Windows x64 Performance using 32bit apps

[seanp789]

Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition


Background info:

x64 uses a WOW64 (windows on windows emulator) for 32-bit applications. I searched the internet and all performance evaluations were either while x64 was still beta or while x64 drivers from 3rd party vendors were still very beta. This is not a review but a sharing of current impressions.

AMD marketing department says that 32bit apps will have dedicated memory space and the use of additional registers on the amd64 cpu and x64. How does this actually translate? Not a clue. I know that native 64-bit apps can run as much as 30% faster in x64 but those are so far and few at this point.


Those of you running win x64 pro please post your system specs as well as any performance observations. Also, Please post what driver versions of your major components are.


amd64 3000+ @ 2.511Ghz
Mushkin PC3200 L2 V2 2GB ram (4 x 512mB) 2.5-3-3-10 2T
(2) dual-boot WD raptors 74Gb (non-raid)
Asus SLI deluxe (bios 1.11)
Audigy 2 ZS (the only 64-bit drivers)
Nvidia 7800GTx (77.72) [x64] and [x32]
Nforce drivers (7.12) [x64]
Dell 2405 24" widescreen LCD 1920x1200






I installed Battlefield 2 1.01 (recalled) And compared it directly to my 32-bit install. I noticed that in x64 my tendancy toward minimum fraterates were significantly reduced. In otherwards a significantly improved playing experience during intense battles with lots of people smoke and explosions. Battlefield 2 is a huge memory hog I do not know if the nvidia drivers x64 are supposed to be faster than the 32 bit drivers but i also tested
3dmark'05 x32: 5936 x64: 7920

The wierd part is that I even have my 7800 overclocked (468/1230) in x32 yet x64 (430/1200) is outperforming.


If there is enough interest I will run some controlled, formal benchmarks.

This is what I have noticed in 3dgames only. So far I have not noticed any improvements or negative effects of other windows apps. Subjectively, watching WMHD videos at 1080P appears to be using 10-20% less CPU according to task manager.


I have a feeling not many people have taken the plunge into windows x64, prov eme wrong!

 

[yukichigai]

I've taken the plunge! I know how to dual-boot; the worst that can happen is that I have to load up 2k and run my game there.

32-bit applications on x64 -- particularly games -- seem to run just fine for me, sometimes a little better. A lot of it has to do with drivers, I think. The OS is better-equipped to use the processor to its full potential, and thusly so are the drivers. Conversely, if your hardware is some of the hardware that lacks non-beta x64 support then your games will run a lot worse.

The only problem I've ever had with a 32-bit game on x64 was Deus Ex. Yes, incredibly old game, but it's the only moddable version in the series and sometimes you just gotta tinker. It wasn't the speed or anything like that, it's that somehow, no matter what compatibility mode I specify, the game simply cannot run at a resolution higher than 1280x960. Technically it is, but it's only showing what upper-left portion of the screen fits in that 1280x960 box. That, however, is more of a Windows XP problem I suspect.

My other applications run great in x64. I'm running a RealProducer conversion using AviSynth and the frame output is the fastest I've seen it run ever. Trillian is, as always anymore, ungodly slow and unweildy. Mozilla works great, though for some reason it takes a few seconds for images from my HDD to load up with it. Not sure on that one. (And yes, I am aware there are 64-bit builds of Firefox, but I use Mozilla, not Firefox. I like my Email and Browser to be integrated)

In short, x64 works great. I haven't tried to run true legacy games on it yet -- 16-bit stuff through DOSBox -- but I'll let you know when I do. Theoretically it should work. Maybe. I dunno.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: seanp789
AMD marketing department says that 32bit apps will have dedicated memory space and the use of additional registers on the amd64 cpu and x64. How does this actually translate?

Not good. 32-bit apps have no knowledge of the extra registers. They can address more memory though. Under 32-bit Windows, processes are limited to a 2GB virtual address space. This limit grows to 4GB (for 32-bit processes) under 64-bit Windows, for apps that are marked capable of such. 64-bit apps of course pay little heed to such limits.

Are you sure AMD's marketing dep made such claims?

 

[JackMDS]

Hardware drivers have to be 64bit no matter what.

ATI and nVidia are at it for few months, so they are working well.

Most new Mobos that supports x64 has on board NIC so there is No driver problem there.

I did not try many games but what ever I tried worked well (I.e. Not slower) on x64.

On line games might be smoother since x64 is based on Win2003 and the Network aspects of the OS are smoother than WinXP 32bits.

However since some games use propriety "Tricks" there might be some specific games that would end up not being compatible

:sun:

 

[linjy2]

i was dual booting the 64 with 32 on my 36gb raptor, but completely went back to 32 for now, also because i needed more space. As my main thing is gaming, my joystick would not work correct in bf2 in 64bit. encoding mpgs and dvd were faster but might be all in my head. i plan to install x64 again maybe in 3-4 months, because as of now, i have no printer support, joystick support, antivirus, games, and dvd playback, i use powerdvd or windvd, but non are supported for 64bit yet, i dont like using wmp10 for that.

basically i was booting in to x64 just to surf the web and back to 32 to do everything else. it may be faster, but i plan to wait it out a few more months.

 

[bsobel]

Not good. 32-bit apps have no knowledge of the extra registers. They can address more memory though. Under 32-bit Windows, processes are limited to a 2GB virtual address space. This limit grows to 4GB (for 32-bit processes) under 64-bit Windows

Only for apps marked 3 gig aware.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Only for apps marked 3 gig aware.

Sheesh man... Had you quoted the entire sentence (the one that ends with ", for apps that are marked capable of such.") you could've saved yourself a reply.

[edit]Oh... forgot to add: They're not marked as "3 gig aware". They are marked as "large address aware", which is more accurate since under 64-bit Windows they gain a full 4GB address space!

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: BikeDude

Originally posted by: bsobel
Only for apps marked 3 gig aware.

Sheesh man... Had you quoted the entire sentence (the one that ends with ", for apps that are marked capable of such.") you could've saved yourself a reply.

[edit]Oh... forgot to add: They're not marked as "3 gig aware". They are marked as "large address aware", which is more accurate since under 64-bit Windows they gain a full 4GB address space!

Your right, I must have read your response too quickly, somehow I missed you already pointed that out. Further, your right about the flag, I was refering to it by the name its often called, but technically your (obviously) correct....

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: bsobel
I was refering to it by the name its often called, but technically your (obviously) correct....

I don't think any MS docs refer to it as the "3GB flag". There is obviously the boot.ini switch for 32-bit Windows ("/3GB") which is directly related to the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag (and the MS linker's /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch), but I've never seen the flag called 3GB before...?

IMO it is important to atleast get the nomenclature right. In this discussion, if a programmer gets it wrong, then he/she is missing out on 25% of the memory he/she could've had.

 

[TSCrv]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
ATI and nVidia are at it for few months, so they are working well.

WHAT?!?!??? no matter what version of the catalyst drivers i install i get errors on install... AHHH!!! *pulls hair out*

it says something about the INF file not being there or invalad or some BS.... redling cause i notice theres a new version (dated 7/14/05)

*starts rattling curses*

 

[TSCrv]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
The only problem I've ever had with a 32-bit game on x64 was Deus Ex. Yes, incredibly old game, but it's the only moddable version in the series and sometimes you just gotta tinker.

what?!!! NOOO... x64 is ruining my life

 

[TSCrv]

see... this is what happens when i try to install my drivers for my card.... its an ATI Radeon 9200SE....

http://www.ryanvy.com/upload/files/wtf1.JPG

wtf..... its driving me nuts.. any solutions?

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Well, if it has unpacked all its file at this point, then you could perhaps try a manual install? (device property -> update driver -> select the location where the catalyst drivers reside)

nVidia is good that way, the installer first unpacks the files and then makes an attempt at installing them for you. At any point you're free to install the driver the way Odin intended. I'd be surprised if ATI has chosen a different path.

 

[AkumaX]

if you don't game, is it even beneficial to install new 64-bit drivers from ati/nvidia's website, rather than just using the drivers that came with XP x64?

 

[Brentx]

I would, because the x64 with Windows are OEM drivers, and with any OEM driver from Microsoft, it's pretty crappy.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
On line games might be smoother since x64 is based on Win2003 and the Network aspects of the OS are smoother than WinXP 32bits.

Could you provide some information to back that up, as that's the first time I've heard that?

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Phil
Could you provide some information to back that up, as that's the first time I've heard that?

A colleague of mine says that Win2003 was compiled with a later version of MS' compiler, and apparently MS have put renewed effort into compiler optimizations lately.

I haven't verified that (at all), but I would be surprised if XPSP2 (32-bit) was compiled with an older compiler, but then again, a SP isn't comprised of all OS files so it is safer to assume that 64-bit XP enjoys the same compiler as 64-bit 2003 Server. (BTW: Both 64-bit versions came with the latest service pack already in place)

From a more personal point of view... And one of my pet peeves: Win2003 is a lot easier to install and use than XP. XP has too many child-safety features that makes installing and customizing it quite an ordeal for experienced Windows NT users. I'm not running Win2003 because it is the "latest" Windows version: I'm not going to upgrade to Vista until there is a Vista Server version. So there.