Kev1n Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I have an Intel i3 530 processor, with 4GB DDR3 RAM, an ATi Radeon HD5770 GPU, and a Samsung 1TB F3 Spinpoint harddisk. I tried Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit on my computer, and the Windows Experience Index was as follows: Processor - 6.9RAM - 7.3 Graphics - 7.4 Gaming graphics - 7.4 Primary hard disk - 5.9 And then I tried doing a clean install of Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit: Processor - 6.9RAM - 5.9 Graphics - 6.0 Gaming graphics - 6.0 Primary hard disk - 5.9 .. And this despite having more usable RAM. What gives?! EDIT: I ran the test again and this time both graphics test read 7.4- the same as before. The RAM test is still at 5.9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medium_pimpin Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Is 64-bit functionally slower? I wouldn't worry about the WEI score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingbird Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Windows Experience Index doesn't really matter. I didn't do any upgrade and redo the test today and my score went up. No, Windows 64-bit is NOT slower than 32-bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+allan MVC Posted March 31, 2010 MVC Share Posted March 31, 2010 I found the performance under 64 bit to be marginally slower than 32 bit. Nothing major, but certainly noticeable (to me). Eventually I had to go back to 32 bit simply because some very old, custom business apps would not run under 64 bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMELTN Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Thats funny. Weird to, but I would say because 64-bit requires more resources Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hani Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Could you try some games and see if they're faster or slower? Or try 3dsmark. I should try installing 32-bit to see if it's any faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REM2000 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Ill add that Windows 7 x64 is a touch faster than 32bit versions. Things like explorer and other operations like file transfers seem to be quicker. (Testing on the same machine x86 and x64). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted March 31, 2010 Veteran Share Posted March 31, 2010 What about your chipset drivers? I'm guessing that's the major cause of the slowdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von kain Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 it might be that the x64 commands are still in favor of amd thus making the windows faster on amd(keep notice i use x64 in amd setups and i have seen a +25~+33% on those setups when running win xp x64, vista x64, and win 7 x64 instead of the x86 flavors) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 What about your chipset drivers? I'm guessing that's the major cause of the slowdown. Yes this might be it. I installed the catalyst drivers from the DVD provided and my graphics score was 6.0. I downloaded the x64 drivers from the ATi site and the score went back up to the original 7.4. Somehow I forgot that I hadn't downloaded new drivers for my motherboard. I'll try it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted April 1, 2010 Author Share Posted April 1, 2010 Ok I installed the latest drivers for my motherboard, and the RAM score is still at 5.9. :pinch: 4GB of DDR3 RAM should have a score of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaP Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 STrange my 5850 score 6,0 only ... Ok I installed the latest drivers for my motherboard, and the RAM score is still at 5.9. :pinch: 4GB of DDR3 RAM should have a score of what? I have the same ram as you and my ram score 7.5. I have a better gpu(5850) and it scores 6.0 only Let's say those scores are not really reliable ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulletRobZ Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 While I cannot comment on 32-bit performance, as my laptop came with the 64-bit version, I'm sure part of the reason why the 64-bit can be a bit slower is because not that many applications are available in 64-bit. Still, I'm not complaining about mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seduced Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 i noticed a slow down from x32 to x64 - spent plenty of time googleing.. no real answers. its not so much a problem as a low expectation. better than vista though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDave Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 There should be a speed increce between Windows x32 to x64. When running x32bit apps on Win x64 however it runs them with "wow" (Windows on Windows) that actually degrades the proformance compared to if the application was run on x32bit Windows alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted April 1, 2010 Author Share Posted April 1, 2010 There should be a speed increce between Windows x32 to x64. When running x32bit apps on Win x64 however it runs them with "wow" (Windows on Windows) that actually degrades the proformance compared to if the application was run on x32bit Windows alone. So, at the moment, which is the better choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicane-UK Veteran Posted April 1, 2010 Veteran Share Posted April 1, 2010 I found the performance under 64 bit to be marginally slower than 32 bit. Nothing major, but certainly noticeable (to me). Eventually I had to go back to 32 bit simply because some very old, custom business apps would not run under 64 bit. Have found the same in my own experiences of running Vista and Windows 7 64bit versions against their 32bit counterparts. Definitely marginally slower, though not enough to put me off.. besides, I've got 8GB of RAM so don't have much choice :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDave Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Printed on the disk you use to install Windows it says which version it is. Also look on your C:\ drive if there is a folder called "Program Files (x86)" then you have 64bit installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason S. Global Moderator Posted April 1, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted April 1, 2010 this sounds like one of those threads that just continues to spread FUD around the internet... folks, dont worry about it. x64 is the future, lets move on. Windows 7 cannot be noticeably slower or faster on x32 vs x64... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason S. Global Moderator Posted April 1, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted April 1, 2010 Hi, Thank you for using forum. Most users experience this slowness when they do not format their hard drive from 32bit to 64bit. I suggest you backup your data and format the drive with the 64-bit version. There is a known issue with Windows 7 and sleep mode. Thank you for your time and efforts in evaluating Windows 7. im about 99% sure you cannot upgrade or move to a 64-bit OS from a 32-bit OS... a format is necessary anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I was replying to pollock87 who said the cause of the problem is due to my harddisk not being formatted in 64-bit. There's no difference between formatting it with 32-bit or 64-bit. NTFS is the same for both. I think he probably meant upgrade, which isn't possible anyway. That or he meant that the files already on the disk could be causing fragmentation, but that's not a real issue either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joni_78 Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 I found Windows 7 64-bit to be slightly slower too, I gave up on that couple of weeks after RTM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted April 1, 2010 Author Share Posted April 1, 2010 I just tried playing Crysis. I see no noticeable difference in performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hani Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Maybe because Crysis supports x64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev1n Posted April 1, 2010 Author Share Posted April 1, 2010 Hmm maybe, but it didn't ask me if I would like to install the 32-bit or 64-bit version of it. Tbh, it even seems Crysis runs SLIGHTLY better in x64. Might just be a placebo effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts