# XP 64-bit vs. Vista 64-bit



## Mandown (Nov 2, 2007)

Which in yalls opinion would be better? I think the vista one would be better since my laptop has vista (32-bit) and i have had less problems than with XP. I do mostly gaming and i hear both have it's problems with games. All of my stuff is vista ready, its just when it comes to a 64-bit OS i hear nothing but problems that people have.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 2, 2007)

vista 64 works with everything vista 32 does. anything that doesnt work is only the really old things, that were designed for old OS's like windows 98 and so on.

vista 64 works fine with every game thats DX7 and up, in my testing.


----------



## Mandown (Nov 2, 2007)

Ok now is the any noticable difference between the 32 and 64 editions. Like a performance increase, better visual quality, I guess I'm asking is it really worth getting a 64-bit over the 32-bit?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 2, 2007)

64 can use 4GB of ram and above, 32 bit is stuck at 4GB (page file, video ram, and system ram combined) - this IS causing problems in some games, especially large RTS games like supreme commander and company of heroes.

performance and quality come from hardware, not the OS 

more or less, 64 bit requires signed drivers and supports more ram. Its a LOT better choice for the long run because within 2 years i can guarantee 4GB will be normal for a gamer, if not 8GB.

the signed drivers is a downer in a few ways, because small apps like coretemp and ATItool cant run under normal circumstances. However on the plus side, no more dodgy drivers from companies, making the OS more stable.


----------



## Mediocre (Nov 2, 2007)

Mussels, wouldn't that require the games to be 64-bit?

IDK, if your OS is 64-bit, you CAN run a 32-bit program, but it runs in 32-bit mode. Is a program running in 32-bit mode able to use addresses that are only mapped in 64-bit?

AFAIK the only way to see PERFORMANCE improvements on a 64-bit OS is to run 64-bit programs (I thought Farcry had been ported to 64-bit?)


Also, I read somewhere how to get around the signed drivers thing. It's a registry change if I remember right...


----------



## ChaoticBlankness (Nov 2, 2007)

Vista (any version) is currently slower than XP x86.

XP X64 is faster than XP x86 as it uses the Server 2003 kernel, I use XP x64 and know this to be true.

However, with the promised performance gains from Vista SP1 and you as a gamer probably wanting/needing DX10 and over 3.xGB RAM down the line somewhere I'd recommend "Vista Home Premium X64".


----------



## wiak (Nov 2, 2007)

Mussels said:


> vista 64 works with everything vista 32 does. anything that doesnt work is only the really old things, that were designed for old OS's like windows 98 and so on.
> 
> vista 64 works fine with every game thats DX7 and up, in my testing.


+1 agree
read this
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1


64-bit is more secure, as 32-bit viruses cant infect 64-bit system files
64-bit supported software will run faster in 64-bit vista/xp
preformace can be over 20% faster with 64-bit when its compiled for it
this includes far cry 64-bit, half-life 2 64-bit, most adoble software etc


----------



## von kain (Nov 2, 2007)

ChaoticBlankness said:


> Vista (any version) is currently slower than XP x86.
> 
> XP X64 is faster than XP x86 as it uses the Server 2003 kernel, I use XP x64 and know this to be true.
> 
> However, with the promised performance gains from Vista SP1 and you as a gamer probably wanting/needing DX10 and over 3.xGB RAM down the line somewhere I'd recommend "Vista Home Premium X64".




as a x64 user for quit some time the only problem coming  in some old hardware  the performance gain is about 25-30% tested on my computer on hl2 x64 and x86 plus that x64 is rock solid i mean so stable that sometimes i can't believe it


----------



## mpeg3s (Nov 2, 2007)

*Macromedia*

The only thing I don't like about x64 is the FLASH brower support. Adobel/Macro doesn't support x64.

Java doesn't support x64 web either.


----------



## wiak (Nov 2, 2007)

mpeg3s said:


> The only thing I don't like about x64 is the FLASH brower support. Adobel/Macro doesn't support x64.
> 
> Java doesn't support x64 web either.



thats wrong
sun has 64-bit java even adobe got 64-bit flash support
it was the beta days of xp x64 you refer to 

there is even 2 versions of IE, you got 32-bit and 64-bit so if something dont work in 64-bit you can go back to 32-bit but hey opera/firefox works as it does in 32-bit

there is no reason not to go to 64-bit os now
any new game works just  as in 32-bit with no preformace hit


----------



## Mandown (Nov 2, 2007)

Ok that clears up a lot, i will probably go to 64-bit vista sometime next year, seems like nothing i have will be affected in a bad way.

So basically most things that is 32-bit will run normally and if it is 64-bit it will run better.


----------



## wiak (Nov 2, 2007)

Mandown said:


> Ok that clears up a lot, i will probably go to 64-bit vista sometime next year, seems like nothing i have will be affected in a bad way.
> 
> So basically most things that is 32-bit will run normally and if it is 64-bit it will run better.


all systems from 2003 support 64-bit if it has a 64-bit enabled cpu


----------



## Mandown (Nov 2, 2007)

what i was trying to say is that on a 64-bit OS all 32-bit apps will run as normal while a 64-bit will run better. ex. Farcry 64-bit > Farcry 32-bit. Right?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 3, 2007)

Mediocre said:


> Mussels, wouldn't that require the games to be 64-bit?
> 
> IDK, if your OS is 64-bit, you CAN run a 32-bit program, but it runs in 32-bit mode. Is a program running in 32-bit mode able to use addresses that are only mapped in 64-bit?
> 
> ...




No, the games are needed to use above 4GB of ram themselves - but with 64 bit thats 4GB of ram for the game, with however much video ram and page file you have. on 32 bit, they all fight for the same address space. so yes, there IS a benefit to 32 bit apps in 64 bit vista/XP. (for example. i have 4GB of ram, but a 768MB video card and a 2GB page file. that leaves me with 1.3GB of ram accesible to most games... and some like supreme commander are not natively 2GB+ aware. that meant the game ALWAYS crashed on me as it reached 1.3GB ram usage, the onyl fix being to mod the .exe file. The expansion does not suffer from this problem)


As said also, vista is a little slower in some things - however i find multi core tasks (games especially) to be faster in vista. Lets leave vista/vs XP out of this thread however, its about 32/64 comparisons.


----------



## oblivionlord (Nov 7, 2007)

ChaoticBlankness said:


> Vista (any version) is currently slower than XP x86.
> 
> XP X64 is faster than XP x86 as it uses the Server 2003 kernel, I use XP x64 and know this to be true.
> 
> However, with the promised performance gains from Vista SP1 and you as a gamer probably wanting/needing DX10 and over 3.xGB RAM down the line somewhere I'd recommend "Vista Home Premium X64".



This is untrue. For a gamer the drivers and optimizations have matured greatly...

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/page3.asp

As you can see with QuakeWars and all the other modern games they benched with, the differences are negligible. If you are seeing a noticeable difference in performance (vista vs Xp) in a new game that isn't showing within these benches then it's possible that it could be running in Dx10 mode in Vista if the game offers it since any modern game ran in XP will be DX9. 

There are some exceptions though. For instance Crysis can be ran in Xp at a Very High settings when hacked. The visual differences vs Vista at the same setting being DX10 vs Dx9 is negligible since Crysis isn't using DX10 to it's fullest like FlightSimX. However there is a slight performance edge when running it on Very High in Xp over Vista. That's because Vista DX10 is still offering some extent of lighting and shadowing over XP. This unbalances the game thus giving XP an edge. 

But, when effects are equal then by judging on that site, you can see how things have come a long way to the point where the subject is no longer considered for debate.



Steel123 said:


> Ok now is the any noticable difference between the 32 and 64 editions. Like a performance increase, better visual quality, I guess I'm asking is it really worth getting a 64-bit over the 32-bit?



Perhaps this will answer your question when a game really utilizes 64bit out of the box without being patched like Farcry and UT2k4.....

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=7


----------



## Atnevon (Nov 8, 2007)

wiak said:


> +1 agree
> read this
> http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1
> 
> ...



I agree completly, but with a few different notes to add.

I tried out x64 and x32 XP on my computer when I first got it built. I have to say though, I got pretty frustraited with x64. Most programs worked fine, but little things kept getting to me. For example, Half Life 2 ran great. No problem what so ever. However, CS:Source I wish I could hit with a bone. It somehow loaded chunky, and didn't want to load servers that I had the right IPs for.

Other applications don't work. For example, Windowblinds I adore. I hate the standard windows look, and even the Win 2000 look. I like the customization and coloring (Vista is good at this, thank god). However, outside of that, many security programs like Avast, Sygate (firewall) Comando (firewall) would not instal or behave strangly. Avast for example would not like to give full scans in a decent time (5 hours plus what I was getting). 

Overall, x64 worked for what it was made to do. There is driver support out there for esentially the BARE essentials. Like mobo, gpu, usb...ect. However, little things over time drove me from it. I would use it agian for sure if I were to run a server from a different computer (heh heh, seeing it was built off XP Server 2003).

I personally believe that in our day and time now, the x64 processors are just begining to surface. Much like the HDTV market. This is really the biggest jump in technology I have seen since 2000 (when Broadband was getting big in the home consumer market). Because though the technology is newer, we are in a transition period. This is why now I believe the x64 OSs are not yet neccesary. I run x32 just fine, and notice very little in performance. (I got 11600 in 3DMark 06 on x32, 11300 in x64. I too never noticed performance in games. Bioshock 9.0c for instance) Becuase of this transition, you can really go either way. In about 2 years though, x64 will become more standard. Games will be made for them, programs written, and drivers will be better. This is a great time though to learn and explore to see what might and might not work. 

In all, either will work just fine. Just remember what you do more of. If you game, x32. If you do more work (design for me, but I still gotta game often) and HAVE the progams that have x64 support, then the x64 OS will fit you better.

Hope that Helped,
-Andrew

EDIT: If you know you are going DX10, then OS leaves you with Vista. However, this is a different topic in itself. Just to leave it short and what I think, its not worth it yet. Let Vista fix itself with SP1 more, and continue to rock out DX9c with those uber powerful cards. Who says just because its a 8800/2900HD dosn't make it a kick ass card.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 8, 2007)

Mandown said:


> Which in yalls opinion would be better? I think the vista one would be better since my laptop has vista (32-bit) and i have had less problems than with XP. I do mostly gaming and i hear both have it's problems with games. All of my stuff is vista ready, its just when it comes to a 64-bit OS i hear nothing but problems that people have.



I have 0 problems with Vista x64. Vista x64 has more x64 support than XP x64 does. I say go with Vista x64.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 8, 2007)

Mandown said:


> Ok now is the any noticable difference between the 32 and 64 editions. Like a performance increase, better visual quality, I guess I'm asking is it really worth getting a 64-bit over the 32-bit?



When I went from XP 32 to XP 64 I noticed a slight performance increase. When I went from Vista 32 to Vista 64, I also noticed a very slight increase, but not much. 

The only subtle difference between the two are the support for more RAM. It offers nothing visually. I say only get the 64-bit if you have 4GB or more RAM.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 8, 2007)

wiak said:


> +1 agree
> read this
> http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1
> 
> ...



I did not know about the virus thing. That is good to hear. Thought it makes sense, I didnt realize it. 

Crysis has proved the performance increase on a 64-bit computer.


----------



## Atnevon (Nov 8, 2007)

I might have to give x64 Vista a look soon. Can't do DX10 right without it.


----------



## oblivionlord (Nov 9, 2007)

Atnevon

I don't know when it was you used Vista64 last but, you may want to recheck the program compatibilities again for 64bit support.

Windowblinds..under sys requirements
http://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/index.asp

Avast
http://www.avast.com/eng/avast-antivirus-and-windows-vista.html

Comodo which I think you are referring to doesn't even have a Vista compatible firewall. 

Sygate sold out to Symantec back in 05 therefore you'll only get support for existing Sygate firewalls since their firewalls from that point on have been discontinued. 

There are dozens of firewalls to choose from so you don't need to limit your selection to these. 
As long as you have modern hardware, you don't have to worry about driver incompatabilities with Vista64 at least from reputable manufacturers like Asus, Gigabyte, DFI, MSI etc etc
Gaming in 64bit shows next to no performance loss compared to 32bit since the emulation is so great.


----------



## Atnevon (Nov 9, 2007)

oblivionlord said:


> Atnevon
> 
> I don't know when it was you used Vista64 last but, you may want to recheck the program compatibilities again for 64bit support.
> 
> ...




I had XP (XP Pro x64 to be specific), not Vista x64.


----------



## oblivionlord (Nov 9, 2007)

XP64 has much less software and hardware support than Vista 64. I would agree with your post 100% if XP64 was the only one to choose from however Vista64 is just a better option overall.


----------



## Atnevon (Nov 9, 2007)

oblivionlord said:


> XP64 has much less software and hardware support than Vista 64. I would agree with your post 100% if XP64 was the only one to choose from however Vista64 is just a better option overall.



Agreed. And from what I hear, if you gut Vista to a near shell, then it rules.


----------



## von kain (Nov 9, 2007)

i have to tell from my experience (since i have win xp x64 for over a year now) use xp x64 only on amd cpus since there are true x64 machines and not em64t of intel.the performance is enough the stability unbelievable the worst on x64 is the   support


----------



## Wile E (Nov 9, 2007)

oblivionlord said:


> XP64 has much less software and hardware support than Vista 64. I would agree with your post 100% if XP64 was the only one to choose from however Vista64 is just a better option overall.


While it used to be true, this isn't really true anymore. There are a few lesser known items that aren't supported in XP x64 (mostly legacy hardware), but if you have a fairly up to date machine, you're most likely fine. Most of the incompatibilities it had at it's release, are resolved. There are many AV/Firewall programs that work now, and I haven't had so much as a single issue with hardware support. The release of SP2 has further improved matters. The only things I have issues with, are small-time programs that require low-level drivers, but don't have x64 versions.

You should re-evaluate XP x64. It's relatively apparent it's been a while since you have used it. <---- That's not meant to be an insult. It's meant as an observation.


----------



## oblivionlord (Nov 9, 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMT64#Intel_64

You can read up on the history here. Intel cloned the AMD64 instruction set to be used in their chips which they still use in their Core 2 Duo as well. Scroll down to "Differences between AMD64 and Intel 64" and "Older implementations" to see the main differences.

"*While it used to be true, this isn't really true anymore. There are a few lesser known items that aren't supported in XP x64 (mostly legacy hardware), but if you have a fairly up to date machine, you're most likely fine. Most of the incompatibilities it had at it's release, are resolved. There are many AV/Firewall programs that work now, and I haven't had so much as a single issue with hardware support. The release of SP2 has further improved matters. The only things I have issues with, are small-time programs that require low-level drivers, but don't have x64 versions.*"

I disagree. Although Xp64 has come a ways from it's introduction, if you just go to each and every manufacturers site and see all the driver support for modern hardware.... you will still find more Vista64 drivers over XP64. The difference may not be as large of a gab as it used to be but, it's still there. Also the fact that Vista is taking over XP eventually just like Xp to 2k which further puts the nail in the coffin but, this isn't going to happen anytime soon. As it stands, Vista has a good million more pre-installed drivers compared to XP and it's just getting larger and larger. This isn't the best for stability since the majority of crashes are from third party driver conflicts but, it just goes to show you the amount of support that Vista has compared to Xp out of the box manly to be more of a user friendly OS. When Vista Sp1 integrated comes out then you'll see a large shift but, I would still say a good 6 or so months even after it's release. As it stands, people really don't need to switch to Vista but, give it another year or so and you'll see a change.


----------



## oblivionlord (Nov 9, 2007)

...


----------



## Wile E (Nov 10, 2007)

oblivionlord said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMT64#Intel_64
> 
> You can read up on the history here. Intel cloned the AMD64 instruction set to be used in their chips which they still use in their Core 2 Duo as well. Scroll down to "Differences between AMD64 and Intel 64" and "Older implementations" to see the main differences.
> 
> ...


Still the way you worded yourself originally, made it sound as if they were worlds apart(well, from my perspective, anyway. lol), but they are not. Yes, comparatively, Vista has more hardware support than XP x64, but XP x64 is not leagues behind. It still has support for most modern hardware.

As far as software, anything that doesn't run on XP x64, most likely, also, does not run on Vista x64, so that point is mostly moot.


----------

