# My rig is a beast in x64



## GSquadron (May 4, 2010)

Hi there!
I have formatted my rig too many times before and come to a conclusion that the computer is much more powerful in x64 or 64-bit mode than 32-bit or x86 mode. Someone knows why my rig is such a beast??? I mean call of duty 4 all ultra high, 1280x1024, anti aliasing to max is above 30 fps. Not to mention the dragon age origins, which in 32-bit, is not that enjoyable. After jumping to x64, all ultra high pls!!! It is running like insane in low settings, like 100 fps.
I hope this helps!!!
Thanks!


----------



## exow2 (May 4, 2010)

32 bit doesn't support 4GB of ram, and 64bit is better for gaming so both those things could have an affect.


----------



## GSquadron (May 4, 2010)

Basically for my old rig, which has 1GB ram, 256mb vram, is not that good to tell you the truth. It does not have an effect on this jump. It looks as i have a 4850 or smth like that in 32-bit


----------



## DrPepper (May 4, 2010)

I don't see why it would make a difference since those apps are 32bit anyway.


----------



## GSquadron (May 4, 2010)

That is the big question! The answer is: it has a big big effect.


----------



## Black Panther (May 4, 2010)

I don't think I understand... Are you talking about the rig in your system specs?


----------



## DrPepper (May 4, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> That is the big question! The answer is: it has a big big effect.



Well it's not really a question it doesn't really make sense. Since x64 windows runs x86 natively then the program isn't really any differant. If anything I'd say maybe something to do with the CPU ? I didn't even think a 754 sempron would have x64 bit instructions.


----------



## GSquadron (May 4, 2010)

For the cpu, it says clearly 64-bit ready. It is my rig in my system specs which is the beast i am talking about in 64-bit mode. Even if it is the cpu, i dont really think it has to do only with it.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 4, 2010)

Hard to believe. Proof?


----------



## GSquadron (May 4, 2010)

Normally now i cannot proof it. I can make a video and publish it in youtube, but it will require a lot of time. :/


----------



## Fourstaff (May 4, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Normally now i cannot proof it. I can make a video and publish it in youtube, but it will require a lot of time. :/



Take your time, because if you can prove it, then I will have to start telling people that they are spending way too much for gaming.


----------



## DrPepper (May 4, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> For the cpu, it says clearly 64-bit ready. It is my rig in my system specs which is the beast i am talking about in 64-bit mode. Even if it is the cpu, i dont really think it has to do only with it.



I didn't say it wasn't x64 I said I didn't they they were. I had a 2800 and it wasn't x64 capable but it appears there are batches that are x64 capabe these are:
SDA3000AIO2BX
SDA3000AIO2CV

Anyway there is no reason why a 7600GS would perform better in x64 than x32 unless you've been installing out of date drivers.


----------



## mosheen (May 4, 2010)

Just maybe better hardware drivers compared to 32bit. (motherboard???)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 4, 2010)

Sempron...
7600 GS...
1 GiB RAM single channel...

I'm going to go with confirmation bias on that one.  Your computer should run slower on x64 because it requires more RAM which you are lacking.  There no reason, what-so-ever, to see any kind of performance improvement in games.


The only way it could be possible, I think, is if you went from Vista x86 to Windows 7 x64.  Windows 7 has a smaller memory footprint than Vista which would make a big difference in your situation.


----------



## CJCerny (May 4, 2010)

There have been a number of articles written on performance differences between 32bit and 64bit OS. They all show little or no performance improvements. Probably something else going on if your system is that much faster.


----------



## GSquadron (May 4, 2010)

I had windows 7 x86 installed, now i have windows xp x64 
The games are much more, i dont know how to say... easy to get them ultra high???
Anyone knows any video converter??? I have just made videos, but with 300 mb each!!!
What i hate more is that i dont have the call of duty 4 anymore . I never used the antialiasing in 2x mode, but after jump i always got it to max, which i dont know how that easy.
I must mention that some games have creeper graphics in windows xp 64 rather than windows 7 ultimate 32.


----------



## CounterZeus (May 4, 2010)

win xp uses much less resources than Win7.. You lack RAM for gaming on Vista/Win7


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 4, 2010)

Windows xp uses about 256mb ram at the desktop, win7 uses 768+ theres your answer 

Also uses less cpu pagefile nd other resources etc, I would recommend you stay with Win xp, tho I would get 32bit, xp x64 driver support is horrible and 32bit will perform as good/better than x64


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 4, 2010)

I am using 64bit for both my rigs and i also have notice games run much better, so yea it does help  As for 32bit systems not supporting 4GB, this is not true, there is a vista disc floating around online that enables 4GB into 32bit, with some hacking i would think.


----------



## GSquadron (May 4, 2010)

@counterzeus
@NdMk2o1o
No way, both wrong. I have tried the call of duty with both windows xp 32-bit and xp 64-bit. I dunno how it plaies in windows 7, cuz i have more than a year since i had it installed, but that was the first game i come upon as ultra high settings were not enough for my rig in x64, were ultra low were nearly enough for x32.
It is the x64 era!!! Finally


----------



## epicfail (May 4, 2010)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Windows xp uses about 256mb ram at the desktop, win7 uses 768+ theres your answer





> I must mention that some games have creeper graphics in windows xp 64 rather than windows 7 ultimate 32.




hes saying the opposite that w7 is runniing the games better, not the other way around.

between xp and w7 im thinking he might have had something installed that screwed up his perfomance, but i have no idea why 32 would work better than 64 on that system.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 4, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I had windows 7 x86 installed, now i have windows xp x64
> The games are much more, i dont know how to say... easy to get them ultra high???


As others have stated, XP x64 can do more with less RAM.  I went from XP x64 to 7 x64 with virtually no performance changes (except in networking) but I had 6 GiB of RAM then and now.

You need more RAM, plain and simple.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 4, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> No way, both wrong. I have tried the call of duty with both windows xp 32-bit and xp 64-bit. I dunno how it plaies in windows 7, cuz i have more than a year since i had it installed, but that was the first game i come upon as ultra high settings were not enough for my rig in x64, were ultra low were nearly enough for x32.



So are you saying it plays better in xp x64 than xp 32bit?


----------



## GSquadron (May 4, 2010)

It playes better in x64, MUCH BETTER. As i have 2 rigs in SLI or CrossFireX 
The game runs creeper graphics, but performance smoother in x64.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 4, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> @counterzeus
> @NdMk2o1o
> No way, both wrong. I have tried the call of duty with both windows xp 32-bit and xp 64-bit. I dunno how it plaies in windows 7, cuz i have more than a year since i had it installed, but that was the first game i come upon as ultra high settings were not enough for my rig in x64, were ultra low were nearly enough for x32.
> It is the x64 era!!! Finally





epicfail said:


> hes saying the opposite that w7 is runniing the games better, not the other way around.
> 
> between xp and w7 im thinking he might have had something installed that screwed up his perfomance, but i have no idea why 32 would work better than 64 on that system.



Erm no he isn't? 

Tho I have had enough of this thread, enjoy your ultra high gaming experience


----------



## DrPepper (May 4, 2010)

u2konline said:


> I am using 64bit for both my rigs and i also have notice games run much better, so yea it does help  As for 32bit systems not supporting 4GB, this is not true, there is a vista disc floating around online that enables 4GB into 32bit, with some hacking i would think.



Enabling PAE doesn't really change anything. I think maybe Ford could explain it better than me.



Aleksander Dishnica said:


> It playes better in x64, MUCH BETTER. As i have 2 rigs in SLI or CrossFireX
> The game runs creeper graphics, but performance smoother in x64.



Also you have two pc's that have sli and xfire but they aren't in your system specs ?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 4, 2010)

Info about Physical Address Extension (and how to do it on systems with greater than 2 GiB RAM) are on this post:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=112556


----------



## GSquadron (May 4, 2010)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Tho I have had enough of this thread, enjoy your ultra high gaming experience



Wait man! I will publish the videos, sooner or later! Anyway, thanks!
@Drpepper
I said as having 2 rigs in sli, not that i have 2 rigs.


----------



## DrPepper (May 4, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Wait man! I will publish the videos, sooner or later! Anyway, thanks!
> @Drpepper
> I said as having 2 rigs in sli, not that i have 2 rigs.



You can't have 2 rigs in sli it doesn't make sense ?


----------



## qubit (May 4, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> You can't have 2 rigs in sli it doesn't make sense ?



I think he means that he has two rigs and has connected them together in SLI...


----------



## twicksisted (May 4, 2010)

qubit said:


> I think he means that he has two rigs and has connected them together in SLI...



if he had two rigs and one of them is SLI then why would he list his profile specs rig to be this 1gb ram amd oneg... also why would he try gaming on it?


----------



## sneekypeet (May 4, 2010)

Can we have a picture or drawing of your PC arrangement?

Seems we are all loosing something in the translation.


----------



## LifeOnMars (May 5, 2010)

This guy for me has surpassed U2K for entertainment value  Next he'll be saying he can run crysis all very high DX10 8xAA 16AF over 20fps 

EDIT - of course only in x64


----------



## Kreij (May 5, 2010)

Don't get personal in this thread. If you have tech information post it. If not, let it go.
If things get personal, it never turns out well.

Just a tip from yer Old Uncle Kreij.


----------



## douglatins (May 5, 2010)

Ok, what the heck is this thread about? I mean x32 vs x64 is not that big of a difference in games, neither is this thread a "epeen" thread, i mean boasting COD4 frames? Ah damn forget it... keep up the discussion


----------



## Dazzeerr (May 5, 2010)

qubit said:


> I think he means that he has two rigs and has connected them together in SLI...



He's saying his games are running on x64 so much better than x32 that it's as if he has two rigs running in SLI/Crossfire.

Gawd don't you people work with people who can't speak english too well?!


----------



## qubit (May 5, 2010)

Dazzeerr said:


> He's saying his games are running on x64 so much better than x32 that it's as if he has two rigs running in SLI/Crossfire.
> 
> Gawd don't you people work with people who can't speak english too well?!



I don't think you quite got it...


----------



## Kreij (May 5, 2010)

Aleksander : PM me or one of the other mods when you get some videos or benchmark data.
Until then this thread is closed as it's just going to fill with crap.


----------



## GSquadron (May 5, 2010)

Here are the proofs!
64-bit windows XP:
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7291/3dmarkpcpoints.png
32-bit windows XP:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8339/3dmarkpcpoints32bit.png
I benchmarked my rig 2 times, one for 32 bit and another for 64.
The cpu is overclocked in both cases in 2.44 Ghz. The card is left in default clocks.
One weird thing is that i benchmarked it with another video test and it clearly showed the same points for the card in both modes. 155 points to be precise.
In 3DMark 06 it shows that the cpu is more powerful in 32 bit mode, which i am a bit amazed. It should happen the countrary...
Anyway enjoy my discovery


----------



## InnocentCriminal (May 5, 2010)

Unfortunately synthetic benchmarks aren't a true representation of performance in games. 

With all this confusion, am I right in thinking you've installed Windows 7 x64 onto the rig in your system specs or are you talking about another rig that has dual GFX cards?


----------



## Fourstaff (May 5, 2010)

Most of the points come from the shader models, suggesting that the graphics card has been boosted, but only a measly 5 point difference between cpu, easily explained by error.


----------



## GSquadron (May 5, 2010)

I have installed windows xp 64 bit. Made the benchmark in 3DMark 06. Got 3111 points.
I have installed windows xp 32 bit. Made the benchmark in 3DMark 06. Got 2854 points.
All drivers are the same for both modes. The system i am using is in my system specs.
This was for all people talking around that i have dual gfx's!!!! I only have one 7600gs.

@fourstaff
I tried it in another program specialized for benching the graphic card. It showed in both modes that the card did not boost at all, as i got 155 all the time. Maybe it is not a good program.
The difference between the benches i did with 3DMark 06 is 257 points, but it is sure that the difference is deeper than this, cuz it shows that the cpu is better in 32-bit mode by 5 points 
And my cpu supports 64-bit mode


----------



## InnocentCriminal (May 5, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I have installed windows xp 64 bit. Made the benchmark in 3DMark 06. Got 3111 points.
> I have installed windows xp 32 bit. Made the benchmark in 3DMark 06. Got 2854 points.
> All drivers are the same for both modes. The system i am using is in my system specs.
> This was for all people talking around that i have dual gfx's!!!! I only have one 7600gs.



Right OK, it just states in your system specs that you're running Windows 7.


----------



## GSquadron (May 5, 2010)

I will change it now, cuz i have formatted it days ago and i did not have time to change it.
Sorry!


----------



## InnocentCriminal (May 5, 2010)

No need to apologise, just it was adding to the confusion. Will you be able to run any game benchmarks to see if there is an actual difference?


----------



## GSquadron (May 5, 2010)

I ran games benchmarks, but with fraps i was not able to convert them as they were 300 megs or more for 15 seconds 
Anyway the graphics are a bit worse in 64 bit only in some games like prince of persia and the game freezes rarely as i get 0 fps. In 32 bit it is more stable, but it has less performance.
There is no need to make video games benching at all, cuz i think that 3DMark showed it all. It would be better to bench gtx480 in 32 and 64 bits, which i think would give a significant difference.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (May 5, 2010)

^^

Right, well enjoy your extra 'performance'.


----------



## GSquadron (May 5, 2010)

Well, i hope we all here in TPU, enjoy the extra


----------



## InnocentCriminal (May 5, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Well, i hope we all here in TPU, enjoy the extra


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 5, 2010)

No offense but i dont buy it. Ive tried COD4 on 7800GTX and it cant play on ultra high with Antialiasing. It was just able to play it at high, no AA on 1280x720p at about 30fps. This was on a e2200 processor with 1GB ram. I cant believe a 7600GS can run COD4  on ultra high with AA. Sorry bro.


----------



## GSquadron (May 5, 2010)

Looks like you are challenging my legendary 7600GS in a duel in call of duty!!!!
  
Anyway if i ever get a chance to buy call of duty 4, i will prove it.


----------



## qubit (May 5, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> No offense but i dont buy it. Ive tried COD4 on 7800GTX and it cant play on ultra high with Antialiasing. It was just able to play it at high, no AA on 1280x720p at about 30fps. This was on a e2200 processor with 1GB ram. I cant believe a 7600GS can run COD4  on ultra high with AA. Sorry bro.



Looks like those 3d mark benchies were run on XP. I can tell you that XP can get significantly higher 3d fps. I did some benchies of my own some time ago which proved it. I'm talking about a 30% difference in max framerate on a 4870 & 3650. Just change from XP to Vista or 7 and see your performance drop. 

The hit seems worse on lower end hardware, too. I have the results, but never got round to publishing them on this forum, as I got hung up on how to do those nice graphs like you see on TPU - typical bloody perfectionist! 

Therefore, I can quite believe that a mid range card on XP can outperform a high end one on Vista or 7 in certain situations.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 5, 2010)

i think we also missed the fact that he is saying it ruins better on XP....of course it does. their DX10 games.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 5, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Most of the points come from the shader models, suggesting that the graphics card has been boosted, but only a measly 5 point difference between cpu, easily explained by error.


I concur.  Something is going on with your GPU and/or x64 driver has better GPU optimizations than your x86 driver.  That is to say, the x64 OS is not the direct reason for your change in performance.


----------



## GSquadron (May 5, 2010)

No way man. The drivers are totally the same. I said it before that they are the cd drivers.
The x64 adds instructions to my cpu, which is a part of the answer...


----------



## IINexusII (May 5, 2010)

vista sucks on 1gb of ram. thats why you have a huge jump in performance


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 5, 2010)

CD drivers?  There's your problem.  You should always use the most recent drivers available from NVIDIA, Intel, AMD, Via, and Intel websites except for audio, network, and other integrated peripherals like RAID controllers which comes direct from the motherboard manufacturer website.

There's a very good chance those x64 drivers from the disk are not full-featured (the system is taking shortcuts to draw an image) beta drivers.  Judging by your system specs, your system released before, or close to, the release of XP x64.


----------



## GSquadron (May 5, 2010)

If that is what you call suck, it means my computer has no ram, while it can run vista 
@Ford
I used the CD drivers in order not to differ the drivers from the original one. I have used the latest drivers again in 32 bit mode and the results were again identical.


----------



## DrPepper (May 5, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> No way man. The drivers are totally the same. I said it before that they are the cd drivers.
> The x64 adds instructions to my cpu, which is a part of the answer...



x64 instructions do not improve performance. Only in the sense that they allow x64 software to access more RAM and does not help 32bit software. It's obviously something to with drivers.


----------



## GSquadron (May 5, 2010)

The x64 bit platforms also add instructions to my cpu, which means it adds performance more than thought. I am saying it again, i used the most recent drivers and benched my rig again in 32 bit mode only. The result was identical.
@Ford
I have bought my graphic card in 2007 and the rig in 2006 so dont be afraid about drivers man. I did the bench even with the latest drivers, but only in 32 bit. I got the same result.


----------



## DrPepper (May 5, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> The x64 bit platforms also add instructions to my cpu, which means it adds performance more than thought. I am saying it again, i used the most recent drivers and benched my rig again in 32 bit mode only. The result was identical.



It doesn't increase performace at all though. That's not what x64 instructions do. That's what SSE and 3DNow! instructions are for.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 5, 2010)

AMD64 and EM64T processors always have the x86-64 instruction set.  The difference is if the processor uses it or not (depends on if the processor is running in real, legacy, or long mode).

There's a huge difference between 64-bit and 32-bit drivers (all memory addresses must be the longer length so that if the device gets pushed into that region of the memory, it will be able to fully access it).


----------



## GSquadron (May 5, 2010)

Well a lot of questions as if you dont see the proofs there. I got tired here!!! It is 24:00 so goodnight


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 5, 2010)

If you use GeForce 197.41 graphic drivers for 32-bit and 64-bit as well as nForce 15.26 chipset drivers for 32-bit and 64-bit, I doubt you'll see much difference in points/performance.  The only difference you will see is due to Windows XP x64 (5.2) compared to Windows XP (5.1).  XP x64 generally scores better in CPU tests but about even (or a little lower) in 32-bit games.


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 6, 2010)

qubit said:


> Looks like those 3d mark benchies were run on XP. I can tell you that XP can get significantly higher 3d fps. I did some benchies of my own some time ago which proved it. I'm talking about a 30% difference in max framerate on a 4870 & 3650. Just change from XP to Vista or 7 and see your performance drop.
> 
> The hit seems worse on lower end hardware, too. I have the results, but never got round to publishing them on this forum, as I got hung up on how to do those nice graphs like you see on TPU - typical bloody perfectionist!
> 
> Therefore, I can quite believe that a mid range card on XP can outperform a high end one on Vista or 7 in certain situations.




I forgot to mention. That 7800GTX was running on XP x86.


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

qubit said:


> Looks like those 3d mark benchies were run on XP. I can tell you that XP can get significantly higher 3d fps. I did some benchies of my own some time ago which proved it. I'm talking about a 30% difference in max framerate on a 4870 & 3650. Just change from XP to Vista or 7 and see your performance drop.
> 
> The hit seems worse on lower end hardware, too. I have the results, but never got round to publishing them on this forum, as I got hung up on how to do those nice graphs like you see on TPU - typical bloody perfectionist!
> 
> Therefore, I can quite believe that a mid range card on XP can outperform a high end one on Vista or 7 in certain situations.



I've seen tests that disagree with your results though.


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> I forgot to mention. That 7800GTX was running on XP x86.



Then our OP's results sound a bit unlikely...



DrPepper said:


> I've seen tests that disagree with your results though.



I wouldn't be surprised. Performance advantage likely varies with system components and the type of software run. It's just on the few games I checked and on a handful of hardware configs (mine and my friend's) fps was better on XP.


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

@Ford
I scored 5 points lower with the cpu in x64!!!!! 
@DrPepper
I have seen tests which achieve 10000 points which disagree with my score. Publish them if you want to disagree for sure. Mind you that the score you have seen would be hard to find same as with my system specs. I have published the results only for my rig not for others.
@qubit
I cannot make other differences if mdsx1950 doesnt publish his results, at least in x86.
The fps are higher on xp than windows 7. The least you can do to distinguish it, is in need for speed most wanted.
@all!!!
Who has the results in 3DMark in 64 and 32 bit modes pls publish them here!


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

I just downloaded the latest drivers yesterday and restarted the rig today, making again the bench in 3DMark and this are the results with the latest drivers only in 32 bit mode:
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/577/newbitmapimageho.png


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> @qubit
> I cannot make other differences if mdsx1950 doesnt publish his results, at least in x86.
> *The fps are higher on xp than windows 7.* The least you can do to distinguish it, is in need for speed most wanted.



Yup, I'm totally with ya, man - I've seen it myself in the handful of scenarios I've checked this. Every single time XP was significantly better. My suspicion is the protected video path DRM they've infected Vista and later with is slowing down performance.

I reckon that in just about every scenario XP will be faster than Vista or 7. The only time the later OS's seem to match it, is where the frame rate is already in the 40-70fps range, ie quite low and on high end hardware. I saw an ExtremeTech article on this about a year ago using Vista. I would have liked to have seen a greater range of testing from them, including games that would normally run much faster than what they had there.

Now, for anyone that wants to challenge my assertion, no I'm not prepared to spend lots of time and hassle checking this out! It just looks very likely from what I've seen.


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 6, 2010)

If your using Win 7 and you get about an approx of 40fps in a game on 1GB Ram. You will max get about 45-48fps on XP.  I'm telling this through personal experience


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I just downloaded the latest drivers yesterday and restarted the rig today, making again the bench in 3DMark and this are the results with the latest drivers only in 32 bit mode:
> http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/577/newbitmapimageho.png


A little higher but still very close.  It's the x64 driver I expect to show the greatest difference because the ones on the disk most likely aren't mature.




qubit said:


> Yup, I'm totally with ya, man - I've seen it myself in the handful of scenarios I've checked this. Every single time XP was significantly better. My suspicion is the protected video path DRM they've infected Vista and later with is slowing down performance.
> 
> I reckon that in just about every scenario XP will be faster than Vista or 7. The only time the later OS's seem to match it, is where the frame rate is already in the 40-70fps range, ie quite low and on high end hardware. I saw an ExtremeTech article on this about a year ago using Vista. I would have liked to have seen a greater range of testing from them, including games that would normally run much faster than what they had there.
> 
> Now, for anyone that wants to challenge my assertion, no I'm not prepared to spend lots of time and hassle checking this out! It just looks very likely from what I've seen.


I concur but the difference isn't usually more than a few FPS (% +/-).


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

Yeah, the x64 drivers should be much more interesting. But anyway I am not going to bench it cuz now i have the x86 one. It looks like better having the x64 rather than x86 
Even with 1 GB of ram.


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> If your using Win 7 and you get about an approx of 40fps in a game on 1GB Ram. You will max get about 45-48fps on XP.  I'm telling this through personal experience



I could believe that. The exact numbers depend on the hardware, the game, video and quality settings. I was benching TrackMania on an E8500 with a 4870 at various resolutions and comparing XP & Vista. This was before 7 came out. But the differences can be much bigger, like 85 v 140 fps - it was that enormous. You can clearly see the difference in smoothness in game play, especially on lower end graphics cards and CPUs.

I noticed similar differences on Half-life (all versions) and Unreal Tournament (all versions), but I didn't do a formal bench on those. Just watched the Fraps counter while playing or setting the view to the same point, holding it steady and comparing fps.

EDIT: Just seen this posted while I was writing out my post:



FordGT90Concept said:


> I concur but the difference isn't usually more than a few FPS (% +/-).



My reply to mdsx1950 would also apply to yourself. The results are nuts, but true.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

qubit said:


> My reply to mdsx1950 would also apply to yourself. The results are nuts, but true.


http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,3

XP to 7

ATI:
42 to 45.5
46.5 to 41.2
47.7 to 41.6
40 to 36
92.9 to 97.8

Only Cryis (and somewhat Far Cry 2) showed a significant difference (and we all know 4 FPS in Crysis is BIG ).


NVIDIA:
47.5 to 46
52 to 51.4
50.7 to 49.5
39.7 to 40
121.4 to 116.9

Virtually all the same for NVIDIA.


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

Well, the more powerful the card, the more difference between results you get.


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,3
> 
> XP to 7
> 
> ...



Yeah, I'm sure they got that. I also know what I've seen in my own testing. I was trying to find my spreadsheet earlier with the results on it, but it's gone awol. I'll ask my friend to email me his copy and I'll show you the results.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Well, the more powerful the card, the more difference between results you get.


The NVIDIA benchmarks were on a more powerful card than the ATI benchmarks (higher FPS across the board).  NVIDIA showed virtually no difference whereas ATI did.  ATI may have been lacking driver optimizations for Vista/7.  That may have changed since the benchmark was performed, however.




qubit said:


> Yeah, I'm sure they got that. I also know what I've seen in my own testing. I was trying to find my spreadsheet earlier with the results on it, but it's gone awol. I'll ask my friend to email me his copy and I'll show you the results.


You sure it wasn't a DX9 vs DX10 thing?  DX10 is faster than DX9 so long as all the settings are the same (and usually, they're not).


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

Publish them if you want to prove it, cuz mine is nvidia and it did show 250 points difference which for this card is a lot.


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Publish them if you want to prove it, cuz mine is nvidia and it did show 250 points difference which for this card is a lot.



250 points in 3Dmark06 is nothing. It's almost within margin of error.


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You sure it wasn't a DX9 vs DX10 thing?  DX10 is faster than DX9 so long as all the settings are the same (and usually, they're not).



Quite sure, as TrackMania is a DX9 game. I used it, because it has a really easy to use and repeatable benchmark mode that doesn't take very long to run.

Anyway, I've now received the results spreadsheet from my friend and attached it to this post. It was about a year ago we did this, so it's XP SP3 v Vista SP1. Both operating systems were 32-bit and fully patched, had the latest DX update and drivers applied.

We tested a HD3850 512MB & a HD4870 512MB on an E8400 at the stock 3GHz. The performance loss with Vista averaged a large 30%, with the 4870 actually taking a bigger hit.

Windows 7 isn't any better, either. I did a couple of bench quickies with Windows 7 recently and the results don't change much. nvidia takes a slightly smaller hit, if I remember correctly, but I didn't bother to write the results down.

_In short, if you want the best DX9 gaming performance, stick to XP 32-bit and that applies to the latest hardware, too. Our friend Aleksander Dishnica is right when he says he gets better 3D performance on XP. _

The Athlon 64 results are there to quantify just how much faster the E8400 is compared to the Athlon 64. As you can see, it's way faster, as you'd expect. Interestingly, you can see how the system with the faster CPU & slower graphics card can sometimes beat the system with the slower CPU & faster graphics card, depending on the exact bench parameters.

Oh and finally, TrackMania is awesome.


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

Actually he says he gets better performance using x64 xp compared to x32 xp and win7.


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

I must add smth else. I get more performance on xp x86 (not x32!!!! as pepper wrote! )
than windows 7. From the bench all can see that in xp x64 i got better results than x32.
So summing up:
Windows 7 x86 < Windows XP x86 < Windows XP x64 (Performance)
This is at least for games.


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I must add smth else. I get more performance on xp x86 (not x32!!!! as pepper wrote! )
> than windows 7. From the bench all can see that in xp x64 i got better results than x32.
> So summing up:
> Windows 7 x86 < Windows XP x86 < Windows XP x64 (Performance)
> This is at least for games.



x86 is x32


----------



## Fourstaff (May 6, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I get more performance on xp x86 (not x32!!!! as pepper wrote! )



Never heard of those. You mean x86-64?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

qubit said:


> ...
> 
> Oh and finally, TrackMania is awesome.


I'm going to go with something in the game coding that is causing that 30% difference, not the operating system.  If it were the operating system, that large of difference would be uniform accross all benchmarks and it isn't.


"x32" doesn't exist.  It's x86 (also known as IA-32), x86-64 (x86 w/ 64-bit extension, sometimes abreviated x64, technically is AMD64 or EM64T), or IA-64 (Intel 64-bit architecture).


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Actually he says he gets better performance using x64 xp compared to x32 xp and win7.





Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I must add smth else. I get more performance on xp x86 (not x32!!!! as pepper wrote! )
> than windows 7. From the bench all can see that in xp x64 i got better results than x32.
> So summing up:
> Windows 7 x86 < Windows XP x86 < Windows XP x64 (Performance)
> This is at least for games.



I thought you also said that XP gives better performance than Vista or 7 on this thread??  With almost 90 posts here, it's a bit too long to start trawling through it to check this, to be honest.


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

Ok guys. Conclusion is Windows XP 64-bit is the best performer of all OS (windows tested only)
So, yes qubit. Vista is worse than windows 7. Actually reading between the lines your question gets  an yes as answer.
x86 = 32-bit
x64 = 64-bit


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

Vista/Windows 7 is faster at networking than XP when there is a domain server on the intranet.  Transfers between Windows 7 computers are "OMFG" faster than XP.

Game performance is about equal, slight advantage to XP; except the odd title out that is heavily biased towards XP.


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Vista/Windows 7 is faster at networking than XP when there is a domain server on the intranet.  Transfers between Windows 7 computers are "OMFG" faster than XP.
> 
> Game performance is about equal, slight advantage to XP; except the odd title out that is heavily biased towards XP.



Yes, it is better at networking, I've seen that myself. But this isn't about networking performance. Did you look at my results spreadsheet? The game I tested with actually gives fairly typical results compared to the other games I've seen. I just did some formal testing with this one to nail some numbers down, because the benchmarking mode is very quick and easy to do. There's no "heavy bias towards XP" with this game.


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

I think there is a mix up since I have a habit of incorrectly calling it x32 instead of x86.


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

I see difference in xp 32-bit even in most wanted, imagine in other games. What about the 64 bit xp? 
Windows 7 is worse than Xp for games. That is for sure. That is why it needs more ram in system requirements. It has its downsides too, so dont be that optimistic, as it costs more than xp 
Gamers just get directx 11 which again is a downside as it is not a concern for the moment. 
Windows 7 gets more space in HDD or SSD. That means more space, less performance in games, costs more. I am not interested on it, sorry!!!
@drpepper
There is no x32, so i understand you mean 32-bit


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

Well you stick with XP if you like but Win 7 and DX11 are the way fowards.



Aleksander Dishnica said:


> @drpepper
> There is no x32, so i understand you mean 32-bit



I addressed that in the post above saying I've been incorrectly referring it x32 out of bad habit.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 6, 2010)

XP's good for DX9 games and also preventing advancement in computer gaming. Windows 7 are for real gamers who want the industry to move forward rather than to be happy with what they've got.


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

I think money make the real advancement, not OS or direct x11


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I think money make the real advancement, not OS or direct x11



They money that is used to buy the new os and DX11 hardware is.


----------



## TIGR (May 6, 2010)

I'm guessing you updated your video drivers to a newer/better version than you were using on your x86 installation.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 6, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> I think there is a mix up since I have a habit of incorrectly calling it x32 instead of x86.



its ok pepper. I hate it when people corre t me personally. zomg bro x86-32bit. ya i know. but everyone else in the universe understands when I say x32 or x64


----------



## InnocentCriminal (May 6, 2010)

I honestly still don't understand the point of the thread, are we asking for proof here other than 3DMark scores?



Solaris17 said:


> its ok pepper. I hate it when people corre t me personally. zomg bro x86-32bit. ya i know. but everyone else in the universe understands when I say x32 or x64



But don't you want to be technically correct? People that don't know that x32 is actually x86 are misinformed.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

qubit said:


> Yes, it is better at networking, I've seen that myself. But this isn't about networking performance. Did you look at my results spreadsheet? The game I tested with actually gives fairly typical results compared to the other games I've seen. I just did some formal testing with this one to nail some numbers down, because the benchmarking mode is very quick and easy to do. There's no "heavy bias towards XP" with this game.


Your benchmarking clearly shows there is.

There's some games that perform better in XP (TrackMania being an example as well as ARMA II).

There's others that show virtually no preference like *Call of Duty 4*, Left 4 Dead, Fallout 3, and Dawn of War II.

And some that perform better in Vista/7 like Crysis, Far Cry 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky, and Resident Evil V.


If you're looking for a gaming performance upgrade, the answer isn't a different OS (except in the case of tesselation on DX11).  A better GPU will generally increase the FPS no matter the OS.


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

Solaris17 said:


> its ok pepper. I hate it when people corre t me personally. zomg bro x86-32bit. ya i know. but everyone else in the universe understands when I say x32 or x64



Well at least everyone kind of understood what I meant when I say x32. I should say 32-bit or x86-32. Anyway I don't mind being corrected as long as people don't be an ass about it, even more so for spelling and grammar.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 6, 2010)

InnocentCriminal said:


> I honestly still don't understand the point of the thread, are we asking for proof here other than 3DMark scores?
> 
> 
> 
> But don't you want to be technically correct? People that don't know that x32 is actually x86 are misinformed.



nope dont need to be. Its like a type of short hand. I know the difference. As such I perfectly understand what people are doing. People that absolutely need the differentiation are wannabe programmers. Or super obnoxious real programmers. i refuse to type out

X86-32bit

or

x86-64bit

simply to appease those people. IMO if its that important to them they should either

A get a life
or
B check themselves. If they want to use proper terminology visiting this forum is the wrong place to be.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 6, 2010)

Sorry, feeling a bit touchy due to this thread


----------



## Solaris17 (May 6, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Sorry, feeling a bit touchy due to this thread



not your fault you werent a dbag or assumed we were retarted.


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Sorry, feeling a bit touchy due to this thread



I didn't notice anything wrong. Infact I was confused at first.


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Your benchmarking clearly shows there is.
> 
> There's some games that perform better in XP (TrackMania being an example as well as ARMA II).
> 
> ...



Well hey, out of that lot, I've only got cod4 & L4D, so I can't comment on the others. I'll have a crack at benching those two and see what results I get. I'm fairly confident they'll be similar to TrackMania, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (May 6, 2010)

*Can't believe this thread.......*

I still don't get what the excitement is totally about. It looks like the differences are just that when you switched to 64 bit you didn't have the Video RAM shadowed into the System RAM and had a little more memory to work with and got a little more performance. I guess......


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

Robert-The-Rambler said:


> I still don't get what the excitement is totally about. It looks like the differences are just that when you switched to 64 bit you didn't have the Video RAM shadowed into the System RAM and had a little more memory to work with and got a little more performance. I guess......



Isn't that a DX10 feature that it doesn't shadow Vmem to the RAM.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Well at least everyone kind of understood what I meant when I say x32. I should say 32-bit or x86-32. Anyway I don't mind being corrected as long as people don't be an ass about it, even more so for spelling and grammar.


x86-32 doesn't exist either. 

Windows (the desktop and server variety) only runs on three architectures:

-x86 (32-bit with 16-bit legacy support).  Sometimes refered to as IA-32 (Intel Architecture 32-bit).

-x86-64 (64-bit with 32-bit and 16-bit legacy support).  It has two subtypes: AMD64 and EM64T.  They are generally cross compatible.  Technically, the processor is still 32-bit but has been extended to be able to address >32-bits worth or RAM.  Some processors, for example, are 36-bit capable and others are 48-bit.  No exisiting x86-64 processor is a true 64-bit processor.

-IA-64 (64-bit with 32-bit legacy support). Not compatible with x86 or x86-64.  Only found in datacenter or super computer server systems.  It is slated to be discontinued by Intel and Microsoft soon.


----------



## DrPepper (May 6, 2010)

Ah so it's just x86. I assumed x86-32 based on x86-64.


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

The meaning of this thread:
There was the beauty and the beast.
Beauty was in love with the beast.
The beast was a beast.
My rig is a beast, but only in x64, cuz there is the beauty.
Thank you all for missunderstanding the phrases


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> x86-32 doesn't exist either.
> 
> Windows (the desktop and server variety) only runs on three architectures:
> 
> ...



Your bit in bold is wrong, GT. The part of the CPU that gives it its size is the _word_ size. That is, the amount of data it can hold in its main data processing registers in one go, not the _address bus_ size. So, a 32-bit CPU can hold 32-bits and a 64-bit CPU 64-bits at once. This means that a 64-bit CPU can chomp through twice as much data in one go than a 32-bit one. They are therefore literally twice as fast as 32-bit CPUs in a straight run, keeping all other factors such as clock speed, instruction cycle time etc the same. One often doesn't see a speedup in the real world, because they are either working in 32-bit mode, or they are not working on large data sets where you would notice the difference.

They would be twice as fast for example, in copying large blocks of memory to other large blocks of memory, as they will grab twice as much in go.

The size of the address bus is often confused as defining the size of the CPU. It doesn't. The x86/x64 architecture specifies a data bus that has the same width as the address bus, but there's no reason why this must be so and many other processors don't (think of the old 8-bit 6502 & Z80 CPUs that had 16-bit address buses for example). What you've seen is that the full 64-bit address bus isn't _physically_ implemented, so you get 36 bits, 48 bits or whatever. However, it is _logically_ implemented in all x64 CPUs. x64 CPUs all have a 64-bit data bus. If you don't believe me, have a look at the spec sheets on Intel's or AMD's websites, or even look this up on Wikipedia; it'll tell you the same thing.

Technically, you could have a 64-bit CPU with a 1-bit address bus and it would still be a true 64-bit CPU ie it's registers would hold 64-bits in one go. You'd have to be nuts to make one of course... lol Just to confuse things a little further, the physical data bus doesn't have to be the same size as the word size of the registers. Making it narrower would simply cause the CPU to take extra clock cycles to store and load data to memory and therefore significantly hurt its performance. However, it would make it cheaper to manufacture and cheaper to manufactur the motherboard as it would need less parallel circuit traces.

The fact that they will handle smaller word sizes such as 16 & 32 bits for compatibility is also incidental and not relevant.

This is stuff that I know like the back of my hand, so if you would like me to explain anythging else, please ask away!


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

+1 for qubit. I think this was the reason of the thread and the answer to my first question


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

qubit said:


> Your bit in bold is wrong, GT. The part of the CPU that gives it its size is the _word_ size. That is, the amount of data it can hold in its main data processing registers in one go, not the _address bus_ size. So, a 32-bit CPU can hold 32-bits and a 64-bit CPU 64-bits at once.


Not necessarily.  For example, all recent x86 CPUs (e.g Intel Core, AMD Athlon XP) can handle 64-bit calculations although they are not capable of addressing more than 32-bit memory.




qubit said:


> This means that a 64-bit CPU can chomp through twice as much data in one go than a 32-bit one. They are therefore literally twice as fast as 32-bit CPUs in a straight run, keeping all other factors such as clock speed, instruction cycle time etc the same. One often doesn't see a speedup in the real world, because they are either working in 32-bit mode, or they are not working on large data sets where you would notice the difference.
> 
> They would be twice as fast for example, in copying large blocks of memory to other large blocks of memory, as they will grab twice as much in go.
> 
> ...


This is not the case with x86-64.  64-bit is treated the same as 32-bit in a 64-bit environment.  64-bit is not faster than 32-bit (where it is in undeniably 64-bit architectures like IA-64).

Edit: double checking this... might have different benchmarks turned around.


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> +1 for qubit. I think this was the reason of the thread and the answer to my first question



Awsome dude, thankyou.


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Not necessarily.  For example, all recent x86 CPUs (e.g Intel Core, AMD Athlon XP) can handle 64-bit calculations although they are not capable of addressing more than 32-bit memory.
> 
> This is not the case with x86-64.  64-bit is treated the same as 32-bit in a 64-bit environment.  64-bit is not faster than 32-bit (where it is in undeniably 64-bit architectures like IA-64).



You're still confusing the address bus with the word size. 64-bit is indeed inherently faster in example I gave you and other similar types of tasks. It's like painting a wall with a brush and then comparing it's performance with one that's twice as wide. The wider one will complete the paint job in half the brush strokes and therefore half the time.

The width of the memory doesn't matter either: all that counts is that the CPU can grab 64-bits of data off it to fill its registers. If the data bus is narrower, because of RAM config for example, then it just hurts performance. It's still working in a full 64-bit mode.

I strongly recommend you look this up on Wikipedia etc if you disagree with me and you'll see I've explained this subject exactly. I know this stuff, because it's been my hobby for years and I also learned it formally in higher education too. No need to go back and forth on this thread about it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

Note how 64-bit is actually 50% faster than 32-bit:

```
UInt averages:
  [0]: 2164491716
ULong averages:
  [0]: 3025861192
```
If what you said was true, 32-bit should be double that of 64-bit.


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

So in theory, x64 is a kind of hyperthreading. Like upgrading from core i5 to core i7 ????!!!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

No, HTT has nothing to do with width.


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Note how 64-bit is actually 50% faster than 32-bit:
> 
> ```
> UInt averages:
> ...



It is double. I don't know what that example is; not enough detail. Once you start adding things like constant factors for timings for loops etc it alters the results, so you don't _usually_ end up with a perfect doubling of performance.

I'd really appreciate it if you looked up the basic architectural info on the internet before coming back to me. You'll understand what I'm explaining then and we can have a more constructive discussion.


----------



## GSquadron (May 6, 2010)

@Ford
Oh well, i still get a performance boost and that is what interests me, not the numbers. If it is 50% faster as you say, than all people would jump to 64-bit systems. Like pepper said, 250 points is not a big deal. It is not even 10%


----------



## InnocentCriminal (May 6, 2010)

Solaris17 said:


> A get a life
> or
> B check themselves. If they want to use proper terminology visiting this forum is the wrong place to be.



Why is it the wrong place? An IT forum is a great resource of information, if that information is wrong then obviously someone is going to amend that for the greater good - which is sharing and learning from accurate knowledge. Apart from people using the right terminology because it's right, using proper grammar and spelling can help other people in different ways, for example; for those that don't have English as their first language.

Anyroad, back on topic, whatever that is.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2010)

qubit said:


> It is double. I don't know what that example is; not enough detail. Once you start adding things like constant factors for timings for loops etc it alters the results, so you don't _usually_ end up with a perfect doubling of performance.


The processor is ordered to count up, nonstop, and is measured on 1 second intervals.  Every value given is the average of 10 readings.  I ran the test 6 times.  32-bit was more or less equal for all tests.  4 of 6 64-bit exceeded 3 billion. 2 of 6 64-bit exceeded 1.8 billion (most likely, something else loaded the core during those tests making it anomalous).


I'm not arguing that the general purpose registers weren't extended because they were.  The GPR more or less defines what the processor is marketed as.

x86-64 can be faster than x86 if the 8 new registers (r8, r9, r10, r11, r12, r13, r14, r15) are put to work.


----------



## ShiBDiB (May 6, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> The meaning of this thread:
> There was the beauty and the beast.
> Beauty was in love with the beast.
> The beast was a beast.
> ...



havent we established the only reason its faster is because u switched to xp? has nothing to do with 32/64


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (May 7, 2010)

*Yes it is but..........*



DrPepper said:


> Isn't that a DX10 feature that it doesn't shadow Vmem to the RAM.



In a 64 bit OS you still have access to most of your available System RAM without Video RAM duplication. In DirectX 9 you lose address space roughly equivalent to the Video RAM of your Video Card but is not shadowed resulting in losing access to double the video card's memory in System RAM. Here is a link to the thread here at TPU.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=91260

Here is an excerpt.

Under a 32 bit OS, you have 4GB total (OS) and 2GB per application.

Under a 64 bit application, 32 bit apps are still capped at 2GB - but if its large address aware (the 2GB+ flag i mention above) then it can use upto 4GB of ram/address space per program.

Under a 32 bit operating system (XP, vista 32) you have 4GB of address space available. Address space is different to the amount of memory in your PC.

The reason a 32 bit system can only use 3GB (or 3.25GB, or whatever number you get) of system ram is because it doesnt have enough address space left. Video cards are the most important part of a PC that uses address space.

If you had 4GB of system ram and a 1GB video card under a 32 bit operating system, each individual program could only use 3GB of that system ram (due to the video card using 1GB of address space) However there is something else most people are NOT aware of.
Under DirectX 9.0C (and lower) video card ram must be duplicated into system ram. That means if you're running on the highest settings with your new shiny 1GB video card - that 1GB of video memory must be duplicated leaving you with only 2GB left for your game.

You just went from 4GB to 2GB, only considering a single 1GB video card. Things only get worse in SLI and crossfire.

Under 64 bit you wouldnt have lost that initial 1GB of ram to the address space, so you'd have 3GB of usable ram, with 1GB used in DX9.0C games. All of a sudden those modern games which border on 1.5-2GB of ram usage are playable, without your system running like a dog.

Side note: It should be noted that DX10/10.1 does not duplicate video memory into system ram. DX10 actually helps to alleviate this issue, if your system is powerful enough to run games in DX10.

Side note 2: There is more than just video card ram that affects this. System page file uses address space, as do various parts related to the BIOS (RAID cards, sound cards with onboard ram, etc) - this is why with a 512MB video card your 32 bit OS may report 3.25GB of ram - 256MB was taken away for everything else


----------



## GSquadron (May 7, 2010)

ShiBDiB said:


> havent we established the only reason its faster is because u switched to xp? has nothing to do with 32/64



No. The results i did in the bench of 3DMark 06 are from XP x64 to XP x32, but anyway windows 7 is worse than both for games, at least for the games i have tested with.


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 7, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> No. The results i did in the bench of 3DMark 06 are from XP x64 to XP x32, but anyway *windows 7 is worse than both for games,* at least for the games i have tested with.



Thats because you got only 1GB Ram. If you had 2GB, you should be running a little better or equal. Windows 7 takes up your RAM more than XP because its running Aero and other stuff that takes up your RAM. Windows 7 takes atleast about 500MB Ram and XP takes only about 300MB max and well Vista takes more than Windows 7. When the game lacks RAM, the frames drop like shit. Even if your having a beast of a card like a GTX480 or something, your frames will go down. There will be a lot of lag. The person whos running a GTX 260 with 4GB RAM will be able to play a game like COD4 on Vista, lag free than person who is running a GTX480 on 1GB RAM on Vista. :shadedshu


----------



## GSquadron (May 7, 2010)

Again Windows 7 is worse even if i have 24GB of ram. The windows aero is meant to take vram too.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (May 7, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Again Windows 7 is worse even if i have 24GB of ram. The windows aero is meant to take vram too.



That's something I'd like to see, 64bit XP with 24GB vs 64bit 7 with 24GB.


----------



## douglatins (May 7, 2010)

This thread is still going on WTF


----------



## GSquadron (May 7, 2010)

This is a legendary thread, pls no dead soldiers welcomed


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 7, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Again Windows 7 is worse even if i have 24GB of ram. The windows aero is meant to take vram too.



Just a little. You can turn off Aero.


----------



## Hockster (May 7, 2010)

Anyone else getting their daily dose of laughs from this thread? It's hilarious.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 7, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Again Windows 7 is worse even if i have 24GB of ram. The windows aero is meant to take vram too.



Well, if you are arguing along those lines, you are better off running windows 98.


----------



## DrPepper (May 7, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Well, if you are arguing along those lines, you are better off running windows 98.



Why not just go back to windows 3.1 I'm sure that has a very small footprint.


----------



## Jstn7477 (May 7, 2010)

Your system sucks to run Win7 because you have a very old computer with only 1GB of memory. Plain and simple. 

I benched a single core Athlon 64 2.4GHz (Win7 32bit) and my Phenom II X4 955BE quad core @ 3.75GHz (Win7 64bit) with Linpack (LinX 0.6.4 specifically). Athlon 64 rig was running 2GB DDR400, and Phenom II X4 was running 4GB DDR3-1333.

Results:
Athlon 64 2.4GHz,   1 core: 2.3 GFLOPS
Phenom II 3.75GHz, 4 core: 48 GFLOPS (if you divide it by 4, you get 12 GFLOPS per core).

If my results are correct, one core of my processor just completely obliterated your entire processor. I also have 4x the RAM that you do. That's why Windows 7 runs great on my machine. End of story. Get a better computer.

Try running XP and Windows 7 on a Pentium 3 800MHz processor and 1GB SDRAM on a 440BX board. Obviously, Windows XP is going to run faster, hands down.


----------



## GSquadron (May 7, 2010)

Anyone forgot MS-DOS???
@Jstn7477
What a news i didnt know about that!
I have a sempron which is worse than that athlon, so the results are even worse.

Thank you all for the pesimistic replies, cuz this thread was opened cuz i found smth which was tested in my computer. Why dont you test yours????
I mean not the differences of cpus, cuz you seem to show off that way and trying to offend my rig.
This thread will never stop as long as there are repliers which are not meant to reply about the thread, but about my rig.
I opened the thread to show that in x64 you can play games with better fps than in x86. (at least in my rig)

Why you people dont use, the calculating machine Pascal used for the first time, as an operating system cuz it takes half the foot of the print. A calculation machine with 24 GB of ram, can it ran Crysis???


----------



## DrPepper (May 7, 2010)

We're skeptical of your results because 64 bit doesn not increase performance in 32bit applications.

Theoretically I suppose it could run it if people bothered to set it up. It would run very slowly and be utterly pointless.


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 8, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Anyone forgot MS-DOS???
> @Jstn7477
> What a news i didnt know about that!
> I have a sempron which is worse than that athlon, so the results are even worse.
> ...



Its obvious. But only for people having 4GB or more and having quad cores. I had a similar PC like yours which i tested on x64 and x86 XP. There was no difference on frames. I just had more compatibility issues.


----------



## GSquadron (May 8, 2010)

How comes that you had no difference in frames with a PC similar as mine???
I had visible differences in games with FPSs


----------



## claylomax (May 8, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Anyone forgot MS-DOS???
> @Jstn7477
> What a news i didnt know about that!
> I have a sempron which is worse than that athlon, so the results are even worse.
> ...



Indeed.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 8, 2010)

I do recall a few years ago there were articles showing intel takes a performance hit in 64 bit while amd doesn't, what I don't recall is if amd did better in 64 bit than 32.


----------



## GSquadron (May 8, 2010)

Looks like amd did


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 8, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Looks like amd did



I dont know about that. But theres no way in hell you can run COD4 on very high with AA on a 7600GS when even a 7800GTX can't run it. It just makes no sense bro.


----------



## GSquadron (May 8, 2010)

What technology was used in that 7800GTX???
Cuz i got better graphics than 7600GT and mine is 80nm, meaning better than the reference one.
One of my friends told me that this card is damn good for what it is supposed to give. He had 7600GT 512 and was worse than mine. At least so he said to me.
I bought it for 97$ (2007 august)
He bought 7600GT for 85$
And he bought it before me...
If the 7800GTX is one of the first released, than i should suppose that the version is worse than my 7600GS.
PLS give me the specs, i am really curious.
One last thing to add is that i could turn on antialiasing with no probs, only in x64, 64 - bit.
In 32 bit there was no way to run the game with good fps.


----------



## DrPepper (May 8, 2010)

Nope the 7800GTX is still faster than your 7600GS regardless of the fabrication process used to make it.


----------



## claylomax (May 8, 2010)

You can check your specs here, although I don't think they very accurate:                           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar..._processing_units#GeForce_7_.287xxx.29_series


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 8, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> What technology was used in that 7800GTX???
> Cuz i got better graphics than 7600GT and mine is 80nm, meaning better than the reference one.
> One of my friends told me that this card is damn good for what it is supposed to give. He had 7600GT 512 and was worse than mine. At least so he said to me.
> I bought it for 97$ (2007 august)
> ...



I cant remember... but my old ATi x1950GT which is head to head with a 7800GTX couldnt play COD4 on very high with AA at 1360x768 Resolution on 1GB DDR2 800Mhz Ram. I tested 64bit and 32bit versions of XP. Though i tried on a Intel E2200 processor which is a better processor than the Sempron 3000+ your using. Still no way was i able to get 30fps stable. 

So no way is a your Sempron will perform better than the E2200 dual core. And no way a 7600 will beat a 7800GTX. and no way your DDR1 Ram is going to better than DDR2 Ram. So i see absolutely no way your rig can perform so well. Maybe your running the game at 640x480 Res or something. Because its impossible.


----------



## GSquadron (May 8, 2010)

How is it possible? So said my friend too, cuz at that time he had 2 GB of ram, 4400+ athlon and the 7600gt 512. Still he said STALKER was running better in my PC :S
That is a real enigma for my rig. At least did you overclock the 7800GTX???
What is more, my card is not even listed in wikipedia


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 9, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> How is it possible? So said my friend too, cuz at that time he had 2 GB of ram, 4400+ athlon and the 7600gt 512. Still he said STALKER was running better in my PC :S
> That is a real enigma for my rig. At least did you overclock the 7800GTX???
> What is more, my card is not even listed in wikipedia



Maybe your having a different card in your rig which looks like a 7600GS imitation. Because its impossible. I didnt own the 7800GTX. It was a friends'. I had a X1950GT.


----------



## GSquadron (May 9, 2010)

Maybe you are right 
Anyway the GPU-Z shows 7600GS, i install 7600GS drivers, Vtune 7.4 shows 7600GS.
It is deeply modificated, i think, cuz I overclocked it so damn much one time, that it surpassed 8600GS in default clocks about 50mhz with rivatuner. Normally the card could not handle the overclock more than 10 seconds, but again it is too much for a card as mine.
I dont remember it well, but the gpu clock reached around 710 Mhz and memory about 780 Mhz


----------



## Hockster (May 9, 2010)




----------



## claylomax (May 9, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> How is it possible? So said my friend too, cuz at that time he had 2 GB of ram, 4400+ athlon and the 7600gt 512. Still he said STALKER was running better in my PC :S
> That is a real enigma for my rig. At least did you overclock the 7800GTX???
> What is more, my card is not even listed in wikipedia



Probably your card has a hand-picked gpu and is unique.


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 10, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Maybe you are right
> Anyway the GPU-Z shows 7600GS, i install 7600GS drivers, Vtune 7.4 shows 7600GS.
> It is deeply modificated, i think, cuz I overclocked it so damn much one time, that it surpassed 8600GS in default clocks about 50mhz with rivatuner. Normally the card could not handle the overclock more than 10 seconds, but again it is too much for a card as mine.
> I dont remember it well, but the gpu clock reached around 710 Mhz and memory about 780 Mhz



I think your referring to this one right? 

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=110373


----------



## GSquadron (May 10, 2010)

AHAHA yeah!
Looks like i have overclocked it to 720mhz, 10 mhz more 
Anyway there are only our comments.... what a coincidence


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 10, 2010)

Call of Duty 4 isn't a very hard game to run.  It gets 96-97 FPS on a Core i7 920 and Radeon HD 4890 at maximum settings: 1920x1200x32, 4x AA, 16x AF.

The issue I have is that OS makes virtually no difference:
Windows XP = 97.1 (100.00%)
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition = 97 (99.90%)
Windows 7 64-bit = 96.7 (99.59%)
Windows Vista 64-bit = 96.6 (99.49%)
Windows Vista 32-bit = 96.5 (99.38%)
Windows 7 32-bit = 96.3 (99.18%)

The range is <1% performance difference regardless of OS.

The conclusion is, therefore, absolute: the difference you saw in your framerate was due to ancient drivers and ancient drivers alone.


----------



## GSquadron (May 10, 2010)

Man, I published the benchmark with nvidias latest drivers and the result was about 20 point difference which is a total 0!!! Nvidia has always been good with drivers so ancient drivers still perform veryyyyy good


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 10, 2010)

Your results are atypical and most likely something specific to your system (like inadequate RAM).


----------



## DrPepper (May 10, 2010)

Hmm now I think about it my 8800GTS couldn't max out the textures on Cod4


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 10, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Call of Duty 4 isn't a very hard game to run.  It gets 96-97 FPS on a Core i7 920 and Radeon HD 4890 at maximum settings: 1920x1200x32, 4x AA, 16x AF.
> 
> The issue I have is that OS makes virtually no difference:
> Windows XP = 97.1 (100.00%)
> ...



Dude, your honestly can't be serious? Comparing a 4890 and a i7 920 to a Sempron 3000 with a 7600GS.


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 10, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> AHAHA yeah!
> Looks like i have overclocked it to 720mhz, 10 mhz more
> Anyway there are only our comments.... what a coincidence



Yep. It sure is a coincidence.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 10, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> Dude, your honestly can't be serious? Comparing a 4890 and a i7 920 to a Sempron 3000 with a 7600GS.


I know it's quite a bit lower but that was the closest benchmark to what he has (in terms of performance as opposed to a 275 GTX).  The point is, if the hardware is adequate, OS makes very little difference in Call of Duty 4.


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 10, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I know it's quite a bit lower but that was the closest benchmark to what he has (in terms of performance as opposed to a 275 GTX).  The point is, if the hardware is adequate, OS makes very little difference in Call of Duty 4.



Yeah i agree. You'll only be able to see a difference and thats a very small difference when you switch from Windows 7 to XP with only 1GB RAM. 2GB or more, you wont see any difference.


----------



## GSquadron (May 10, 2010)

Maybe it has to do with old hardware, that is all. Now they have maxed out all the potential the computer can take in both x86 and x64. Or maybe not


----------



## ShiBDiB (May 11, 2010)

this is troll feeding at its finest... and im happy to b a part of it


----------



## claylomax (May 14, 2010)

ShiBDiB said:


> this is troll feeding at its finest... and im happy to b a part of it



+1


----------



## Fourstaff (May 14, 2010)

Why is this thread still up? We need to bury it deep within the bowels of hell....


----------



## GSquadron (May 14, 2010)

This thread will stay up as demons pass by
Till than: THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!! (for all people trying to bury this thread )


----------



## DrPepper (May 14, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> This thread will stay up as demons pass by
> Till than: THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!! (for all people trying to bury this thread )



Nope it's techpowerup.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (May 14, 2010)

Nope, its Mech-Powerup! *nonsense off*


----------



## erocker (May 14, 2010)

Hockster said:


> http://members.shaw.ca/hockster/Funnies/bullshitmeter.gif





ShiBDiB said:


> this is troll feeding at its finest... and im happy to b a part of it





claylomax said:


> +1





Fourstaff said:


> Why is this thread still up? We need to bury it deep within the bowels of hell....





Aleksander Dishnica said:


> This thread will stay up as demons pass by
> Till than: THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!! (for all people trying to bury this thread )





DrPepper said:


> Nope it's techpowerup.





Velvet Wafer said:


> Nope, its Mech-Powerup! *nonsense off*



None of these posts are on topic. If you cannot participate in the topic at hand or can't handle the topic at hand, don't post in this thread including any sort of "follow up" or "response" to this post.


----------



## ShiBDiB (May 14, 2010)

referring to a post by a mod who may not b named, i fully wonder why this thread still exists. I also wish i could reference said post without fear of the ban hammer.


----------



## GSquadron (May 14, 2010)

It is logical that this thread still exists.
As soon as you post a reply, you just shed light on it.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2010)

I don't have a problem with this thread. It's pretty insulting to the OP to keep wanting to kill it. Come on, chill out people.


----------



## ShiBDiB (May 14, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> It is logical that this thread still exists.
> As soon as you post a reply, you just shed light on it.



then stop replying to me..

shit i jus posted..

its thread is like black hole, we dont understand why it exists, and we cant do anything to stop it


----------



## GSquadron (May 14, 2010)

I reply because this thread is becoming a V.I.P thread, one of a kind


----------



## boulard83 (May 14, 2010)

We are still waiting for real gaming screenshot or video ... 

No tweeked screenshot or anything, screen showing FPS/settings/CPUz/GPUz. REAL PROOF. 

Cuz as you can see, no one trust you. There is no way that you can have Twice or more the performance 32bit vs 64bit with such a system.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2010)

boulard83 said:


> We are still waiting for real gaming screenshot or video ...
> 
> No tweeked screenshot or anything, screen showing FPS/settings/CPUz/GPUz. REAL PROOF.
> 
> Cuz as you can see, no one trust you. There is no way that you can have Twice or more the performance 32bit vs 64bit with such a system.



I'll second that. Come on Aleksander, people will start taking you seriously if you do provide the proof.


----------



## erocker (May 14, 2010)

Indeed, 10 days is plenty of time to provide actual/factual information. Without it, this thread is very close to trolling/spamming/post count whoring/boredom/etc. Therefore, this thread is shut down due to lack of focus and direction. It's unfortunate that so many of you have had "take the bait" and post in this thread to make it even worse.

Consider this thread closed. No more posting.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 14, 2010)

closed because this whole thread is useless.


----------

