performance difference between 64/32bit?

[Heeter]

Hey all,

I some one here that would like me to change their XP OS to Vista on their 4400+AMD/2GIG RAM machine.

I am wondering if there is a noticable difference overall performance-wise between x64bit and x32bit

Not compatibility issues, just overall performance on the same machine.


Thanks,

Heeter

 

[epk]

not really, as far as i know

 

[Heeter]

I kinda figured, but I thought I'd ask first, As I have no knowledge whatsoever with Vista.


Thanks,

Heeter

 

[kcnychief]

Vista x64 bit SP1 is apparently the fastest via some benchmarks I have seen out there, compared to 32bit and XP with SP3. Small margin though I think....

 

[Sazar]

I haven't noticed much difference but I did notice that when I have a LOT of stuff going on, the natively running 64-bit apps seem to perform better.

Of course, this may just be my additional memory coming into play

 

[kcnychief]

I have to love 8GB of RAM, even more so when I did an analysis on my disk to find where some large files where - my page file was huge

 

[Tweakfiend]

Yes on my PC ...........more multi tasking = greater difference over Vista 32
Especially synchronising files across 4 hard drives.

 

[Dark Atheist]

I have to love 8GB of RAM, even more so when I did an analysis on my disk to find where some large files where - my page file was huge

with 4gb ram mine is 6.5gb - 8gb - normal formula is 2x the ram in your system 1.5x if you dont have a lot of space

 

[Perris Calderon]

with 4gb ram mine is 6.5gb - 8gb - normal formula is 2x the ram in your system 1.5x if you dont have a lot of space

I'm not positive 2 times ram is recomended by microsoft when you have over two gigs of memory in 64, I know it's not on a 32 bit os from ms

I'm not sure on 64 bit though, I never studied the differances, the rule of thumb of 2 or one and a half ram was created by microsoft when they didn't think people would have more then two gigs and when all we were looking at was 32 bit operating systems

in fact if you leave it to system managed in 32 bit and install 4 gigs the pagefile won't default to over two gigs, you would have to set that manually to over two gigs if you saw the pagefile resizing by the os during work

for those that didn't know it, the pagefile stores new information not old, when you launch a program or file whatever data is in ram just gets released back to the original file, the pagefile is just there when there is new information that doesn't exist anywhere on your disc or network

this is user created info that isn't written to a program, and information you might have deleted while it's still resident in memory, also logs, time and access tags which are were not recorded to your disc before they were registered to the pagefile

once in the pagefile it doesn't get deleted till next boot so if data was newly created in memory there will be an image in the pagefile even if there is a later image on the disc

I don't know how big a pagefile needs to be on 64 bit but if you set it to say 2 gigs the os will just expand the file when it needs to

if of course your disc space is abundant go ahead and make it as big as you like

 

[Dark Atheist]

well vista itself sticks it at around 4gb anyway on 32bit or 64bit, and then tells me it wants near 6 as recommended, xp does the same, puts 2gb as page file and then tells me to use over 4gb, and i believe it was you who also said about 2x ram for pagefile in another thread or something along them lines

 

[roirraW "edor" ehT]

I got in the habit a long time ago to double Microsoft's recommended values for min and max pagefile size, as - not terribly often but enough to be a nusiance - I would have a lot of things open and be playing a game or doing something else very intensive, and all of the sudden there's hard drive lag from hell as it resizes the pagefile. Especially annoying during a game whether offline or online.

Also, I don't like fragmentation so there's a lot less chance of that happening with giving it a larger pagefile than it wants by default.

 

[epk]

well i've been using 1gb lately (i have 2gb of ram) and i dont see any performance difference..

and i dont get any "out of memory" errors either, so idk really about those rules

 

[Perris Calderon]

well i've been using 1gb lately (i have 2gb of ram) and i dont see any performance difference..

and i dont get any "out of memory" errors either, so idk really about those rules

the suggestion if for power useres, you have no issues lowering the pagefile if you never put your memory under pressure

however, you get no benefit making the pagefile smaller either so shrinking it does nothing more then waste your time, it also gives the os fewer options when placing pageing data,

unless of course you don't have a big enough hardrive, shrinking the pagefile does nothing more then waste your time