1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

My rig is a beast in x64

Discussion in 'General Software' started by Aleksander, May 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aleksander

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,254 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    304
    Looks like you are challenging my legendary 7600GS in a duel in call of duty!!!!
    :D :D :D
    Anyway if i ever get a chance to buy call of duty 4, i will prove it.
  2. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,821 (4.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,480
    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. :eek:

    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! :laugh:

    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.
  3. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,153 (5.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,545
    Location:
    Florida
    i think we also missed the fact that he is saying it ruins better on XP....of course it does. their DX10 games.
  4. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,445 (6.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,414
    Location:
    IA, USA
    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.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  5. Aleksander

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,254 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    304
    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...
  6. IINexusII

    IINexusII

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2009
    Messages:
    907 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Location:
    London, UK
    vista sucks on 1gb of ram. thats why you have a huge jump in performance
  7. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,445 (6.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,414
    Location:
    IA, USA
    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.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  8. Aleksander

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,254 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    304
    If that is what you call suck, it means my computer has no ram, while it can run vista :p
    @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.
  9. DrPepper

    DrPepper The Doctor is in the house

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,483 (3.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Scotland (It rains alot)
    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.
  10. Aleksander

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,254 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    304
    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.
  11. DrPepper

    DrPepper The Doctor is in the house

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,483 (3.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Scotland (It rains alot)
    It doesn't increase performace at all though. That's not what x64 instructions do. That's what SSE and 3DNow! instructions are for.
  12. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,445 (6.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,414
    Location:
    IA, USA
    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).
    Crunching for Team TPU
  13. Aleksander

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,254 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    304
    Well a lot of questions as if you dont see the proofs there. I got tired here!!! It is 24:00 so goodnight :p
  14. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,445 (6.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,414
    Location:
    IA, USA
    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.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  15. mdsx1950

    mdsx1950 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,107 (1.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    413
    Location:
    In a gaming world :D

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

    DrPepper The Doctor is in the house

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,483 (3.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Scotland (It rains alot)
    I've seen tests that disagree with your results though.
  17. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,821 (4.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,480
    Then our OP's results sound a bit unlikely...

    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.
  18. Aleksander

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,254 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    304
    @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! :)
  19. Aleksander

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,254 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    304
  20. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,821 (4.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,480
    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.
  21. mdsx1950

    mdsx1950 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,107 (1.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    413
    Location:
    In a gaming world :D
    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 ;)
  22. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,445 (6.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,414
    Location:
    IA, USA
    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.


    I concur but the difference isn't usually more than a few FPS (<3% +/-).
    Crunching for Team TPU
  23. Aleksander

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,254 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    304
    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 :p
    Even with 1 GB of ram.
  24. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,821 (4.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,480
    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:

    My reply to mdsx1950 would also apply to yourself. The results are nuts, but true.
  25. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,445 (6.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,414
    Location:
    IA, USA
    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 :laugh:).


    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.
    Last edited: May 6, 2010
    Crunching for Team TPU

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page