Back to Article

  • gmenfan - Sunday, May 16, 2004 - link

    I would like to see performance benchmarks with Windows XP 64-bit on a socket 754 platform. I am curious to see if the dual memory controller makes a difference in a 64-bit environment. Reply
  • DallasTexas - Friday, February 13, 2004 - link

    I sure see lots of apologies here for the initial crappy gaming performance shown. But anyway, I'd like to add to the chorus anywahy "yippeee, 64 bits is here ". Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link

    What really makes me laugh at this whole situation is the fact that people have been saying Windows XP-64 was ready to be released months ago and that MS was just delaying it so Intel could create their own 64-bit chip. Where are all those stupid comments now, people? As I said on numerous occasions, gettings drivers and the critical OS paths ported from x86 assembly to AMD64 assembly is a difficult task at best. However, it's a task that must be done for the OS to reach its potential.

    WOW-64 would most likely not account for the 20% performance decrease in games that are witnessed here. It is a type of emulation (actually, just an extra layer that system calls have to go through), so it would definitely be slower than running the same application without that layer. However, if the 64-bit drivers and everything else are tuned properly, the extra work done in WOW could be negated by the potential performance boost that 64-bit drivers and such would experience.

    I would be curious to know what version of Nvidia's drivers were being used in testing. They said they used a version number that was "close" to the XP-64 driver version on the XP system, but that doesn't tell us a whole lot. If the 64-bit Nvidia driver is three months old or more, it might be back in the 45.23 driver era, which might explain the performance difference better.

    Still, the thing that is illustrated best by this article is that XP-64 is *not* ready for prime time right now. Fool around with it if you want to, but until all of the drivers are fully ported to AMD64, you're better off running XP or a 64-bit version of Linux. Even once all the drivers are available, I wouldn't be surprised to see companies like ATI and Nvidia releasing new versions that contain better 64-bit optimizations for the next year or two at least.
  • DallasTexas - Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - link

    "...Performance of current 32-bit games under SP64, however, was below expectations..."

    BELOW EXPECTATIONS ? WOW, the understatement of the year and it's only february.
  • CrossfireAction - Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - link

    20% Performance loss in games shood realy be a driver problem as you can check out here:

    These guys testet the new Beta XP 64 with an ATI Radeon 9700 non Pro with Microsoft 64 bit drivers based on OEM Catalyst 3.6 from August 2003
    As you can see the gameing performance is increasing about 4,8% to 8% !!!
  • ZapZilla - Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - link

    Even if the gaming performance of 32bit games stays poor, 1 year from now, when faster CPUs/GPUs are out and the 64 bit OS is mature, it won't matter, because:

    1) new games will be 64 bit or DX9++ and require new hardware anyway to get best performance or

    2) 32 bit games (then called 32 bit legacy games) will benefit from faster CPUs/GPUs and get higher FPS to make up for it.

    How many FPS does Quake n get on a modern system these days compared to when the game was released?

    So why all the fuss? Its all good.
  • sipc660 - Monday, February 09, 2004 - link

    some say its emulated others say its not
    some say its emulated others say its not

    i agree with no.33
    just shut up everyone and wait till the guys from anandtech bring us the revised performance with some decent drivers and real 64-bit benchmarks

    hail anandtech

    go amd
  • FalcomPSX - Monday, February 09, 2004 - link

    I plan on doing some benchmarks using sandra soon, using the 32-bit sandra and 64-bit as this should show a good raw increase in performance, albeit an early example. But this is the best way to guage performance based on what we have now. 32-32, 64-32 and 64-64. Once this is done, we will have a early estimate in the gain 64-bit provides and the hit( eumlating 32 bit in the 64bit os provides. Reply
  • Phiro - Monday, February 09, 2004 - link

    This article was _not_ a waste of time and I applaude Anandtech for spending the hours neccessary to put it together for us.

    The lack of intelligence and sheer stupidity (and trolling) in the comments for this article on the otherhand is overwhelming.

    Comments like "this just makes Prescott look better and better", "This is an AMD only version of Windoze what will Intel do haw haw haw", "a 15% increase in number crunching but a big hit on game playing - I don't think consumers will swallow that" and the hair splitting going on between the definition of "subsystem" and the definition of "emulation" make me want to put a gun in my mouth and just pull the trigger.

    Holy gosh people, please give me intelligent comments to read while I eat my lunch, the drivel coming out of most of you is enough to spontaneously create another CRAMITPAL.
  • araczynski - Monday, February 09, 2004 - link

    this is akin to putting in a new engine into a car and taking it out on the track before you put on its tires. the results are obvious and the whole excercise is a waste of time. you might as well start benchmarks on prescott's successor and discuss the results with a straight face. Reply
  • Pumpkinierre - Monday, February 09, 2004 - link

    #30 they used an nvidia5950 with a released (but maybe not mature) 64bit driver for the tests. I suggested using 32bit drivers (#17) to see if the core of the OS was the problem but INTC(#18) kindly referred me to a post that shows that once the 32bit code goes into the WOW dlls its 64bit thereafter. So its difficult to isolate the problem, one way, as one post suggested, is lower the resolution and take the workload of the graphics card and perhaps use older games that are less video card dependent. If the difference between XP and Win64 result does'nt narrow with these settings then it is the OS core/WOW that is more likely at fault. From the large discrepancy in the older games Quake3 and Comanche4 results, I suspect it is not just the drivers at fault.

    The Lost Circuits post (#18) also indicated that Win64 handled 16bit apps. as well Sniper #28 but probably via a different module.
  • vedin - Sunday, February 08, 2004 - link

    Sniper, you have to take into account the fact that that was, unless I'm wrong, an almost generic Microsoft ATI driver, and NOT a 64bit driver from ATI...seeing as ATI has no such driver. Neither did the chipset maker for that matter, so the AGP "Bus" would lag a bit too. Heck, I'm surprised any of the games worked AT ALL. I expect to see no less than a 30% performance boost on ATI's first released 64bit driver, and I think it will actually BE in the neighboorhood of the exact defficit that we see now. After the second or third revision, I expect the games to get on average of 5-20% faster than they would with the newest 32bit drivers on 32bit Windows.

    Can you say, preview, beta copy?
  • dvinnen - Sunday, February 08, 2004 - link

    It's not emulation. All they did was add another layer for 32 bit code. While this will hender proformance, current code ges through so many layers as it is, it won't be that noticable. Certanly would not hender proformance to the tune of 50% Reply
  • Sniper342 - Sunday, February 08, 2004 - link

    I think this article is promoting some misconceptions...

    When running 32 bit applications, like pretty much all current games, on the 64 bit edition of Windows XP, the 32 bit games will be running through a seperate subsystem, sort of like an emulation or compatability mode type thing. So that's probably why the games are running slower...

    The conclusion in this article regarding 64 bit gaming performance seems false, and the test doesn't seem very logical. To know the 64 bit gaming performance, a 64 bit build of THE GAME must be tested... The 64 bit operating system was only able to run the current games due to the compatability emulation-ish mode, so of course it's usually slower...

    Read Microst's FAQ for Windows XP 64 Bit edition:

    "Q. Will my applications be faster on Windows XP 64-Bit Edition?"

    "Most 32-bit applications should continue to perform best on 32-bit versions of the Windows operating system."

    "Q. Will Windows XP 64-Bit Edition support 32-bit applications?

    A. A key feature of Windows XP 64-Bit Edition is its ability to run 32-bit Windows-based applications unmodified on the 64-bit platform. To enable this capability, Microsoft has added a new 32-bit subsystem to Windows XP 64-Bit Edition. This subsystem—Windows on Windows 64—provides the 32-bit Windows services needed for applications to run properly even if they are not 64-bit. (Note: This subsystem does not support 16-bit applications.)"
  • Wesley Fink - Sunday, February 08, 2004 - link

    DivXNetworks is a launch parther of AMD and the official site for Divx. They claim the 64-bit version of Dr. Divx leaves everything avaible in the dust. As soon as Dr. Divx 64 is released we will be publishing benchmarks.

    AMD included coupons for Dr. Divx 64 in the retail version of Athlon64 FX processors.
  • Visual - Sunday, February 08, 2004 - link

    ---- Wesley Fink wrote ----
    XP64 uses DirectX 64 and a Direct X 32-bit version. We were told there may be a problem with enabling DirectX 64 in this Preview Edition. We did run DXDiag for 64-bits and checked to make sure DX64 was enabled.
    well, i'd imagine that the 32bit apps use the 32bit directx anyway, so it doesnt matter if 64bit directx is enabled.

    you know what i think you should add to this article? i'd be curious to see SiSoft Sandra 2004 32bit version on the 64bit windows. that way we can get numbers for "Change 32bit to 64bit OS only" and "Change 32bit app to 64bit app".

    wow if that divx thing gets even better with 64bit app & codec then AMD be kings of the world!

    the article is good news, i like it!
  • sipc660 - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    i'll save my money for a nice gigabyte mobo based on sis 756 and pci express 16x radeon (R423)
    of coarse some DDR2(if supported)

    by then (probably mid 2004) xp64 should be mature as well as drivers.
    then i'll ask these cocks if they still don't beleive the gaming power of 64 bit could not improve.

    they don't kill the rooster because he sings, but because he sings at the wrong time LOL

    so be "as sabirun"= means patient.

    wait and we will wait with you.....

    go amd
  • michael3333 - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Also, the Microsoft site specifically stated that this Windows will ONLY work on an Opteron/AMD64 based processor system. No mention of anything Intel. If this Windows will work on Intel Xeon CT than Intel will have to used licensed AMD 64 technology right? LOL Reply
  • michael3333 - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    drivers, drivers, drivers. 16 registers. AMD64 can run 32 bit inside 64bit but those 16 registers is what will speed things up. How does anyone say Prescott looks good based on a crappy driver run Preview version of a 64bit windoze using almost all 32bit tests? UH ok
  • tantryl - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Is it just me, or does it seem strange testing out the capabilities of a 64-bit processor and OS with 32 bit application benchmarks? Reply
  • Jeff7181 - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Very nice. This is reminding me of the Windows 3.1 > Windows 95 switch. Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Just to add to what I said, it would be beneficial if AnandTech ran all CPU article game tests at 640x480 to reduce the impact of the graphics-card as past reviews have shown that some of them are gfx-card bound. Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Its clear from those results that uaing an Athlon 64 with a 64-bit O/S will certainly give considerable performance improvements with many applications and perform at least as well in everything else.

    Equally clear is that the poor gaming results in this test are caused by immature/unoptimised AGP GART chipset and/or graphics-card drivers as all the other tests which weren't dependent on what was sent to the graphics-card showed the A64 doing at least as well as in 32-bit mode and usually somewhat better. Changing from 32-bit to 64-bit mode obviously isn't going to hamper the transfer of data down the AGP/PCI-Express bus (quite the opposite with suitable drivers) so I'd expect games to show similar performance gains to other apps once the drivers are mature.
  • INTC - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Here is a description of the different modes of AMD64 operations:

    It looks like WOW is okay but until applications are recompiled for full 64-bit the advantages are absent and there may even be some penalty for "Compatibility" mode as seen in the gaming scores.

    It will be interesting to see what Intel will have at IDF in a few weeks.
  • Pumpkinierre - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    This OS has been written for the a64 which from memory has 3 modes of operation: full64bit, 32bit emulation and something in between. You mention DX-32bit(post #13) so can this OS run in 32bit mode. If so, you could run the games benchmarks using 32bit drivers and Win64. If scores were still the same then the OS would be to blame not the drivers.

    Still, good to see movement on the 64bit front. I suspect that Intel's recent announcements have something to do with this. Perhaps Win64 is not coded for A64 alone. Nevertheless, it cant but help a64 sales.
  • tolgae - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Well, nobody seems to mention the fact that many of these apps (games especially) are running under WOW64. It is normal that such losses are happening. The CPU can run 32-bit natively very well, but now applications are going through this extra layer (being "converted" on the fly, in a sense) so that they can run on 64-bit OS. As with everything else about the Windows XP 64-bit, I am sure this will be optimized until the product ships (even after that). Reply
  • mattsaccount - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    The important thing to keep in mind is that this is not the final release of Windows 64 bit, unlike Prescott :) Nobody would use this BETA OS in a production environment.

    The way I interpret these results is like so. The improvements are real and will still be present when Windows 64 final (whatever it's called) is shipped. The applications with poor performance (i.e. games) will probably improve by the time the OS ships and we should therefore withhold judgement.
  • raskren - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Wow what a hit in the gaming department! I expected to a see a modest gain in everything, but the tiny boost in 64bit apps and the huge loss in games makes the Prescott look a lot better. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Splinter Cell has been added to the Game Benchmark comparison.

    XP64 uses DirectX 64 and a Direct X 32-bit version. We were told there may be a problem with enabling DirectX 64 in this Preview Edition. We did run DXDiag for 64-bits and checked to make sure DX64 was enabled. We then reran several game benchmarks and got essentially the same results as those posted in this review.

    We will be on the lookout for updated graphics drivers and will report what we find.
  • klah - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    The Nvidia driver is still very slow and buggy. OpenGL actually runs faster in software mode with this driver.
  • Staples - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    I really hope those game scores are due to premature video drivers. As you see, Halo did almost as well as the 32bit platform and as you should know, DX9 games are almost solely based on the GPU. So if Halo did almost as well on both platforms, it says that the video drivers can't be that premature, either that or explanation 2 is that we can expect a huge increase in DX9 games. Reply
  • Corsairpro - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Too bad there weren't any decent video drivers. Every one who just glances at the numbers is going to claim "The message is clear x86-64 has failed" when it comes to games. Oh well, more supply for me to buy! Reply
  • buleyb - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Not that I'm not excited, but you should point out Wes that this isn't just a 64bit OS, but an AMD 64bit OS, meaning that the performance improvement has a lot to do with the new general purpose registers and such. I don't want people thinking that 64bit is a pure performance improvement, because it really isn't by itself.

    But still, nice work :)
  • KristopherKubicki - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Skol. Well done Wes. Reply
  • saechaka - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    boy am i glad i just bought this athlon 64 notebook. huurraaayy for me Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    There are times editing would be useful in this comments section. XP, and not Halo, had about the same performance. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Halo was the game that was close to the same performance in XP and XP64, and not Halo as #4 pointed out. Since X2 is DirectX 8.1 with heavy use of transform and lighting effects, it has little relevance to the Halo performance. Corrected in the article. Reply
  • Emma - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    "It is very interesting that the DirectX 9 game Halo is already very close to 32-bit performance at only 4% slower than 32-bit performance. This means the newest 32-bit games, or at least the newest games from Microsoft, may be as fast on 64-bit as 32-bit at the launch of XP64, or possibly even faster."

    Can you clarify this please. The table shows there being a -19.1% change...
  • Boonesmi - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    by the way ive read in several threads of guys using pcmark 2004 and getting incredible fps in divx encoding Reply
  • Ecmaster76 - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    Very interesting. That 15% increase in media encoding should have the AMD execs laughing maniacally. That might end up getting them a 15% increase in market share. Reply
  • Boonesmi - Saturday, February 07, 2004 - link

    sweet :) Reply
  • ksumom - Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - link

    Have any of you tried to hook a printer up to the windows 64 bit?My daughter is trying to find a printer thats compatable with it Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now