Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vista 64 3dmark06 CPU score 9% more than XP 32?? Why????????

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 8, 2007 2:59:52 PM

Hi all,

3dmark06 CPU 199x XP 32bit
3dmark06 CPU 2181 VisTa 64bit

Can anyone explain the difference of 9% on my Toledo FX 60 running at 2964 MHz on VT 64.

I am really happy about it though!!!!

Thanks in advance.
June 8, 2007 4:48:27 PM

64bit bus is fater - can access more data at single moment so bottle neck is reduced. the flow of data from the memory to the nb to the cpu

with 64 you have bigger pool with same amout of water
June 8, 2007 5:26:13 PM

When you ran the test, did you run each test three times (at a mininum), then remove the highest and lowest scores of both?

3DMark scores have been known to swing wildly, even under the same conditions.
Related resources
June 8, 2007 6:10:21 PM

Hi dari,

I didn't quite get what you said but i again repeated only the cpu test 5 times and still got a score of 2130. Must be the 64bitty thing that dragon mentioned or perhaps vista is better at cpu presently than with dx10 and gpu stuff (drivers notwithstanding)????
June 8, 2007 6:16:42 PM

BTW dari, my comparison figure was the 'run once' score achieved on the 1st run. i consistently achieved 199x-200x scores during 'run once' 1st run tests in XP.
June 8, 2007 7:12:21 PM

The reason it might be higher is 64-bit architecture has more general registers than the plain x86 architecture. Also when performing high value number computations (numbers higher than 2^31 [last bit for sign]) the processor only has to perform one operation rather than breaking the number up into two segments and then performing multiple operations on it. Your seeing a perfect situation where 64-bit outperforms 32-bit. 64-bit IS faster than 32-bit because of its design, you only need to find programs out there that can take advantage of this improved design.
June 9, 2007 2:23:27 AM

Also, the drivers are different, so there's a bit of comparing apples with oranges.
June 9, 2007 3:32:03 AM

I'm going to venture a guess that you have something wrong with your XP system. maybe something in the background, maybe a flaky driver. I dunno.

I've been running XP and Vista64 (and Vista32) since Jan and Vista64 has never beat XP in anything. Both Vista32 and Vista64 score the same in pretty much all the different benchmarks I've ran (DOOM3, FEAR, Supreme Commander, 3dmark05, 3dmark06) I've ran each set of teh catalyst drivers from 7.1 - 7.5. Very little change overall.

Here's my best score under XP with teh 7.3 drivers
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1560053

That's a 6117. The other scores are 6090, 6091, 6116

Vista's Highest score with the 7.1 and 7.3 drivers is 6028.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1166436
The rest of the scores are 6015-6028.

Since Jan, I've formatted and re-installed Vista32 and Vista64 at least twice each. I've read a few different people report Vista gave them better performance than XP, but has a whole, most everyone gets better performacne under XP.

So I'd tweak around with the XP and see what's you get. Granted I'm running and ATI card, so maybe nVidia has gotten some of their stuff better. But I still think Xp should be outperforming Vista whether it's 32 or 64.
June 9, 2007 4:02:32 AM

Right on dragabain! 64-bit mode has 14 general purpose hardware registers where 32-bit mode only has 6. This is huge. Also dead on that in cases you need 64-bit math there is a huge difference; 64-bit math can be done by the CPU in 64-bit mode with 1 instruction. In 32-bit mode, it needs emulated by numerous 32-bit instructions which is slow. And 64-bit mode does a better job when you need >3-4GB RAM (it's native, no PAE). There are also a few instruction set extension goodies AMD invented to make 64-bit even more efficient.

There is however a performance drawback of 64-bit mode. Because a lot of things you deal with are bigger, like pointers, those things take up more space in the cache. And likewise 64-bit compiled code is typically 15% larger than 32-bit code due to instruction sizes. This means effectively that 64-bit mode makes your cache smaller. But with ever more generous L2 caches in modern CPU's, this downside is more and more mitigated.

As time goes on, the performance enhancement of going 64-bit should become ever more visible.
June 9, 2007 5:09:29 AM

Quote:
As time goes on, the performance enhancement of going 64-bit should become ever more visible.


Aren't you guys skimming over the moving of the video driver out of the kernel,which even Microsoft says will cost you a 3-15% performance loss in video games ?

Also have you guys tried running the HL2:Lost coast demo, which now runs in 64bit mode ? There is a huge performance loss. For me, I went from 141fps under XP, to 128fps with Vista32 down to 91fps in Vista64. Before they made it 64bit mode, Vista64 was scoring in the 120s as well.

I'm not arguing that 64bit isn't the future, but I don't think it can beat 32bit in the present. At least with Vista
June 9, 2007 5:59:06 AM

Something is not right on one of your systems.

3DMark is not a 64 bit program as far as I know and must run in 32 bit compatible mode on a 64bit OS.

The only real way to test 32 vs 64 bit OS when running a system is to use the same HD with a fresh install of each OS each time on a clean HD.....and run the tests multi times and then average them out.

If you are using Vista and it shows it runs faster vs XP....for anything....then you REALLY have some sort of error!

It is well documented that everything runs slower on Vista.
June 9, 2007 6:19:15 AM

Hi all friends,

thanks for all the input. i will try and figure out now what the reason could be. I can truly not find it at the moment!!!!

Thanks.
June 9, 2007 6:20:18 AM

Quote:
As time goes on, the performance enhancement of going 64-bit should become ever more visible.


Aren't you guys skimming over the moving of the video driver out of the kernel,which even Microsoft says will cost you a 3-15% performance loss in video games ?

I hear you loud and clear. Despite claims to the contrary, each new Windows version gets slower and slower. Just look at the minimum CPU requirements as time goes on. Win95 screamed on processors with 0.06 gigahertz! So think apples to apples of do I want the 32-bit or 64-bit edition of operating system X. But as you rightly pointed out, todays video drivers seem tuned for 32-bit and perform better there, but this will most likely flip flop in the near future as 64-bit becomes mainstream and the video card guys realize they can rack up their highest scores that way. Microsoft has already said next year is the last time they will ever make a 32-bit Windows.

Quote:
3DMark is not a 64 bit program as far as I know and must run in 32 bit compatible mode on a 64bit OS.


Unlike running Dos emulation say in some sort of a compatibility box, 32-bit programs run at full speed under 64-bit Windows thanks to the ingenious design of x64 and that's a big reason it upended Intel's Itanium processors which couldn't do that. The other thing to note is even if you are running a 32-bit application, all of the disk i/o, graphics, and other operating system tasks are executing fast, native 64-bit code.
June 9, 2007 9:03:10 AM

My limited knowledge has shown through. Listen to what the above users have said, their answers seem very accurate.
!