64-bit Vista SP1 Runs Faster than 32-bit Vista SP1 and 32-bit XP SP3!
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 29.4.2008
The 64-bit edition of Windows Vista delivers not only support for larger quantities of system memory, with the high-end editions supporting as much as 128 GB of RAM, but also some extra horse power hidden under the hood.
Essentially, in terms of performance, x64 Vista manages to best all the alternatives available under the Windows client umbrella. However, it's not the x64 Vista with Service Pack 1, as you would expect, but the plain vanilla RTM version of the latest Windows client we're talking about. In a benchmark performed using PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1, the RTM version of 64-bit Vista came out on top of all 32-bit and 64-bit Windows clients starting with the original version of Windows XP.
According to Hardware 2.0, x64 Vista RTM has outrun x64 Vista SP1 with a score of 1183.1 compared to just 1128.8. The platform used for testing featured a Phenom 9700 quad-core processor, an ATi Radeon 3850 256MB RAM, an ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe, 2GB (2 x 1GB) RAM, and a Western Digital Raptor HDD 10,000RPM 150GB as well as a Western Digital Caviar HDD 7,200RPM 500GB. On this system, the original 64-bit Vista version bested the SP1 release.
In this context, both 64-bit variants of Vista (with and without SP1) outperformed the 32-bit versions, also RTM and SP1. x86 Vista RTM even scored higher than x86 Vista SP1 with a rating of 1002.4 compared with just 972.3 of the operating system plus the service pack. But, at the same time, both XP RTM and XP SP3 scored higher than 32-bit Vista SP1. XP RTM pulled off a score of 1001.4, while XP SP3 with 990.8 bested not only x86 Vista SP1 but also XP SP2 with just 891, the lowest score of the benchmark. Still, the obvious conclusion of the tests is that while 64-bit Vista editions run faster than any other Windows client, the differences between the 32-bit variants of the operating systems are only superficial, and won't be felt in a real life scenario.
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Download 32-bit and 64-bit Vista SP1 RTM Slipstream ISO Images || 32-bit Vista SP1 = 1GB – 64-bit Vista SP1 = 1.5GB || Exchange 2007: 32-bit vs. 64-bit || Yes, You Can Turn 32-bit Vista into 64-bit Vista || Microsoft Makes Its Own: 32-bit Windows Vista vs. 64-bit Windows Vista
Comments(20)
hi it seems to me that the subjet of the article is not correct. according the article
"however, it's not the x64 vista with service pack 1, as you would expect, but the plain
vanilla rtm version of the latest windows client we're talking about. in a benchmark
performed using passmark performancetest 6.1, the rtm version of 64-bit vista came out on
top of all 32-bit and 64-bit windows clients starting with the original version of windows
xp"
it's the 64-bit processors that supports 128 gb of ram and *not* windows. you written it
as this is a windows feature... pelase... we know you are "the voice of redmond" but
pelase... be serious!
"64-bit vista sp1 runs faster than 32-bit vista sp1 and 32-bit xp sp3!"
64
bit is faster then 32 bit, give him a cookie for comparing an apple to a orange. btw, how
did xp x64 go in the benchmark or was that overlooked?
no , you are wrong 64bit support way larger size of memory it support 16 exabytes of
ram or 16.8 million terabytes, but windows vista doesn't support more then 128gb
so it is windows whose support 128gb only .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#memory_limitations
well..64 bits and all..but can we run alla our 32 bit apps and so? tried ubuntu 64 bit,
and could not install flash and other things
if you run a 32 bit browser with your 64 bit operating system, you can install flash.
i tried to post this same story to digg but the noobs didn't digg it.
hardware 2.0
has proven to be an amazing resource, adrian kinglsey-hughes is an excellent journalist.
my score is 1207 on vista x64 sp1 :)
maybe, the subject should be windows vista x64 edition vs windows xp professional x64
edition. a x64 operation system will win over x86 (32 bit) even if it is vista or not
all i can say is i tried vista and went back to xp pro. i am happy with it for now. i
eagerly await windows 7 hoping it will be better organized and more efficient than vista.
earliest guestimate for drop date is 6 20 2009
well see. i just wasnt impressed with
all the mac eye candy i guess, missed the zip of xp. my hardware isnt outdated either, 64
bit duo core xeons at 3.8 ghz cpu. 4 gigs ddr2 ram.
in a nutshell, stick with the 32-bit version regardless of these stats:
1. the
difference in performance is not a big deal and seems like a bigger issue when comparing
benchmarks. most users will not notice this "improvement".
2. 64-bit driver support
is lacking
3. 16-bit applications will not run and some newer 32-bit apps may also
not work. more trouble than it's worth.
4. data execution prevention(dep) and other
security enhancements will cause you grief.
this article was submitted solely
to get users over to their 64-bit. this product line has been lackluster whether you
choose xp or vista.
you all are fuking stupid fukkks. my x64 vista sp1 screams past xp sp3 pro on the same
system. i get all 8gb ram when doing video editing, only shitty thing is pro tools and
avid xpress aren't supported in vista until june. dumb shits
lets see some xp64 vs vista64 tests.
this article doesn't go deep enough nor use
multiple hardware configurations.
xp64 sp3 is unfortunately a way off yet due the
pack will also be for 2003.
when he says rtm above, does he mean with no updates right off the cd or with updates?
is one less secure with xp rtm, updated, with no service packs than xp sp3 (or
any sp's for that matter)?
1. the difference in performance is not a big deal and seems like a bigger issue when
comparing benchmarks. most users will not notice this "improvement".
2. 64-bit
driver support is lacking
3. 16-bit applications will not run and some newer 32-bit
apps may also not work. more trouble than it's worth.
4. data execution
prevention(dep) and other security enhancements will cause you grief.
the
difference is indeed noticable. more 64bit drivers are being developed by the day.....and
i've yet to come across a piece of hardware or software that would not run in
compatability mode. with 64bit, you have the best of both worlds....64bit and 32bit. 64bit
transfers files and renders faster than 32bit, and all 32bit programs (at least that i
use)run as smoothly as on the 32bit platform. as far as 16 bit programs....get real, 16
bit is prehistoric crap. and the "security enhancements only cause grief if you don't
know how to manage/configure them.
almost every processor made today supports 64 bit,
and to not take advantage of it is a shame.
vista 64 bit is faster than xp 64 bit, hell, for gaming xp 32 bit is a faster alternative
for xp x64, also the vista 64 os is now being highly recognized by software/driver
developers and pc manufacturers, so lacking support is a thing of the past, as long as u
have fairly new hardware u willl have no problems whatsoever, i currenly have vista x64
sp1 installed and i have no problems with the os, its both stable(helluva lot more stable
than xp) and fast, the a**holes bashing vista probably have never used it or made any
comparisons for them selves they hear a few people saying bad shit about the os or dont
have the hardware requirements to run it(i'm excluding those who cant afford to) so they
go around in forums spreading lies about an os theyve probably never used for themselves,
in an attempt to hold back the technological advancement, but we are letting those few kno
that its inevitable and xp and 32 bit os's are a thing of the past, vista, its successors
and 64 bit os's are the future....u kno, im thinking we should be quick to accept new
technologies, maybe then things would be developded at a faster pace and we'd live to see
more of these technological advancements in our life time, i mean im sure we've all
fantasized about going to the future jus to see how far technology could go..any way i
wont stray from the point any further....vista x64 rocks!!!!!
the cat: you're an idiot.
windows wista is big crap wibdows xp sp3 work faster and beeter
i have a dell d620, i run vista 32 as its a intel dual 32bit machine, runs pretty good,
seems just as good as xp w/ or w/o a sp. i have a 3 yr old desktop, custom, msi mobo, amd
64 2ghz runnin at 2.45, 1gb ddr1, & sata1 120gb hdd with a 9800pro runnin at xt with 256mb
& bit. on my desktop, i run xp sp3(32bit), as it seems to out do vista 64, 32, or xp
32bit. i dont run benchmarks nemore, gettin outta the "nerd" phase, but i still love
them. without benchmarking, i just like the way xp sp3 32bit runs faster, i play unreal 3
& my gf plays the crap outta sims 2, & they both seem to run the best on xp sp3 32 bit.
only have sp2 & 3, dont have a rtm of xp nemore. as for the d620, its "made" for xp but
vista compatible, seems to run great on there, dont see a big diff between xp & vista but
then again, i dont benchmark & we game on the desktop, just my 2cents
couchlock
ps - the cat- ur an idiot, lol
..."i run xp sp3(32bit), as it seems to out do vista 64, 32, or xp 32bit."
i meant
at the end 64bit, i run the 32 bit version
Add a Comment
The subject of this article is wrong?
By Goofy_OS2 on 30.04.2008 - 09:04