a native 64 bit program SHOULD be faster since it could have 128 mb while a native 32 bit application could have a max of 3 1/2 mb. Benchmarks would be interesting but I don't know if comparing a 32 bit to a 64 bit is even possable. A single core 64 bit would still own a dual core 32 bit because the same limitations apply. Of course I am guessing at this.
Message edited by maximiza on 05-09-2008 at 03:44:21 PM
Sorry, nothing to hand, and it would take me too long to produce anything that I would be happy to have in the public domain for scrutiny.
Contact a software company such as Ansys or Dassault Simulia and ask them - if their stuff isn't proprietary then you'll get a similar figure to the above.
does a processor really run FASTER on 64-bit vs. 32-bit. if so where are the benchmarks to prove it?
First off, what is 32 bits vs 64 bits ?
Avoinding too much techie explanations its the Processor Word. Its the amount of data he can "read" every time. Is 64 more than 32 ? Yes it is. But this is just for ya to get an idea, why is being so hard to pass everything to 64 bits. Although i CAN blame Intel and M$ for it. They already did it very well, i mean the shift from 16 Bits to 32 Bits.
---------------
Maximum Power:153 Hp @ 5500 Rpm
Maximum torque:191.0 Nm (141 ft·lb) (19.5 kgm)@ 3500 rpm
Stock 1600cm3 Turbo:0-140Km 9,8 Secs / 0-240 Kms 34,6 Secs.
I think radnor had a pretty good summary of why it can potentially be faster.
A true 64bit application can shift around and process up to twice the amount of data per clock (aforementioned "Processor Word" ) so things like photshop could (for example) send 2 pixels to be processed for every one in 32bit.
This is an ideal situation and in real life this doesn't happen, but that's the theory.
The fact that you can address up to (something like) 128Gb of RAM in 64bit as opposed to the 32 bit limitation of approx 3.2Gb can also help speed up certain apps in certain situations (again this will be things like HUGE HUGE photoshop images)
x86 or x64 - Processors have, for years now, all been x64. The difference is that the operating systems and programs people use haven't (yet) made the jump.
As opposed to when it has an x86 based OS/program running on it, with x64 a given processor can move data in larger chunks. But that's software. In and of itself the processor is neither faster nor slower.
--------------- The worst part of my Vista 64 experience is having to listen to all of the individuals who apparently feel it's their 'Grand Mission In Life' to tell me about all of the things that (supposedly) don't work, when it *does* work.
I think you don't really understand what you're talking about since your post doesn't really make sense...
A processor doesn't run ON, a processor IS 32/64 bits.
The x86 is an instruction set, and the x86-64 is an extension to the x86. To use it, you need a processor who support it (basically all new processor since Athlon 64 and some Pentium 4, D for sure).
For whatever its worth, I recently experimented with this after I set up my new Q9450 system. I had been playing Gothic 3 on my old system (Athlon64 4000), so I transferred my saved games and installed Gothic 3 on a fresh install of XP x64. The game ran SIGNIFICANTLY slower - so much as to be nearly unplayable, in fact. I wiped the system out and went back to regular XP, and the game ran better than ever, to the point where I could finally set all the setting to high and it still ran better than on my previous system.
ok let me clear up the controversy a little bit. We all know all current procs are x64 compatible. what i'm talking about is an x86 vs. x64 OS. performance in games, synthetic benchmarks, etc is really FASTER when run on a 64-bit installation vs. a 32-bit installation of the same OS? or is this just another Yahoo answers newbie running their mouth?
Message edited by bpogdowz on 05-09-2008 at 04:45:38 PM
Running a 32 bit program in a 64 bit enviroment and then saying wow this thing stinks and runs like sh*t is not really looking at it fairly. Obvously the 32 bit program is optomised for 32 bit enviroments not 64 bit. That really is no ones fault, the programmers and hardware makers are not really to blame for that.
For the same functionality, a 64 bit application will be faster than a 32 bit one - Not quite twice as fast, though, since there is additional overhead involved in processing the larger messages and commands.
Running a 32 bit application on a 64 bit OS - There is some additional overhead involved in translating between the two. Much of which can be offset by combining two 32 bit messages into a single 64 bit string - The rule being that there has to be enough room in a single 64 bit string for both 32 bit messages plus the needed tags to differentiate between the two.
That's the theory in plain english. But if I'm interpreting your poorly worded questions properly, you want actual benchmarks and definitive proof that a 64 bit game on a 64 bit operating system will be better/faster than a 32 bit game on a 32 bit OS. Unfortunately, to my knowledge there are no 64 bit games available and therefore a definitive comparison is not possible. If that answer is not acceptable to you, then I may I suggest Google as a superior alternative to Yahoo.
Message edited by Scotteq on 05-09-2008 at 05:11:54 PM
--------------- The worst part of my Vista 64 experience is having to listen to all of the individuals who apparently feel it's their 'Grand Mission In Life' to tell me about all of the things that (supposedly) don't work, when it *does* work.
The games people run today are all 32 bit, and must therefore run in a translation layer (container) on a 64 bit OS. A true point for point comparison will involve the same game compiled into 32 bit and 64 bit versions so that it can be run natively in both environments. There are almost no 64 bit benchmarks as well. Therefore the true, hard numbers comparison you are demanding of us is not possible.
--------------- The worst part of my Vista 64 experience is having to listen to all of the individuals who apparently feel it's their 'Grand Mission In Life' to tell me about all of the things that (supposedly) don't work, when it *does* work.
So the answer is no because 64-bit provides no performance gains over a 32-bit running a 32-bit vs. a 64-bit running a 32-bit? So it's worth upgrading to 64-bit?
So the answer is no because 64-bit provides no performance gains over a 32-bit running a 32-bit vs. a 64-bit running a 32-bit? So it's worth upgrading to 64-bit?
Part a - Nope - Stick with XP
Part b - If you heavily multitask and/or run heavy duty apps and there want/need to run large amounts of RAM, it's still worth your while to go 64 bit.
Message edited by Scotteq on 05-09-2008 at 05:30:12 PM
--------------- The worst part of my Vista 64 experience is having to listen to all of the individuals who apparently feel it's their 'Grand Mission In Life' to tell me about all of the things that (supposedly) don't work, when it *does* work.
