

It's just appears to be common belief that the Itanium was meant to take over for x86-32. What everyone seems to ignore is that fact the whole project as a whole isn’t even close to market worthy let alone market ready. Right now as it stands the compiler which EPIC relies on heavily is far from mature I dare say their compiler teams need another 5 years just to get a true understanding for EPIC and its design goals. Secondly you look at software support, which is frankly nothing.

Then we take a look at the cores immense size, which isn’t so much a issue with regards to the fact the actual processor core itself is about 20-22 million transistors while Conroe is approximately 48-50 million transistors for the core. But the fact of the matter is EPIC needs cache and cache adds cost, and makes yields much lower because of the sheer size of for example a Itanium 2 9MB cache is 592 million. It simply isn’t feasible on 300mm 65nm and most likely won’t be considered plausible to maybe 32nm but even then that is stretching it.

It's not feasible to believe it was ever meant to move the market to 64bit. 10-15 years maybe after the project has matured I could see it coming in and replacing the x86-32 and x86-64 machines.

But honestly who ever believed that was Intel's intend is ludicrous and laughable, but it’s easier to give it a pet name that to understand the technology and its feasibility in today’s market place and tomorrows potential market.
May 14, 2006 10:00:01 PM

Quote:
Of course it boots faster nothing runs on it to slow down the boot process.


??
May 14, 2006 10:09:59 PM

Quote:
Of course it boots faster nothing runs on it to slow down the boot process.


??

Base install of XP32 and XP64 there is a marginal boot speed increase in favor of XP64 a matter of 1-3 seconds in fact. Nothing to write home about, thats all I was getting at.
May 14, 2006 10:13:27 PM

I'd say 3-5 seconds. It's not bad just from going from 32 to 64bit.
!