Printable View
So I was merrily specifying a machine for a customer & I'd done the kit bit & then I wrote 'xp64 .." .. which was fine & dandy until he said 'why?' & then really I was struggling to justify matters ..
Anybody find me any benchmarks that compare like for like & aren't based on a beta version of xp64 ? (or got any other comments about the differences)
Machines 'feel much faster' with xp64 on 'em, but I'm wondering how much of that feeling might be just wishful thinking ?
If you are using proper "for" 64bit apps or "optmized", like newer versions of Video-Encoding, and Game Software, there is a performance difference, good/bad, still depends on alot XP64, as I doubt its using 100% of what these 64bit CPU's can do.
The real problem with benchmarking, is that most 64bit CPU's have alot more to offer than 32bit counterparts, i.e. Dual Core, newer chips, faster clock speeds, more cache, besides being a 64bit CPU, so its not always down to the "64bit'ness" of the CPU that makes it seem faster.
All CPU's are either moving to 64bit or have already done so, so it all matters whether you are using XP32 or XP64, the latter (still) having issues with driver compatability.
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1665
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1857522,00.asp
Because it's newer, more secure & at the same price as the 32 bit version? (At least where I've looked).
Only problem I've ever found is that Starforce games are painful under 64 bit, even though they 'claim' to support it.
Cheers
-Leezer-
Are we talking about 64 bit chips or
Are we talking about Windows XP 64 bit?
Definelty use 64 bit chips for the simple fact that they are what is coming and there is no steering any other way.
As for Windows XP 64 bit thats another matter. Too many drivers and device software aren't there yet.
I have run 64 bit and i found it more stable actually and I would still be on it if it would run my camera,printer/scanner and other stuff.