Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Slower Performance After 64-bit

Tags:
Last response: in Windows 7
Share
February 16, 2012 9:39:11 PM

I recently switched over to 64-bit version of Windows 7, and right away I notice a slight decrease is speed (opening up and installing programs). My computer used to run just fine while on 32-bit, and I'm pretty sure all my hardware is 64-bit compatible, so I don't see what the problem could be :s

ASUS M4A78T-E
AMD Phenom II x4 955
G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3-1600 PC3-12800 (2GB x 2)
ASUS GTX 560 Ti 448 Cores
Hitachi HDS721010KLA330 SATA (1TB)
Maxtor 6Y080L0 PATA (80GB)

More about : slower performance bit

February 16, 2012 9:51:31 PM

How much slower?
X86 have 64bit extensions. It's not a "real" 64bit CPU. This leads to that all programs are about 2-3% slower in 64bit mode on X86. The exemptions are stuff that use more then 4 gig memory.

64 bit drivers can also affect the speed of your system.

This is why 64bit X86 is one of the most overhyped technologies.
a b $ Windows 7
February 16, 2012 10:05:48 PM

using the same board with sata drive and you use ide drive what are your win per number use send back result so could compare with mine use hte ver 2.3 x64 the last one http://hwmblackbox.com/en/download
Related resources
February 16, 2012 10:42:03 PM

I think WOW64 has a slight performance penalty. This happens when you run any 32 bit applications on you 64 bit OS.
February 17, 2012 2:03:58 AM

shompa said:
How much slower?
X86 have 64bit extensions. It's not a "real" 64bit CPU. This leads to that all programs are about 2-3% slower in 64bit mode on X86. The exemptions are stuff that use more then 4 gig memory.

64 bit drivers can also affect the speed of your system.

This is why 64bit X86 is one of the most overhyped technologies.


But I need more than 4GB of RAM in order to run certain games on high settings, and I thought only 64-bit allows for >4GB of RAM to be used?
February 17, 2012 2:07:17 AM

I'd say it takes a couple seconds longer just to open up applications and navigate windows. is it harder for my IDE drive to run 64-bit windows on it? maybe switching to a solid state drive would fix the problem?
a b $ Windows 7
February 17, 2012 2:32:36 AM

I would not say it is harder on the drive for a new OS, but with a new install, windows is getting it self all organized(indexing and the such). With 64 bit using more memory, it may make the hard drive work more, but that should not hurt it.

Windows is not on the old IDE drive is it? If it is, the drive it self may just be slower then modern drives. Was the 32 bit install on the IDE drive as well?

I am not sure how much I trust http://www.systemrequirementslab.com

I mean it says my video card has (5870 with 1 GB)698.6 MB of ram
.
It tells me a system with a 512 MB 4350 has 2.2 GB of video ram.

Also that ain't gonna play much, but it lists it as playing most games on recommended settings. It has trouble with the fact that a 4350 has no gaming performance despite being a DX 10 card.
a c 215 $ Windows 7
February 17, 2012 2:36:38 AM

alph4 said:
I'd say it takes a couple seconds longer just to open up applications and navigate windows. is it harder for my IDE drive to run 64-bit windows on it? maybe switching to a solid state drive would fix the problem?


Assuming there is nothing wrong with the hardware in your system, a solid state drive should sort this out. Running Windows from any IDE drive these days is a horrible idea.
a b $ Windows 7
February 17, 2012 2:48:01 AM

ide score slower on win 7 sata score 5.9 the buffer size help
February 17, 2012 2:49:31 AM

A Maxtor 6Y080L0 PATA (80GB)??? It's still working? Wow... dump that thing if you are using it for anything other then non-critical storage. I'd also upgrade to 8GB or more if you can do so for not too much $$$.
February 17, 2012 8:54:29 AM

nukemaster said:
I would not say it is harder on the drive for a new OS, but with a new install, windows is getting it self all organized(indexing and the such). With 64 bit using more memory, it may make the hard drive work more, but that should not hurt it.

Windows is not on the old IDE drive is it? If it is, the drive it self may just be slower then modern drives. Was the 32 bit install on the IDE drive as well?

I am not sure how much I trust http://www.systemrequirementslab.com

I mean it says my video card has (5870 with 1 GB)698.6 MB of ram
.
It tells me a system with a 512 MB 4350 has 2.2 GB of video ram.

Also that ain't gonna play much, but it lists it as playing most games on recommended settings. It has trouble with the fact that a 4350 has no gaming performance despite being a DX 10 card.


Yeah I'v always had my OS's on the IDE drive, since its low capacity and I figured the OS would run fine on it. I guess ill try upgrading to a SSD and maybe increase my RAM and see what happens
February 17, 2012 10:38:40 AM

alph4 said:
Yeah I'v always had my OS's on the IDE drive, since its low capacity and I figured the OS would run fine on it. I guess ill try upgrading to a SSD and maybe increase my RAM and see what happens


That 80GB drive is SLOW by today's standards... even if you only compare to new HDs and not SSDs. Going to an SSD from that old 80GB drive should give you a 'massive' performance increase.
a b $ Windows 7
February 17, 2012 11:36:54 AM

Moving to SATA would boost performance but moving to SSD would boost performance a great deal ;) 

Best solution

a b $ Windows 7
February 17, 2012 11:45:17 AM
Share

Using an IDE drive for your OS? That is backwards dude! You want the fastest drive you can find for the OS. Maximum total throughput is not all important for your OS, but access time is a huge factor. Super quick access times is what makes your PC feel "snappy". The access time on an old IDE drive compared to a SSD is like a race between a snail and a bottle rocket. You won't believe the difference, just simply huge!
a b $ Windows 7
February 17, 2012 1:07:42 PM

It is not so much the fact that it is IDE as much as the fact that in those days , they did not have PRM on the drives.

PRM increased throughput quite a bit(more bits in the same area), i would guess that drive has a read speed of 40-60megabytes / sec.

Most newer drives are pushing 100-140.

All hard drives read faster at the start of the drive, so if you do get a new hard drive and can live with less space, do not partition the drive to it full size.

If you limit how far data is written(lets say the first 100-200gigs of a 500gig drive), you stay in the fastest zone of the drive and also reduce latency when the drive has to seek since the head does not have to move as far.

This is not an option for people looking for space, but for speed, it is better. It is no SSD tho.

You can always best your current drive and compare it to your 1TB SATA(like i say, the sata drive is newer so should be faster, they did have some very fast ide drives as well)

take the free one
http://www.hdtune.com/download.html
February 17, 2012 1:19:12 PM

scout_03 said:
ide score slower on win 7 sata score 5.9 the buffer size help


could also be the interface speed... as this is normally the slowest part of the link.
a b $ Windows 7
February 17, 2012 2:41:04 PM

OK people, back up a step here.

First and formost, when using Win64, any 32-bit application has to be converted to 64-bit at runtime in order to run properly. This is handled by WOW64, but does incur a slight performance hit.

The main advantage of Win64 is the ability to address more then 4GB of Address Space. As a result, even on systems with 4GB of RAM installed, all of that 4GB is addressable [rather then just over 3GB and change].

A lesser known advantage is the ability of 32-bit applications compiled with the Large Address Aware flag to use more then 2GB of its Address Space [a 32-bit limitation]. As a result, many 32-bit applications that run on Win64 can address up to 4GB of RAM, instead of the previous limit of 2GB.

A 32-bit application not compiled as Large Address Aware or does not need to use more then 2GB of Address Space can theoretically see a slight performance hit when running on Win64.

Even then, this is usually offset by using more RAM, as even moving from 4GB to 6GB can increase the overall system response. 64-bit systems running with 4GB or less however see significantly less benefit however.
February 17, 2012 3:22:17 PM

It depends on what you're running in the background. For example if you're using a 32-bit antivirus it would be terribly inefficient because it's constantly scanning stuff, especially older versions of Macafee or Norton, and it would be using twice as much memory. Every time a program requests a 32-bit word to work with the 64-bit OS sets aside 64-bits thus doubling the amount of RAM it would use under a 32-bit OS. Programs optimized for 64-bit are more efficient in regards to memory. Running older bit-torrent clients and other services can slow you down a bit more. Of course, I also feel that lately my 64-bit version of Win 7 seems to load and cache more stuff on startup after all the updates -_-.

Anyway rather than jumping to an SSD I think you are better off adding more RAM and if you add 16GB you can set asside 4 for an on RAM swap disk. You can also use the Ready boost feature if you have a fast flash drive and that will speed up your performance on startup especially right now that you only have 4GB of RAM. I've noticed it does help, but I'm always using flash drives so I never leave any in there long term.
February 17, 2012 3:40:08 PM

80GB HDD that thing must be noisy. But anyway your whole situation is just hilarious...Get 240GB SSD and live in peace lol
February 27, 2012 10:12:01 PM

Best answer selected by alph4.
!