x64 vs x86.. surprising results in performance (x86 better)?

[Guest markm75]

I could have sworn that previous things i had read, stated that running x64

vista was generally 5-20% slower than the x86 version?

 

I ran some recent tests on my hardware with PerformanceTest v6.1 (an x86

version and x64 version)...

 

My base computer is a 1.86GHZ dual core with 4gb memory and a geforce 8600GT

pci-e x16 card.. the harddrives are all SATAII.

 

I kept the software set identical on each machine, each machine was bare

formatted and then only a handful of apps installed.. same configs on each:

 

My basic Passmark rating on x86 was 472.2 and 575.1 on x64 (so x64 was 17.9%

better overall).

 

 

I did the run all tests option (and clicked cancel when it tried to test the

Cdrom)... The x86 lagged behind the x64 in all areas except CPU find prime

numbers, CPU string sorting.. Disk sequential read (so in these 3 categories

the x86 version performed better)...

 

I'm guessing that x86 probably has better load times on apps, hence the

whole 20% better with x86 type statements, but not really regarding overall

peformance?

 

Anyone have any thoughts?

 

 

 

Thanks

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: x64 vs x86.. surprising results in performance (x86 better)?

 

No one here should have told you x64 was slower. Oh, it _might_ be very

slightly for a 32-bit app, depending on the app. But in most cases it will

be faster or the same even for 32-bit apps. The single biggest reason is the

I/O subsystem, which is 64bits wide and faster accessing the disks. But

overall? I would definitely expect x64 to be faster or the same on

indentical hardware. (and note that while you only have 4GB of RAM, x64 will

let you use all of it. x86 will not. And you can generally go up to 8 GB of

RAM on a typical DDR2 or DDR3 motherboard - 32-bit Windows is NOT going to

see any of that RAM past 4GB.)

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

 

 

"markm75" <markm75@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:7F5E6B9A-F851-473C-9A71-B571E51F91CD@microsoft.com...

>I could have sworn that previous things i had read, stated that running x64

> vista was generally 5-20% slower than the x86 version?

>

> I ran some recent tests on my hardware with PerformanceTest v6.1 (an x86

> version and x64 version)...

>

> My base computer is a 1.86GHZ dual core with 4gb memory and a geforce

> 8600GT

> pci-e x16 card.. the harddrives are all SATAII.

>

> I kept the software set identical on each machine, each machine was bare

> formatted and then only a handful of apps installed.. same configs on

> each:

>

> My basic Passmark rating on x86 was 472.2 and 575.1 on x64 (so x64 was

> 17.9%

> better overall).

>

>

> I did the run all tests option (and clicked cancel when it tried to test

> the

> Cdrom)... The x86 lagged behind the x64 in all areas except CPU find

> prime

> numbers, CPU string sorting.. Disk sequential read (so in these 3

> categories

> the x86 version performed better)...

>

> I'm guessing that x86 probably has better load times on apps, hence the

> whole 20% better with x86 type statements, but not really regarding

> overall

> peformance?

>

> Anyone have any thoughts?

>

>

>

> Thanks

>

>

>

[Guest S.SubZero]

Re: x64 vs x86.. surprising results in performance (x86 better)?

 

My laptop with XP32:

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=1204661

 

My laptop with XP64:

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=4123478

 

Will XP64 always be faster than XP32 under every single possible set

of conditions? No.

 

Does XP64 have the potential to be as fast as, if not faster than,

XP32, under normal conditions? Yes.

 

64-bit Windows deals with more info, so yes, there is some additional

churning for that. But at least when comparing XP32 to XP64, remember

XP64 is based on the Win2K3 codebase, which is generally considered

more tweaked than XP32. It all evens out at the end I think, tho

XP64's servery style may help with server-centric operations, like

hard disk access.

[Guest jabloomf1230]

Re: x64 vs x86.. surprising results in performance (x86 better)?

 

Those are 3DMark06 artificial benchmarks, but unfortunately the URLs

don't work for me, prolly because I have to be logged in as you to see

your the project details. Post the SM 2.0, SM 3.0 and CPU test results

and maybe we could figure out what's going on. You do realize that

Futuremark does not officially support x64 Windows in any flavor, don't you?

 

In any case, the key work here is "artificial". 3DMark06 is a nice tool

for tuning your system, but it is not always a good predictor of real

world performance in specific games, etc.. My personal experience (both

with XP and Vista) is that the 32 and 64 bit versions of each OS perform

about the same with 3DMark06. You have to use the same video driver

version and keep everything else constant. When Vista first was

released, it was significantly slower than XP (again both 32 and 64 bit

versions), but as the video drivers improved and Vista was patched,

there is very little difference in performance, at least using 3DMark06

as the yardstick.

 

S.SubZero wrote:

> My laptop with XP32:

> http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=1204661

>

> My laptop with XP64:

> http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=4123478

>

> Will XP64 always be faster than XP32 under every single possible set

> of conditions? No.

>

> Does XP64 have the potential to be as fast as, if not faster than,

> XP32, under normal conditions? Yes.

>

> 64-bit Windows deals with more info, so yes, there is some additional

> churning for that. But at least when comparing XP32 to XP64, remember

> XP64 is based on the Win2K3 codebase, which is generally considered

> more tweaked than XP32. It all evens out at the end I think, tho

> XP64's servery style may help with server-centric operations, like

> hard disk access.

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: x64 vs x86.. surprising results in performance (x86 better)?

 

"about the same" is what I'd generally expect. Any benchmark that is highly

disk I/O centric, however, I'd expect to be faster in XP x64.

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

 

 

"jabloomf1230" <jabloomf@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message

news:%23BBVNNlUIHA.4768@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Those are 3DMark06 artificial benchmarks, but unfortunately the URLs don't

> work for me, prolly because I have to be logged in as you to see your the

> project details. Post the SM 2.0, SM 3.0 and CPU test results and maybe we

> could figure out what's going on. You do realize that Futuremark does not

> officially support x64 Windows in any flavor, don't you?

>

> In any case, the key work here is "artificial". 3DMark06 is a nice tool

> for tuning your system, but it is not always a good predictor of real

> world performance in specific games, etc.. My personal experience (both

> with XP and Vista) is that the 32 and 64 bit versions of each OS perform

> about the same with 3DMark06. You have to use the same video driver

> version and keep everything else constant. When Vista first was released,

> it was significantly slower than XP (again both 32 and 64 bit versions),

> but as the video drivers improved and Vista was patched, there is very

> little difference in performance, at least using 3DMark06 as the

> yardstick.

>

> S.SubZero wrote:

>> My laptop with XP32:

>> http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=1204661

>>

>> My laptop with XP64:

>> http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=4123478

>>

>> Will XP64 always be faster than XP32 under every single possible set

>> of conditions? No.

>>

>> Does XP64 have the potential to be as fast as, if not faster than,

>> XP32, under normal conditions? Yes.

>>

>> 64-bit Windows deals with more info, so yes, there is some additional

>> churning for that. But at least when comparing XP32 to XP64, remember

>> XP64 is based on the Win2K3 codebase, which is generally considered

>> more tweaked than XP32. It all evens out at the end I think, tho

>> XP64's servery style may help with server-centric operations, like

>> hard disk access.

[Guest Jim Henriksen]

Re: x64 vs x86.. surprising results in performance (x86 better)?

 

Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:

> No one here should have told you x64 was slower. Oh, it _might_ be very

> slightly for a 32-bit app, depending on the app. But in most cases it

> will be faster or the same even for 32-bit apps. The single biggest

> reason is the I/O subsystem, which is 64bits wide and faster accessing

> the disks. But overall? I would definitely expect x64 to be faster or

> the same on indentical hardware. (and note that while you only have 4GB

> of RAM, x64 will let you use all of it. x86 will not. And you can

> generally go up to 8 GB of RAM on a typical DDR2 or DDR3 motherboard -

> 32-bit Windows is NOT going to see any of that RAM past 4GB.)

>

 

Dear Charlie:

 

I'm a compiler writer. I spent about 8 months porting a 32-bit compiler

to 64 bits a year-and-a-half ago. My software is used for

discrete-event simulation, which is almost always 100% CPU-bound and

does lots of list processing and logic, and a modest amount of floating

point. In my experience, these applications generally run roughly 6-7%

slower in 64-bit mode, compared to 32-bit mode. Since pointers are

twice as wide, it's understandable that heavy list-processing might be

slower.

 

I also do some 3D graphics work that's long on linear algebra. While I

haven't done any benchmarking, I've stepped through a lot of X87 code.

I've seen instances in which C++ (Visual Studio 2005) falls all over

itself trying to intelligent floating point register allocation. I

surmise that using SSE floating point arithmetic (required under X64)

would result in much cleaner code generation; however, since I have no

need to go to 64 bits, that's just a guess on my part.

 

In addition, almost all math/trig functions are done in software in

64-bit mode, where many of these can exploit X87 built-in instructions

in 32-bit mode. Some of the 64-bit software math/trig functions are

faster than their hardware-based 32-bit equivalents, and vice versa, and

of course, performance varies from chipset to chipset.

 

As we all know, the bottom line is to look before you leap and benchmark

the kind of code that's near and dear to you.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: x64 vs x86.. surprising results in performance (x86 better)?

 

And yet, many who have moved to 64bit have found that the extra registers

make their software noticeably faster, even when memory isn't an issue.

 

Yes, it matters what the application does, and how it uses what's in the

processors. There will be applications on both sides of the divide, but

overall? I think we'll see increasing improvements as the quality of the

software for 64bit improves.

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

 

 

"Jim Henriksen" <mail@wolverinesoftware.com> wrote in message

news:ezE3cCnUIHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:

>> No one here should have told you x64 was slower. Oh, it _might_ be very

>> slightly for a 32-bit app, depending on the app. But in most cases it

>> will be faster or the same even for 32-bit apps. The single biggest

>> reason is the I/O subsystem, which is 64bits wide and faster accessing

>> the disks. But overall? I would definitely expect x64 to be faster or the

>> same on indentical hardware. (and note that while you only have 4GB of

>> RAM, x64 will let you use all of it. x86 will not. And you can generally

>> go up to 8 GB of RAM on a typical DDR2 or DDR3 motherboard - 32-bit

>> Windows is NOT going to see any of that RAM past 4GB.)

>>

>

> Dear Charlie:

>

> I'm a compiler writer. I spent about 8 months porting a 32-bit compiler

> to 64 bits a year-and-a-half ago. My software is used for discrete-event

> simulation, which is almost always 100% CPU-bound and does lots of list

> processing and logic, and a modest amount of floating point. In my

> experience, these applications generally run roughly 6-7% slower in 64-bit

> mode, compared to 32-bit mode. Since pointers are twice as wide, it's

> understandable that heavy list-processing might be slower.

>

> I also do some 3D graphics work that's long on linear algebra. While I

> haven't done any benchmarking, I've stepped through a lot of X87 code.

> I've seen instances in which C++ (Visual Studio 2005) falls all over

> itself trying to intelligent floating point register allocation. I

> surmise that using SSE floating point arithmetic (required under X64)

> would result in much cleaner code generation; however, since I have no

> need to go to 64 bits, that's just a guess on my part.

>

> In addition, almost all math/trig functions are done in software in 64-bit

> mode, where many of these can exploit X87 built-in instructions in 32-bit

> mode. Some of the 64-bit software math/trig functions are faster than

> their hardware-based 32-bit equivalents, and vice versa, and of course,

> performance varies from chipset to chipset.

>

> As we all know, the bottom line is to look before you leap and benchmark

> the kind of code that's near and dear to you.

>

> Regards,

> Jim

[Guest S.SubZero]

Re: x64 vs x86.. surprising results in performance (x86 better)?

 

On Jan 8, 4:05 pm, jabloomf1230 <jablo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

> Those are 3DMark06 artificial benchmarks, but unfortunately the URLs

> don't work for me, prolly because I have to be logged in as you to see

> your the project details. Post the SM 2.0, SM 3.0 and CPU test results

> and maybe we could figure out what's going on. You do realize that

> Futuremark does not officially support x64 Windows in any flavor, don't you?

>

> In any case, the key work here is "artificial". 3DMark06 is a nice tool

> for tuning your system, but it is not always a good predictor of real

> world performance in specific games, etc.. My personal experience (both

 

XP32:

Main Test Results

3DMark Score 3544 3DMarks

SM 2.0 Score 1370 Marks

SM 3.0 Score 1381 Marks

CPU Score 1713 Marks

 

XP64:

Main Test Results

3DMark Score 3551 3DMarks

SM 2.0 Score 1366 Marks

SM 3.0 Score 1378 Marks

CPU Score 1778 Marks

 

While you can completely blow off 3DMark as just an artificial

benchmark, it's an artificial benchmark that can always run 100% the

exact same way every single time it's run. The "real world"

performance you are looking for is exactly what 3DMark is providing.

It's telling you that everything else being equal, in a stressing 32-

bit benchmark tool, XP64 generates the same numbers.