Hello.

Is it normal for 64-bit Vista to perform slower than 32-bit Vista? This
is assuming on the same exact machine, same edition, and configurations.

Thank you in advance.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Email: (E-Mail Removed)YMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------
Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of my employer. Thank you.

do you see a big difference?

I know it uses more ram than the 32 bit version...


"Phillip Pi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello.
>
> Is it normal for 64-bit Vista to perform slower than 32-bit Vista? This is
> assuming on the same exact machine, same edition, and configurations.
>
> Thank you in advance.
> --
> Phillip Pi
> Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
> ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
> Symantec Corporation
> www.symantec.com
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Email: (E-Mail Removed)YMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
> expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
> views of my employer. Thank you.

"Phillip Pi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Is it normal for 64-bit Vista to perform slower than 32-bit Vista? This is
> assuming on the same exact machine, same edition, and configurations.

What's the spec of the machine...?


--
http://www.markrae.net

"Phillip Pi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello.
>
> Is it normal for 64-bit Vista to perform slower than 32-bit Vista? This is
> assuming on the same exact machine, same edition, and configurations.


There are reports that would suggest as such. However a big part of
performance will depend on driver support.

Unless you actually have 64bit applications then odds are you don't need to
run Vista x64. In the case of having 64bit applications, well, they don't
work on 32bit Vista so there really is no comparison.

The actual OS itself will run pretty much the same. So, if a machine is
running slower then I would look at possible problems with that machine or
its drivers.

Yes, on an old ASUS K8V SE Deluxe (Athlon 64 3200+ 754 CPU). More RAM?
Really? Hmm, maybe that's the problem. I thought they both had the same
requirements and recommendations.


On 5/18/2007 1:37 PM PT, Tiberius wrote:

> do you see a big difference?
>
> I know it uses more ram than the 32 bit version...
>
>
> "Phillip Pi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hello.
>>
>> Is it normal for 64-bit Vista to perform slower than 32-bit Vista? This is
>> assuming on the same exact machine, same edition, and configurations.
>>
>> Thank you in advance.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Email: (E-Mail Removed)YMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------
Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of my employer. Thank you.

On 5/18/2007 1:49 PM PT, Mark Rae wrote:

>> Is it normal for 64-bit Vista to perform slower than 32-bit Vista?
>> This is assuming on the same exact machine, same edition, and
>> configurations.
>
> What's the spec of the machine...?

It's a test machine: ASUS K8V SE Deluxe with Athlon 64 3200+ 754 CPU,
512 MB of RAM, a SATA HDD, 1600x1200 resolution, ATI Radeon 9600 AIW AGP
video card, etc.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Email: (E-Mail Removed)YMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------
Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of my employer. Thank you.

In message <(E-Mail Removed)> Phillip Pi
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Is it normal for 64-bit Vista to perform slower than 32-bit Vista? This
>is assuming on the same exact machine, same edition, and configurations.
>
>Thank you in advance.

Yes, although it shouldn't be noticeable in most cases. This is mainly
due to some architectural issues, pointers and other memory structures
will take up more space in memory, requiring more time to move the data
from RAM into the CPU.

However, there may be differences in the drivers, not all 64-bit drivers
are as mature as their 32-bit counterparts.

--
"These, and other cliches will be available to you all for one more
day of training, with me"
-- Jack O'Neill

I wouldn't expect it to perform much slower, if at all. Of course, it
depends on the application.

From a gamers perspective, I don't see the 64bit performing any worse than I
do the Vista32. Overall, my benchmarks are near identical. Granted this is
with 32bit games. ( Triple boot between XP\V32 and V64) is their a specific
benchmark you are running (and is it available for the casual person ?)





"Phillip Pi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello.
>
> Is it normal for 64-bit Vista to perform slower than 32-bit Vista? This is
> assuming on the same exact machine, same edition, and configurations.
>
> Thank you in advance.
> --
> Phillip Pi
> Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
> ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
> Symantec Corporation
> www.symantec.com
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Email: (E-Mail Removed)YMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
> expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
> views of my employer. Thank you.

"Phillip Pi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello.
>
> Is it normal for 64-bit Vista to perform slower than 32-bit Vista? This is
> assuming on the same exact machine, same edition, and configurations.
>
> Thank you in advance.
> --
> Phillip Pi
> Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
> ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
> Symantec Corporation
> www.symantec.com
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Email: (E-Mail Removed)YMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
> expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
> views of my employer. Thank you.


The 512mb of ram could be the bottleneck on that system.

--
Jim

"Phillip Pi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ehOC$(E-Mail Removed)...

>> What's the spec of the machine...?
>
> 512 MB of RAM

That really is a *very* small amount of RAM, and is the *absolute minimum*
recommended to run Vista Home Basic only:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...uirements.mspx

Other editions have a recommended minimum RAM of 1Gb.

You need to be realistic about these things...


--
http://www.markrae.net