Is 64-bit Vista supposed to be slower than 32-bit?

[Phillip Pi]

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

 

[Tiberius]

do you see a big difference?

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

 

[Mark Rae]

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...?

 

[Justin]

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.

 

[Phillip Pi]

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.

do you see a big difference?

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

--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[Phillip Pi]

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

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> Phillip Pi

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.

 

[Dale White]

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 ?)

 

[JimR]

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

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

 

[Mark Rae]

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/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx

Other editions have a recommended minimum RAM of 1Gb.

You need to be realistic about these things...

 

[Mark Rae]

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

Undoubtedly, especially if it's not Home Basic:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx

 

[Phillip Pi]

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/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx


Other editions have a recommended minimum RAM of 1Gb.

You need to be realistic about these things...

Hmm, 32-bit Vista U.E. isn't bad on this machine. 64-bit is way slower.
This is assuming I don't multi-task with many big programs.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[Dale White]

Well, the kernel is a bit dynamic, so the more RAM you add the more RAM it
uses, even at idle.

With that said, I Find my system with 2GB of ram, uses around 750MB after
it's finishing loadings under Vista64 and about 500MB under Vsta32. I have
alot of stuff turned off, like Super Fetch, Windows Search, Readyboost, IP
Helper, as well as Aero. With Everything turned on, I see around 890MB used,
If I turn on DreamScene, I can peak at 900MB. Under Vista32, I peak around
775

I think trying to run with 512MB is a but rough, but it is why they made
Readyboost available. So if you have a fast 1GB Thumb driver, you might get
a little performance boost by using it.

 

[Steve Thackery]

The published comparisons suggest 64-bit is very slightly slower than
32-bit, but not enough for the user to notice.

This is assuming sufficient RAM, etc. I don't know what happens when it
operating on a resource-starved machine.

Steve

 

[Lang Murphy]

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

Holy crap! 512MB's RAM is -not- sufficient for running even x86 Vista. I
know because I'm writing this on just such a (x86) system. Can't imagine
that an x64 system is going to run like on 512MB's RAM. Not surprised that
you're seeing a noticible delta between x86 and x64 on a system with only
512MB RAM.

Lang

 

[Guest]

Hi Phillip,

I have to ask you if you would run your car on water instead of petrol
because only using 512Mb RAM for Vista will have the same effect. I am
running Vista Business 64 bit without any dramas so forget about what you
might read as configuration suggestions and go with the following; For 32bit
Vista minimum 2 Gig RAM for Vista 64bit 4 Gig RAM. Now memory prices are at
an all time low here in Australia so overthere they should be just as cheap.
It is true that the 64 bit versions of Vista use memory differently to XP and
in effect is memory hungry, but with at least 4 Gig you wont have any
problems. Also if you have onboard video and sound you wont feel the loss of
that memory so much.
Now with my system Business 64 flies equal to if not better than XP Pro. I
am running both as a dual boot setup.
Now admittedly I use my machine for video editing here is the configuration
of it for you;
Intel 955 XBX Motherboard
Intel 3.4 Ghz Dual Core CPU
4 Gig RAM
nVidia 7900 GTX
Sound Blaster Hi Fi Extreme
Maxtor 200 and 160 Gig HDD SATA 10,000 rpm
This is by means top of the range but it does the job nicely and rates a "5"
in Vista

I hope this has been of assistance to you?

 

[Richard Urban]

Do you mean to tell us that there is no one at Symantec (where you say you
work) that his a bit more knowledgeable about Vista that you do? Go to your
IT department and ask there.

Symantec has been working with Vista for a couple of years now (at least
they should have been) as they needed it to develop their software to be
Vista compatible. If there is no one there with Vista knowledge I certainly
feel very sorry for users of Norton/Symantec products.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Guest]

Hi Richard,

Are you sure your reply here fits the question asked by Phillip ? lolol

Do you mean to tell us that there is no one at Symantec (where you say you
work) that his a bit more knowledgeable about Vista that you do? Go to your
IT department and ask there.

Symantec has been working with Vista for a couple of years now (at least
they should have been) as they needed it to develop their software to be
Vista compatible. If there is no one there with Vista knowledge I certainly
feel very sorry for users of Norton/Symantec products.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Richard Urban]

He is asking questions about Vista. He works at Symantec. Surely they
"should" have the knowledge to answer his questions regarding the operating
system, which they would have us all believe that they "protect" with their
software.

I am dinging Symantec - not the person who posted here. Maybe he is posting
here because there ***IS*** no one at Symantec who has a clue about Vista
(not that I think they has a clue about Windows XP either). (o:

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

Hi Richard,

Are you sure your reply here fits the question asked by Phillip ? lolol

 

[Guest]

Hi Richard,

My mistake there mate lolol now I understand.
Your assumption is correct of course but reading over the last week the
troubles people have been and are having with Nortons one would have to
assume that Phillip has used this forum because he didn't/wasn't able to get
answers from his work mates there at Symantec.
If this is the case EVERYONE should steer clear of Norton lololol