Vista 32 vs W7 64 - Same Comp - Any faster?

Message boards : Number crunching : Vista 32 vs W7 64 - Same Comp - Any faster?

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile BigWaveSurfer

Send message
Joined: 29 Nov 01
Posts: 172
Credit: 16,385,613
RAC: 18,375
United States
Message 1334157 - Posted: 3 Feb 2013, 2:35:24 UTC

I just upgraded my laptop (nothing special, dual core, 4GB RAm) from Vista 32-bit to Windows 7 64-Bit. I also swapped the factory HD for a Seagate XT 'hybrid' drive. I'm curious if this will result in any shorter crunch times?

The upgrades had nothing to do with crunching, but I'm curious if anyone thinks it will make a difference or if it is 100% on the processor and I will not see anything.


ID: 1334157 · Report as offensive
Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1334162 - Posted: 3 Feb 2013, 3:04:44 UTC - in response to Message 1334157.

You shouldnt see any difference. The apps arent much different from 32 to 64 bit OSes and 7 is like the unbroken Vista.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

ID: 1334162 · Report as offensive
hbomber
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 May 01
Posts: 437
Credit: 50,852,854
RAC: 0
Bulgaria
Message 1334212 - Posted: 3 Feb 2013, 9:13:37 UTC

Use 64-bit optimized applications for CPU, they are noticeably faster than their 32-bit counterparts, like 10-15% faster.


ID: 1334212 · Report as offensive
juan BFP
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 07
Posts: 5847
Credit: 330,527,516
RAC: 7,709
Panama
Message 1334237 - Posted: 3 Feb 2013, 11:07:40 UTC - in response to Message 1334212.

Use 64-bit optimized applications for CPU, they are noticeably faster than their 32-bit counterparts, like 10-15% faster.


Yes they are faster than stock apps, but keep an eye in the temperature, specialy on a laptop/notebook.

ID: 1334237 · Report as offensive
Profile BigWaveSurfer

Send message
Joined: 29 Nov 01
Posts: 172
Credit: 16,385,613
RAC: 18,375
United States
Message 1334452 - Posted: 3 Feb 2013, 22:29:58 UTC - in response to Message 1334212.

Use 64-bit optimized applications for CPU, they are noticeably faster than their 32-bit counterparts, like 10-15% faster.


Thanks for the tip, will give that a shot later....and I have it set to only use 50% on all the laptops I have it installed on to keep the temps down.

ID: 1334452 · Report as offensive
Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 6089
Credit: 155,084,530
RAC: 48,851
United States
Message 1334586 - Posted: 4 Feb 2013, 14:21:42 UTC

Generally the storage media for BOINC & tasks is irreverent. There could be some benefit to faster storage, but it may be so small no one has been able to measure it.

A default install of 7 has a few less things running in the background than Vista. So that may actually help a bit. If your Vista installation was the factory install with all of their "stuff" installed and running that may be prove to be a more significant gain.


SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours

Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

ID: 1334586 · Report as offensive
Cruncher-American

Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 02
Posts: 1310
Credit: 175,711,857
RAC: 105,280
United States
Message 1334593 - Posted: 4 Feb 2013, 15:10:24 UTC - in response to Message 1334586.

Generally the storage media for BOINC & tasks is irreverent.


Yeah, I know. Mine makes bad jokes all the time.

ID: 1334593 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9201
Credit: 5,930,688
RAC: 1,928
United Kingdom
Message 1334603 - Posted: 4 Feb 2013, 16:12:19 UTC - in response to Message 1334212.

Use 64-bit optimized applications for CPU, they are noticeably faster than their 32-bit counterparts, like 10-15% faster.

Some applications run twice as fast (100% faster or at 200% normal rate depending on how you like your percentages!). Notably various prime searches.


But why oh why are people still lingering in 32bits on 64bit hardware?! There's a lot of transistors and expense to give you the extra performance and functionality of the 64bits...


Happy fast crunchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia5
See & try out for yourself: Linux Voice
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

ID: 1334603 · Report as offensive
hbomber
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 May 01
Posts: 437
Credit: 50,852,854
RAC: 0
Bulgaria
Message 1334616 - Posted: 4 Feb 2013, 16:39:22 UTC
Last modified: 4 Feb 2013, 16:49:09 UTC

I distinctly specified which applications and how faster they perform. For his systems, only Intel CPUs.
Ppl use 32-bit OS, bcs most of them are more pragmatic than exotic and adventurous. Perhaps some of them wonder why me or you are still using same vacuum cleaner for last 10 years. Answer is same for both questions - bcs it fulfills its purposes.


ID: 1334616 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Number crunching : Vista 32 vs W7 64 - Same Comp - Any faster?


 
©2016 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.