Windows XP 64-Bit Preview: First Look at Athlon 64 Performance
by Wesley Fink on February 7, 2004 12:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Final Words
It is really exciting to finally be able to run
benchmarks on an Athlon 64 on a 64-bit XP Operating System, even if Windows XP 64-bit is just a Customer Preview right now. When Anand attempted
to run 64-bit benchmarks during the Athlon 64 launch about 4 months ago, only
one of our 32-bit benchmarks would even run under XP64. Things have progressed quite a bit since
then. We now have a 64-bit version of
Sandra 2004, and all of our standard game benchmarks ran on XP64 except
Aquamark 3. While Winstone 2004 benches
would not install, we expect that will be fixed in the near future.
The actual performance under Windows XP 64-bit
Preview showed great promise, but it is still something of a mixed bag. We were impressed that the CPU, Floating
Point, and memory ALL showed performance improvement in XP64 compared to
regular XP. This promises that we will
eventually see the performance improvements in applications that is potentially
there in the move to 64-bit extensions.
We were also impressed with the 15%+ improvement in Media Encoding when
running the same 32-bit encoding program under XP and XP64. Performance of current 32-bit games under
SP64, however, was below expectations.
Anand's 64-bit
testing with Linux at launch showed we could expect a 10% to 20% increase
in performance with a 64-bit OS for the Athlon 64. Certainly we don't see anything in these
early tests that would change that expectation when running 64-bit programs
under Windows XP 64-bit. However, there
are still unanswered concerns about how current 32-bit software, in particular
games, will run on the release version of Windows XP 64-bit. Drivers and further optimizations will
certainly improve and possibly remove this 20% performance penalty in gaming. This is, after all, a preview version with
immature drivers and almost no graphics support. We have no doubt after this preview that
64-bit applications will run faster, but we really don't yet have an answer to
the question of how existing 32-bit games will run. We should have a better answer to this in the
next few months.
Microsoft's last major preview release was Windows
XP. One of the things that public
preview accomplished was to push manufacturers to quickly update their drivers
for the new Operating System. You will
be frustrated searching for drivers to get the best performance from XP64
Preview, but the release of the free Preview version will speed up that process considerably. Nothing seems to get action from
manufacturers faster than consumers screaming for driver updates. Perhaps that was Microsoft's plan, a very
clever one, to push manufacturers into completing work on 64-bit drivers for
the new Operating System.
If you enjoy the bleeding edge, then by all means
give the public preview of Windows XP 64-bit a whirl. We do suggest you use the caution of setting
it up on a separate drive or installing your current OS as a multi-boot with
XP64 preview. In general we are
impressed with the demonstrated potential of XP64, and we are anxious to see
how far drivers and updates will take performance of current 32-bit games.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
Staples - Saturday, February 7, 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.Corsairpro - Saturday, February 7, 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!buleyb - Saturday, February 7, 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 7, 2004 - link
Skol. Well done Wes.saechaka - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
boy am i glad i just bought this athlon 64 notebook. huurraaayy for meWesley Fink - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
There are times editing would be useful in this comments section. XP, and not Halo, had about the same performance.Wesley Fink - Saturday, February 7, 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.Emma - Saturday, February 7, 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 7, 2004 - link
by the way ive read in several threads of guys using pcmark 2004 and getting incredible fps in divx encodingEcmaster76 - Saturday, February 7, 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.