Windows 7: 32 vs 64 Bit Comparison
Is there a significant difference between MS Windows 7 32-bit and 64-bit versions? In practice, what a user typically notices is OS boot speed and application launch speed. It is harder to notice a performance improvement in multimedia applications or games, unless the performance gain measures at least tens of percent.
Without doubt MS Windows 7 is considerably faster than MS Windows Vista, as proven in various tests [1]. In practice, what a user typically notices is OS boot speed and application launch speed. It is harder to notice a performance improvement in multimedia applications or games, unless the performance gain measures at least tens of percent.
A different question entirely is whether there is a significant difference between MS Windows 7 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Subjectively evaluating both Windows versions, it seemed that 32-bit runs slightly faster in terms of application loading, although the tests below did not confirm this. Looking objectively at these technologies, there were concerns about a performance drop on a 64-bit OS when running 32-bit applications, since 32-bit application execution involves an emulator (Wow64). Various sources mention that the performance drop could be around 2%.
Alongside the fact that 64-bit Windows 7 can use more RAM (more than 3GB), it must be understood that memory addresses also become longer. And if RAM runs short and the OS is forced to store data in virtual memory (i.e. on disk), the volume of data transferred will be larger than in the case of a 32-bit OS. According to some authors' estimates, on 2GB of RAM a 64-bit OS uses approximately 300–400MB more memory.
There are also advantages. Simultaneous transfer of larger amounts of data to/from the processor, additional registers for executing operations.
Particular attention was drawn to the Windows Experience Index, where to my deep disappointment I noticed that one of the parameters for 64-bit Windows is lower than for the 32-bit version - something I have not yet found an explanation for.
Used for experiments:
Motherboard - Gigabyte HA65M-UD3H-B3
CPU - Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500 CPU @ 3.30GHz
RAM - 4GB (2 x Kingston 99U5471-002A00LF 2GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-10700U DDR3-1334 (9-9-9-25 4-34-10-5))
VGA - Intel(R) HD Graphics Family (6SP 850MHz, 512MB DDR3 1.33GHz 128-bit, Integrated Graphics)
1. Test - Windows Experience Index
| 32 bit | 64 bit |
difference |
|
|
Processor (calculations per second) |
7.5 |
7.5 |
0 |
|
Memory (memory operations per second) |
7.6 |
5.9 |
-22.37% |
|
Graphics (desktop performance for Windows Aero) |
5.2 |
5.2 |
0 |
|
Gaming graphics (3D business and gaming graphics performance) |
5.8 |
5.8 |
0 |
|
Primary hard disk (disk data transfer rate) |
5.9 |
5.9 |
0 |
|
Total |
5.2 |
5.2 |
0 |
2. HD Tune Pro. (v 4.60)
Two identical Hitachi drives were used in the tests. Although there were suspicions that the 64-bit Windows drive would be slower, the tests showed nothing of the sort. The drives are very similar in characteristics. It was not possible to run a write test. I have only noticed that Total Commander (a 32-bit application) copies small files very slowly when running on 64-bit MS Windows 7.
 |
 |
| 32-bit MS Windows 7 | 64-bit MS Windows |
3. SiSoft Sandra Lite 2011.6.17.50
For the tests I chose to compare various parameters - CPU, Memory, Video and .NET multimedia. The test methodology can be reviewed on the software developer's website [4]. I must admit the information there on this topic is rather sparse.
Processor performance held no surprises, as the significant gain is in tests with cryptographic algorithms. This is apparently explained by the fact that a 64-bit OS can use registers more efficiently. A noteworthy advantage is also visible in the multimedia test sections. A slight drop for 64-bit Windows 7 was observed in memory and video tests, and one very much hopes that when using real applications, the combined performance across all parameters will compensate for this.
4. Conclusions
64-bit OS is the future, provided software developers pull their socks up and start creating 64-bit applications. An interesting resource for seeing which applications are already available in 64-bit: http://www.start64.com. It appears that archiver and multimedia developers have already proudly rolled up their sleeves in this area. Although, for example, a 64-bit version of VLC is not yet available.
Processor (CPU)
Processor Arithmetic
|
|
32 bit |
64 bit |
|
|
Aggregate Arithmetic Performance |
66 GOPS |
62.45 GOPS |
-5.68% |
|
Dhrystone iSSE4.2 |
86.65 GIPS |
83 GIPS |
-4.40% |
|
Whetstone iSSE3 |
50.2 GFLOPS |
47 GFLOPS |
-6.81% |
Cryptography
|
|
32 bit |
64 bit |
|
|
Cryptographic Bandwidth |
1.75 GB/s |
2 GB/s |
14.29% |
|
AES256-ECB iAES Cryptographic Bandwidth |
5.52 GB/s |
5.51 GB/s |
-0.18% |
|
SHA256 iSSE4 Hashing Bandwidth |
565 MB/s |
798 MB/s |
41.24% |
Multi-Core Efficiency
|
|
32 bit |
64 bit |
|
|
Inter-Core Bandwidth |
8 GB/s |
8.15 GB/s |
1.88% |
|
Inter-Core Latency |
48.3 ns |
40.4 ns |
-16.36% (!) |
Multimedia
|
|
32 bit |
64 bit |
|
|
Aggregate Multi-Media Performance |
94.86 MPix/s |
129.52 MPix/s
|
36.54% |
|
Multi-Media Integer x16 iSSE4.1 |
123.72 MPix/s |
156.26 MPix/s |
26.30% |
|
Multi-Media Float x8 iSSE2 |
72.73 MPix/s |
107.36 MPix/s
|
47.61% |
|
Multi-Media Double x4 iSSE2 |
38.7 MPix/s |
58.21 MPix/s
|
50.41% |
Memory
Bandwidth
|
|
32 bit |
64 bit |
|
|
Aggregate Memory Performance |
17GB/s |
16.73GB/s |
-1.59% |
|
Integer B/F iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth |
17GB/s |
16.74GB/s |
-1.53% |
|
Float B/F iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : |
17GB/s |
16.72GB/s |
-1.65% |
Cache and latency
|
|
32 bit |
64 bit |
|
|
Cache/Memory Bandwidth |
94.64GB/s |
92GB/s |
-2.79% |
|
Integrated Data Cache |
437.88GB/s |
403.61GB/s |
-7.83% |
|
L2 Cache |
348GB/s |
345GB/s |
-0.86% |
|
L3 Cache |
171.22GB/s |
168.32GB/s |
-1.69% |
* Higher scores are better
|
|
32 bit |
64 bit |
|
|
Speed Factor |
38.90 |
38.30 |
-1.54% (!) |
* Lower scores are better
Video
GPGPU/GPCPU processing
|
|
32 bit |
64 bit |
|
|
Aggregate Memory Performance
|
5.42GB/s |
5.41GB/s |
-0.18% |
|
Internal Memory Bandwidth :
|
12GB/s |
12GB/s |
0.00% |
|
Data Transfer Bandwidth : |
2.44GB/s |
2.43GB/s |
-0.41% |
|
Internal Memory Bandwidth : |
12GB/s |
12GB/s |
0.00% |
|
Bandwidth Efficiency :
|
58.02% |
57.85% |
-0.29% |
|
System to Device Bandwidth :
|
3GB/s |
3GB/s |
0.00% |
|
Device to System Bandwidth : |
2GB/s |
2GB/s |
0.00% |
GPGPU/GPCPU Bandwidth
|
|
32 bit |
64 bit |
|
|
Aggregate Shader Performance :
|
14.77MPix/s |
15.34MPix/s |
3.86% |
|
Native Float Shaders :
|
52.6MPix/s |
54.4MPix/s |
3.42% |
|
Emulated Double Shaders : |
4.15MPix/s |
4.33MPix/s |
4.34% |
|
Aggregate Shader Performance :
|
5.74GFLOPS |
6GFLOPS |
4.53% |
|
Native Float Shaders :
|
20.45GFLOPS |
21.15GFLOPS |
3.42% |
|
Emulated Double Shaders : |
1.61GFLOPS |
1.68GFLOPS |
4.35% |
.NET Multi-Media
|
|
32 bit |
64 bit |
|
|
Aggregate Multi-Media .NET Performance |
10.7MPix/s |
15MPix/s |
40.19% |
|
Multi-Media Integer x1 .NET : |
20.32MPix/s |
28.7MPix/s |
41.24% |
|
Multi-Media Float x1 .NET : |
5.63MPix/s |
8MPix/s |
42.10% |
|
Multi-Media Double x1 .NET : |
18.27MPix/s |
15.77MPix/s |
-13.68% |
1. http://www.pcworld.com/article/172509/windows_7_performance_tests.html
2. http://blog.tune-up.com/windows-insights/32-bit-vs-64-bit-more-bit-more-performance/
3. http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2889&Itemid=126
Hi
Regarding the memory index drop in x64, I was surprised as well on my PC when I moved to x64. But: I found this on C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore
--4227858432
LimitApplied Friendly="Physical memory available to the OS is less than 4.0GB-64MB on a 64-bit OS : limit mem score to 5.9" Relation="LT"
nice find. Can you perform a boot time comparision between the 32bit and 64bit too ?
Use PaePatch on the 32 bit win 7 and post results.
i force instaleld windows 7 drivers in windows xp 32 bit from windows 7 64 bit using a a method with a VERY hacked drivergenius software. it moved so fast that it was processing liek the clock frquency was multiplied by 6. it ran a hell of a lot cooler.