Windows xp 64bit vs 32bit

I see benchmarks all the time for the new 64bit processors but I am curious to see how the benchmarks would be if someone tested the 64bit system on windows xp 64bit and then on 32bit. What actually becomes faster? Jsut the operating system or everything? Will only programs/games/applications that have been programmed to take advantage of the 64bit processor really be the only things to have a huge gain when using windows xp 64bit?

I'm a little grey on the whole topic... can we discuss this?

At the same clock speed there shouldn't be any difference to speak of. The big difference is you'll be able to access more than 4GB of RAM at a time.

I think a common misperception is that people think thier performance will double... twice the bits = twice the fps in Quake. Thats simply not the case.

You are ALWAYS limited by the slowest component whether it be software or hardware. You could have 64bit chip, and OS, and the fastest ram, BUT that hard disk my hinder you are that hardware driver may slow you a bit. 64Bit IS faster but only when everything else is running relative.

At the same clock speed the 64Bit AMD chip IS faster than its Athlon XP counterpart. The 64Bit AMD FX processes more efficiently, has more transistors yada yada. Read the reviews...

There are other things in the FX as well as being 64 bit that make it more efficient/ faster. The 64 bitness in itself doesn't add any speed though.

the programs have to be 64bit based - u can not install 32bits apps in the 64bit windows - as far as i know.....???


the processor like the Opterons how ever can work with both 32 and 64bit apps. so it is your choice what O/S to use.

Isn't Microsoft releasing a separate AMD 64-bit Windows?
I would imagine, given the nature of AMD 64-bit processors and their 32-bit compatibilty, that this version of Windows will also allow you run 32-bit apps.
But that's just conjecture - when was the last time Microsoft did anything sensible...

Rgds
AndyF

mmm

i dont see why windows would go and make an O/S just for AMD - i think that would piss off intel just a little.


as well that would kill sales of windows 64bit as everyone would buy windows 64/32. and not any windows 32 or 64 sepratly - who knows.

A few links for your 64 bit viewing pleasure

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,4248,1013207,00.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/faq.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/Apr03/04-09AthlonOpteronPR.asp

Well I must say I noticed a bit of a difference when I built a couple of Athlon 64 boxes for clients. Since only XP Pro (32bit) was installed I can only give you a subjective opinion on the speed. However I think that there was a noticable difference with the Athlon 64 box compared to a both a P4 and Athlon XP box of similar speeds. All things being equal, I think that perhaps there is also some differences in both the CPU and the Motherboard chipset that seems to help out here, even on a 32bit OS.

The motherboard was the Asus K8V based on the VIA KT800 chipset. I beleive the effeciency of the CPU/Chipset and motherboard design help to increase the performance even on a 32bit OS

Of course I didn't get to play around as long as I wanted to but 3D Mark also gave higher scores then comparable boxes with other CPU's.

Also note that the Athlon 64/FX share the same heatsink/fan combo as the Opteron does. Nice way of keeping cost's down so you don't have to come out with separate cooling devices for each flavor of CPU

A few posts on the speed difference of 64 bit vs. 32 bit.

http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
http://www.thejemreport.com/lab64/64bit.php

This is a tough topic to find good info about. There is a lot of marketing driven material out there to sort through.

the Opteron and FX51's / FX' s - are indentical chips as far as i can see - excetp the socket.

PS - do not buy a FX chip - since AMD has plan to change the socket in the comming months.

they are doing what intel did with the P4 - alot of people bought 423 and then they change to 478.

So if u can wait! and dont buy - heck, or even recommend an FX at this time - they are going to turn the FX into the budget chip i recall.

Good point unless you really need to run a fast 64-bit *nix flavor

Also I thought that AMD's roadmap was to eventually make the currenty Athlon XP's rebadged as Duron's for the entry level, then the Athlon 64's as the mid-range then the FX's as the high-end/enthusiast. My guess is that they may want to consider dropping the Opteron if indeed the FX will have the same archetecture, i.e., support SMP and the multiple Hypertransport connections

But it's possible they will want to just rebadge FX cpu's as Opteron's and try to sell them at a higher price

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system unless they want to try and screw us all over.

We can run 8 and 16 bit programs on 32 bit Windows.

You'll be able to run 32bit stuff. On the Intel 64bit system it'll run in a compatibility mode, with reduced performance. On the AMD side 32bit will run native, with no slowdown. 16bit isn't supported at all on the Intel. I'm not sure about the AMD.

from what i was reading 64 bit windows won't support 16 bit programs only 32 bit.

^^^^ makes sense - start to do away with an old coding out with the old in with the new.