1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

32 versus 64 bit system performance differences

Discussion in 'Software' started by nugget, Jun 8, 2008.

  1. nugget
    Honorary Member

    nugget Junior toady

    7,796
    71
    224
    Anyone got any ideas why a 32 bit system would run better on a 64 bit processor than a 64 bit system?

    I've had the 64 bit version of XP installed on my new pc for about 3 weeks now and it's just felt sluggish and not as snappy as I'd expect given my pc specs. I bit the bullet last night and installed a 64 bit server version and it behaved as I would expect XP to, very snappy.

    I then went all out and installed Vista business edition (from the action pack) and it was also very responsive. I was amazed to see that the 32 bit vista system performed a lot better than a 64 bit XP system.

    I might try installing the 64 bit XP system again but this time the standard version that comes with the action pack. The version I used before was one that I had put together myself with SP2 and a lot of hotfixes integrated into the disc.

    Anyone experienced anything similar?
     
    Certifications: A+ | Network+ | Security+ | MCP (270,271,272,290,620) | MCDST | MCTS:Vista
    WIP: MCSA, 70-622,680,685
  2. Modey

    Modey Terabyte Poster

    2,397
    99
    154
    Could be poor chipset / mobo drivers for XP 64bit, it's well known for having poor driver support.
     
    Certifications: A+, N+, MCP, MCDST, MCSA 2K3, MCTS, MOS, MTA, MCT, MCITP:EDST7, MCSA W7, Citrix CCA, ITIL Foundation
    WIP: Nada
  3. wagnerk
    Highly Decorated Member Award

    wagnerk aka kitkatninja Moderator

    10,831
    357
    341
    The only two things that I can think of is:
    1. Driver support for your hardware &
    2. Software that you're running/trying to run

    I've made the switch from XP 32-bit to Vista 64-bit on my home PC and have really seen no difference in response time.

    I do know that the 64-bit edition of Windows wasn't as well "supported" as the 64-bit edition of Vista.

    -ken
     
    Certifications: CITP, PGCert, BSc, HNC, LCGI, PTLLS, MCT, MCITP, MCTS, MCSE, MCSA:M, MCSA, MCDST, MCP, MTA, MCAS, MOS (Master), A+, N+, S+, ACA, VCA, etc... & 2nd Degree Black Belt
    WIP: PGDip
  4. nugget
    Honorary Member

    nugget Junior toady

    7,796
    71
    224
    Thanks for the replies guys. The funny thing is that the x64 server version seemed to be more responsive than the x64 XP version, even directly after the install and without any other software installed.

    I didn't know that x64 XP was less supported than the other versions.

    I also installed the vista version and didn't realise that it was 32 bit.
     
    Certifications: A+ | Network+ | Security+ | MCP (270,271,272,290,620) | MCDST | MCTS:Vista
    WIP: MCSA, 70-622,680,685
  5. Softix

    Softix Bit Poster

    32
    0
    2
    Everyone's getting the hang of Vista for the time being..:) I don't feel there should be any significant difference in performance for the current crop of applications ..
     
  6. nugget
    Honorary Member

    nugget Junior toady

    7,796
    71
    224
    It's not really a problem of the applications, as there were none installed. They were just clean installs of the OSs.

    The problem is that the 64 bit XP was rather sluggish whereas the 64 bit server version had better performance as well as the 32 bit vista version.

    Esit: I might try installing Server 2008 just for laughs and see if it's any better.
     
    Certifications: A+ | Network+ | Security+ | MCP (270,271,272,290,620) | MCDST | MCTS:Vista
    WIP: MCSA, 70-622,680,685

Share This Page

Loading...