Vista 32 seems smoother than Vista 64

[j0j081]

Well I am stuck at home sick so I decided to install the 32 bit version of Vista Business just for the fun of it. I have been running Vista 64 more or less since it came out. My initial impressions are Vista 32 seems A LOT smoother. My 3dmark06 score is slightly better (but who cares about that), the main thing I notice is my cpu utilitization is way less while doing everyday tasks. In fact it's so low you would think I'm running a super computer now lol. My Vista 64 install however, was a little cheesed over so I'm going to redo that soon so I can make a better comparison. I'm also going to install UT3 on the 32 bit version to see if it runs any better which may be the ultimate test. Anyone else here compared lately? I'd love to read your impressions.

[mezkal]

x64 OSes have to do a lot of thunking (converting 32bit application requests to their 64bit equivalents) so that could explain some of the performance loss.

[conroejoe]

Well I am stuck at home sick so I decided to install the 32 bit version of Vista Business just for the fun of it. I have been running Vista 64 more or less since it came out. My initial impressions are Vista 32 seems A LOT smoother. My 3dmark06 score is slightly better (but who cares about that), the main thing I notice is my cpu utilitization is way less while doing everyday tasks. In fact it's so low you would think I'm running a super computer now lol. My Vista 64 install however, was a little cheesed over so I'm going to redo that soon so I can make a better comparison. I'm also going to install UT3 on the 32 bit version to see if it runs any better which may be the ultimate test. Anyone else here compared lately? I'd love to read your impressions.


I think that could've just been you install.- I benched x86 vs x64 before in a bunch of games and x64 had the slight advantage. Sometimes a new install just reminds you of how much faster your PC can run...

[Tr1cK]

You have 2gb of RAM, here's your sign.

[Slammin]

You have 2gb of RAM, here's your sign.


bingo!

[conroejoe]

So why does having LESS memory make Vista x86 run better? Why wouldnt it run better using 3.25GB of 4GB???? x64 can address more memory, but that doesn't explain why x86 would be smoother.

That makes no sense.

[Tr1cK]

So why does having LESS memory make Vista x86 run better? Why wouldnt it run better using 3.25GB of 4GB???? x64 can address more memory, but that doesn't explain why x86 would be smoother.

That makes no sense.
???

OP said that Vista 32 was smoother than Vista 64. That's a no brainer since he only has 2gb of RAM.

[conroejoe]

???

OP said that Vista 32 was smoother than Vista 64. That's a no brainer since he only has 2gb of RAM.


Why?

x64 can address more memory, that doesn't mean it NEEDS 4GB vs 2GB. There is no reason why with 2GB x86 should run any faster. You guys are implying Vista x64 is less efficient and needs more memory - thats not true. You just can address MORE ram with x64. I don't think you guys are even thinking about what you are saying.

[brady]

All I know is that even after clean installs of both x86 and x64, Crysis runs much better on x86. In the order of 5 fps better, which amounts to a lot when running the game at all 'very high' settings.

I do my level editing in x64 but my gaming in x86.

[Tr1cK]

Why?

x64 can address more memory, that doesn't mean it NEEDS 4GB vs 2GB. There is no reason why with 2GB x86 should run any faster. You guys are implying Vista x64 is less efficient and needs more memory - thats not true. You just can address MORE ram with x64. I don't think you guys are even thinking about what you are saying.

64 has larger system over head than 32. It will eat the 2gb up faster.

OP: Here's a good read:
http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3135&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=0

[mezkal]

Yeah, specifically thunking eats lots of RAM. But also, 4GB generally means using all slots on a board and in many cases that also means you're hitting physical limitations of the hardware. There are many documented cases of PC's running better with 2 DDR/2 RAM slots filled than those with all 4 filled.

[$n][pErMan]

Its probably just the fresh install.... x64 seems a lot smoother to me coming from x86. :p Then again.. having 4GB of memory over 2GB in a x64 OS helps a ton :)

[conroejoe]

[pErMan']Its probably just the fresh install.... x64 seems a lot smoother to me coming from x86. :p Then again.. having 4GB of memory over 2GB in a x64 OS helps a ton :)


I agree.

However, 4GB of ram in x86 is smoother than 2GB of ram even in x86 even if it only uses 3.25GB of it.

[conroejoe]

64 has larger system over head than 32. It will eat the 2gb up faster.

OP: Here's a good read:
http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3135&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=0


Good read, I just dont think Vista x86 is any better than x64. I still think you want to use 4GB for either one. For 2GB use XP.

[Tr1cK]

I'm sticking to XP for as long as I don't get forced to use DX10 or until DX10 matures enough to make it viable.

I don't measure my penis size with computer crap. :D

[conroejoe]

The other possiblity since he just reinstalled is that SuperFetch hasnt had a chance to grime up the system caching useless stuff as it "learns" your habits. That kills me - they try to make bloat sound like it's helping you.

Disable SuperFetch NOW!!

[$n][pErMan]

I agree.

However, 4GB of ram in x86 is smoother than 2GB of ram even in x86 even if it only uses 3.25GB of it.
Was for me... I upgraded to 4GB when I was still on x86.

[j0j081]

yeah guess I will have to get more Ram then. I played UT3 a lot tonight and it is defintely faster on the 32 bit install. I'll prob do a fresh install of Vista 64 before I get more Ram to compare anyway in case that other install is simply buggered. I'm just annoying because really I should get 2 X 2 GB sticks which means wasting the Ram I already have. I know I can sell it but still a pain.

[Nick7]

You have 2gb of RAM, here's your sign.
I've seen this comment countless times.

But, fun part is - it's wrong.

For everyday work, you will not notice 2GB vs 4GB RAM.
In games you will only start noticing it when your system starts swapping to HD.
I do not know why so many people also say that 'your FPS is low cause you got only 2GB of RAM', and similar stuff, when those things are just plain wrong.

[Dragunov]

Yeah, specifically thunking eats lots of RAM. But also, 4GB generally means using all slots on a board and in many cases that also means you're hitting physical limitations of the hardware. There are many documented cases of PC's running better with 2 DDR/2 RAM slots filled than those with all 4 filled.

U can fill up two slots with 4GB, each 2GB

[conroejoe]

I've seen this comment countless times.

But, fun part is - it's wrong.

For everyday work, you will not notice 2GB vs 4GB RAM.
In games you will only start noticing it when your system starts swapping to HD.
I do not know why so many people also say that 'your FPS is low cause you got only 2GB of RAM', and similar stuff, when those things are just plain wrong.


There are reviews out there that clearly document lower Min FPS with less ram 4GB does seem to help especially in certain games. I know BF2 had a few maps that were almost 2GB and with 2GB system memory the game would be choppy. 4GB is definitely where you want to be, but just running Vista x64 doesn't mean the system should be slower. Between Vista x64 and x86 there is the same amount of bloat, there isn't more in x64.

I think the big reason he saw a difference was that SuperFetch isn't ruining his OS yet as it takes some time to "learn" your habits and start caching all the crap you ran one time.

[mezkal]

Dragunov:

Yeah I know but in many cases inexperienced people by 4 x 1GB DIMMs - especially when the seller wants to get rid of stock that's not in such high demand anymore. Many motherboards don't perform as well with all slots filled.

ConroeJoe : Superfetch is only a help in terms load times and application startup. It doesn't relate to frames/sec performance. Readyboost helps more than Superfetch alone.

[conroejoe]

Yeah I know but in many cases inexperienced people by 4 x 1GB DIMMs - especially when the seller wants to get rid of stock that's not in such high demand anymore. Many motherboards don't perform as well with all slots filled.


I think you are thinking of AMD though. 1T vs 2T (when 4 slots are used). The intel chipset motherboards are already 2T so there is no performance loss going from 2 to 4 dimms. On the nVidia based boards they may be if you have to drop to 2T.

I can confirm with an Intel p35 I lose nothing by putting in 2 more DIMMs. Some cheaper intel boards may have stability issues however, my Asus P5K-E does not however.

[$n][pErMan]

I think you are thinking of AMD though. 1T vs 2T (when 4 slots are used). The intel chipset motherboards are already 2T so there is no performance loss going from 2 to 4 dimms. On the nVidia based boards they may be if you have to drop to 2T.

I can confirm with an Intel p35 I lose nothing by putting in 2 more DIMMs. Some cheaper intel boards may have stability issues however, my Asus P5K-E does not however.
My ASUS P5B-D has no issues with 4 sticks of ram :)

[einstein_314]

[pErMan']My ASUS P5B-D has no issues with 4 sticks of ram :)
I love my Asus P5B-Deluxe! Best MOBO EVER!