The results are in, x86 vs x64

Not sure where to put this so if its in the wrong place please move it.

Been testing my machine with PC Mark 8 Home on my dual boot SSD. According to PC Mark the score for x86 on the home test the score is 2004 and using win 10 x64 the score is 2190. So I am switching to my x64 os for my main os.

Opinions?

I haven't used a 32-bit OS on any of my PCs for the past 10 years. Obviously I think that you have, at last, made the correct decision.

it seems that a 64 bit CPU does not mean your machine will not be faster, what i does mean is that your computer will cope with more memory, and yes if your machine is 64bit you may as well run a 64 Bit OS on it.
I have not had a 32 bit bit Os on this machine and it is about 5 years old, on the machine before it I had a 64 bit version of Windows Xp before I went to windows 7 and yes there is a 64bit version of XP.

This link here is to a video on You Tube where someone is saying about 32bit v 64bit.

Banger's results would seem to show that the 64-bit OS is faster than the 32-bit one. And that is entirely as it should be. The 64-bit chip has more registers and a more efficient instruction set than the 32-bit one so it would be surprising if it weren't a bit faster.

You watched the video? A 64 bit OS is going to be faster as it is produced for 64 bit CPU, the same as a 64bit application will work better than the 32 bit version. The problem here is that we have had 64 bit processors for years and yet the majority of software is still 32 bit.

I haven't watched the video. One should not assume that 32-bit instructions will execute more quickly on 64-bit processors than on 32-bit processors although they probably do. When 64-bit processors were introduced, there were reports of 32-bit software running slower on them than on 32-bit processors. There may have been several reasons for this:

• Some (or all) 32-bit instructions being emulated by micro-code within the 64-bit processors.
• Data not being on 64-bit boundaries (and therefore requiring multiple loads/stores).
• Old 32-bit compilers not generating instructions that can be executed quickly by 64-bit processors.
• Old 32-bit compilers not using the latest SIMD instruction sets.

Things are a lot better now since:

• Modern compilers can generate 32-bit instructions optimised for 64-bit processors.
• 64-bit processors execute common 32-bit instructions directly rather than in microcode.
• Most 64-bit processors have multi-core architectures.
• Bigger instruction and data caches.

However, it may still be possible that 32-bit software that has not been re-compiled using modern compilers will see little or no improvement in speed when run on 64-bit processors. Conversely, 32-bit versions of software may run just as quickly as the 64-bit versions on 64-bit processors providing that they have been compiled using modern compilers with the appropriate optimisations.

Edited by micksharpe (Mon 01-Feb-16 12:05:32)

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

The problem here is that we have had 64 bit processors for years and yet the majority of software is still 32 bit.

And even where 32 and 64 bit versions of software exist, the vendors still suggest users opt for 32 bit unless the user has a specific usage case that demands 64 bit.

E.g. Microsoft still says people should use the 32-bit version of Office unless the user has specific usage patterns: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Choose-the-...

"If none of these situations apply to you, the 32-bit version of Office is probably the right choice."

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

And even where 32 and 64 bit versions of software exist, the vendors still suggest users opt for 32 bit...

With good reason. There may be nothing to be gained from switching to 64-bit. For example, the guts of a lot of software is compiled to byte code (e.g. Java, MSIL) anyway so it makes little difference whether the launcher is 32-bit or 64-bit. The framework's just-in-time compiler will generate the appropriate machine instructions.

Edited by micksharpe (Mon 01-Feb-16 14:05:04)

In reply to a post by micksharpe:

With good reason. There may be nothing to be gained from switching to 64-bit.

But if there's nothing to lose, then I would tend to think 64-bit software should be the default choice on a 64-bit OS, where both versions exist.

Edited by Oliver341 (Mon 01-Feb-16 14:05:29)

There's something to that. Personally, I usually select 32-bit installers simply because my free version of Revo Uninstaller doesn't list 64-bit applications (the paid-for version does). Some websites will default to 64-bit downloads if you are running a 64-bit OS. One reason that vendors may prefer you to select 32-bit software is that the downloads tend to be smaller and will therefore use less bandwidth. Also, downloading 32-bit and 64-bit versions will not please the bean-counters.

In any case, 64-bit software really needs to be fine-tuned to the hardware that it is running on to get maximum performance^*. This ups the development and support costs and may be one reason why downloads are larger, since several versions of 64-bit code will need to be provided for the various flavours of 64-bit microprocessors. It may also explain why massive patches are often required for 64-bit games.

* It may also explain why some vendors choose to ship only 32-bit software. Those that provide 64-bit versions may only do so to stop 64-bit enthusiasts moaning. There may well be no processor-specific optimisations in the 64-bit code at all. Even worse, the compiler may be run in "maximum compatibility" mode. Why bother?

Eventually, we will be given no choice (or it will be between 64-bit and 128-bit). Until then, 32-bit code remains a reasonable choice for software developers (at least, in the Windows environment).

[Final] edit: I don't expect Windows to go 128-bit. Ever. 64-bit's yer lot, folks. Microsoft may stomp on the 32-bit version, however.

Edited by micksharpe (Mon 01-Feb-16 15:50:17)

well if you consider security important 64bit wins.