32bit vs 64bit Windows - GoFuckYourself.com

Davy · 05-20-2010, 02:49 PM

I am sure there are some Windows pros around here that can answer my question:

I upgraded from Vista to Windows 7 today. Before I got Windows 7, I checked if my dual core processor is 64-bit compatible. It showed as compatible, so I installed Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit edition.
I just ran the Windows performance check ("experience index"). It used to be at 4.9 (with memory being the lowest index). Now the CPU performance index is only at 3.6.

Does this mean that I would be better off installing the 32-bit version of Windows 7?
Is my (older) laptop computer not fully compatible with 64-bit?

I don't see any significant loss of performance.

abshard · 05-20-2010, 02:52 PM

The experience index maybe has a differnet rating scale on the 2 OS's

If you have less then 3.5gigs of ram 32bit is fine.

If have more then 3.5 gigs of ram you need 64bit or the extra ram is wasted.

ProG · 05-20-2010, 02:53 PM

That's a pretty low score. I get a 6.0 on my old 2.4GHz E6600.

I don't think your problem is with the 64-bit version. Perhaps Windows 7 just calculates the experience index differently than Vista?

BestXXXPorn · 05-20-2010, 02:54 PM

I think the bar is set higher for 64-bit systems personally and definitely for Windows 7 vs Vista... you should, overall, experience better performance running a 64-bit OS with a 64-bit processor. Especially for CPU intensive 64 bit developed software... Not to mention Windows 7 is leagues better than Vista

I'd stick with Windows 7 :P

Barefootsies · 05-20-2010, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abshard

The experience index maybe has a differnet rating scale on the 2 OS's

If you have less then 3.5gigs of ram 32bit is fine.

If have more then 3.5 gigs of ram you need 64bit or the extra ram is wasted.

That pretty much sums it up.

I have a couple of 64bit machines for that reason. The extra RAM. It does occasionally add in some complications, but having that extra memory is nice. Especially for all the video rendering and compression I have to do.

Davy · 05-20-2010, 03:03 PM

Thanks for the info, guys. The laptop is rather old, as you can tell, and Windows 7 was not around when I bought the computer.
Makes sense that Windows 7 calculates the index differently.

It's a little disappointing to see the CPU index so low, but overall, it feels much faster (almost like buying a slightly better PC). I have already configured everything, so I don't want to install the 32-bit version just to see if the performance index is any different...

Darkcrni · 05-20-2010, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abshard

The experience index maybe has a differnet rating scale on the 2 OS's

If you have less then 3.5gigs of ram 32bit is fine.

If have more then 3.5 gigs of ram you need 64bit or the extra ram is wasted.

Exactly

Cyandin · 05-20-2010, 03:22 PM

The Windows experience rating is worthless.

My system consists of:

Core2Quad Q6600 @2.5ghz (slightly OC'd)
8GB DDR2-800 RAM
1x150GB 10k SATA WD Raptor HDD
GeForce 9800 GTX+ 1GB DDR3 Video Card
Vista Ultimate 64-bit

(plus external hdd's and other things not connected while running the test)

and it gives me a shitty rating (mind you, no programs are running when i do the test).

Ethersync · 05-20-2010, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProG

Perhaps Windows 7 just calculates the experience index differently than Vista?

This.

GrouchyAdmin · 05-20-2010, 03:51 PM

dude install win3.1 that shit will fly

Ethersync · 05-20-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrouchyAdmin

dude install win3.1 that shit will fly

Windows 3.1 flies on this Nexus One

sandman! · 05-20-2010, 03:58 PM

i run 2 15k sas drives in raid 0 and my lowest score is in the HD speed those tests are worthless

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyandin

The Windows experience rating is worthless.

My system consists of:

Core2Quad Q6600 @2.5ghz (slightly OC'd)
8GB DDR2-800 RAM
1x150GB 10k SATA WD Raptor HDD
GeForce 9800 GTX+ 1GB DDR3 Video Card
Vista Ultimate 64-bit

(plus external hdd's and other things not connected while running the test)

and it gives me a shitty rating (mind you, no programs are running when i do the test).

scarlettcontent · 05-20-2010, 03:58 PM

u need to run 64 bit programs to make a difference, most are 32 anyway

LoveSandra · 05-20-2010, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyandin

The Windows experience rating is worthless.

My system consists of:

Core2Quad Q6600 @2.5ghz (slightly OC'd)
8GB DDR2-800 RAM
1x150GB 10k SATA WD Raptor HDD
GeForce 9800 GTX+ 1GB DDR3 Video Card
Vista Ultimate 64-bit

(plus external hdd's and other things not connected while running the test)

and it gives me a shitty rating (mind you, no programs are running when i do the test).

05-20-2010, 02:49 PM	#1
Davy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 4,323	32bit vs 64bit Windows I am sure there are some Windows pros around here that can answer my question: I upgraded from Vista to Windows 7 today. Before I got Windows 7, I checked if my dual core processor is 64-bit compatible. It showed as compatible, so I installed Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit edition. I just ran the Windows performance check ("experience index"). It used to be at 4.9 (with memory being the lowest index). Now the CPU performance index is only at 3.6. Does this mean that I would be better off installing the 32-bit version of Windows 7? Is my (older) laptop computer not fully compatible with 64-bit? I don't see any significant loss of performance. __________________ --- ICQ 14-76-98 <-- I don't use this at all

05-20-2010, 02:53 PM	#3
ProG Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,319	That's a pretty low score. I get a 6.0 on my old 2.4GHz E6600. I don't think your problem is with the 64-bit version. Perhaps Windows 7 just calculates the experience index differently than Vista? __________________ History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.

05-20-2010, 02:54 PM	#4
BestXXXPorn Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Asheville, NC Posts: 2,277	I think the bar is set higher for 64-bit systems personally and definitely for Windows 7 vs Vista... you should, overall, experience better performance running a 64-bit OS with a 64-bit processor. Especially for CPU intensive 64 bit developed software... Not to mention Windows 7 is leagues better than Vista I'd stick with Windows 7 :P __________________ ICQ: 258-202-811 \| Email: eric{at}bestxxxporn.com

05-20-2010, 03:03 PM	#6
Davy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 4,323	Thanks for the info, guys. The laptop is rather old, as you can tell, and Windows 7 was not around when I bought the computer. Makes sense that Windows 7 calculates the index differently. It's a little disappointing to see the CPU index so low, but overall, it feels much faster (almost like buying a slightly better PC). I have already configured everything, so I don't want to install the 32-bit version just to see if the performance index is any different... __________________ --- ICQ 14-76-98 <-- I don't use this at all

05-20-2010, 03:51 PM	#10
GrouchyAdmin Now choke yourself! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 12,085	dude install win3.1 that shit will fly __________________ AIM: GrouchyGfy

05-20-2010, 02:52 PM	#2
abshard Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 6,329	The experience index maybe has a differnet rating scale on the 2 OS's If you have less then 3.5gigs of ram 32bit is fine. If have more then 3.5 gigs of ram you need 64bit or the extra ram is wasted.

05-20-2010, 03:22 PM	#8
Cyandin Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,723	The Windows experience rating is worthless. My system consists of: Core2Quad Q6600 @2.5ghz (slightly OC'd) 8GB DDR2-800 RAM 1x150GB 10k SATA WD Raptor HDD GeForce 9800 GTX+ 1GB DDR3 Video Card Vista Ultimate 64-bit (plus external hdd's and other things not connected while running the test) and it gives me a shitty rating (mind you, no programs are running when i do the test).

05-20-2010, 03:58 PM	#13
scarlettcontent www.scarlettcontent.net Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Pleiades Posts: 6,031	u need to run 64 bit programs to make a difference, most are 32 anyway __________________ Scarlett Content - Adult Content Provider - High Quality Adult Stock Content for your Websites, Mobile Media and Print. Over 3 Million Images (14,000 photo sets) over 5000 Videos - Many Niches, US-2257, Awesome Prices. Over 40 years in the adult industry. [email protected] Follow us on twitter.