Windows XP 64-Bit Preview: First Look at Athlon 64 Performance
by Wesley Fink on February 7, 2004 12:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Media Encoding and Gaming
Benchmarks
Media Encoding
One area where Intel processors have enjoyed an
advantage over Athlon 64 is Media Encoding.
Many have expected that Media Encoding with 64-bit extensions would
erase that advantage. We ran the latest
XMPEG 5.0.3 with the latest DIVX codec 5.1.1 to compare encoding performance in
a common 2-pass setup.
|
Media Encoding - XMPEG 5.0
with DIVX 5.1. 1 |
|||
|
|
32-Bit (Windows XP SP1) |
64-Bit (XP64 Preview Edition) |
% Change 32 to 64-bit |
|
XMpeg 5.03/Divx 5.1.1 2-Pass |
58.7 fps |
67.8 fps |
+15.5% |
Keep in
mind that the software we used is not really written for 64-bit operation. Even so, we found 64-bit encoding to be 15.5%
faster than 32-bit. With 64-bit versions
of the encoding software we would expect even higher performance. Keep in mind that this is a preview version
of XP64, hampered by very early drivers, running an encoder optimized for
32-bit. It certainly appears that Media
Encoding under Windows XP64 will be a totally different animal.
Gaming
The Athlon
64 quickly distinguished itself as the Gaming CPU with its outstanding
performance in almost every 32-bit game.
With that kind of 32-bit advantage, we fully expected 64-bit gaming to
fly.
|
Game Performance - Athlon 64
FX51 |
|||
|
|
32-Bit (Windows XP SP1) Frames Per Second |
64-Bit (XP64 Preview) Frames Per Second |
% Change 32 to 64-bit |
|
Halo DX9.0b 1024x768 |
55.0 |
44.5 |
-19.1% |
|
Splinter Cell 1024x768 |
57.52 |
40.10 |
-30.3% |
|
X2 1024x768 |
135.9 |
130.1 |
-4.3% |
|
Quake 3 1024x768 |
482.0 |
235.0 |
-51.2 % |
|
Unreal Tournament 2003 - 1024x768 Flyby |
291.85 |
233.52 |
-19.0% |
|
Unreal Tournament 2003 - 1024x768 Botmatch |
112.46 |
88.21 |
-21.6% |
|
GunMetal 2 - Bench 2 DX9 1024x768 |
49.14 |
30.63 |
-37.7% |
|
GunMetal 2 - Bench 1 DX9 1024x768 |
39.93 |
26.50 |
-33.6% |
|
Comanche 4 1024x668 4AA |
71.24 |
52.35 |
-26.5% |
Gaming is
the one area in the preview that is a disappointment. As you can see, the standard benchmark games
under XP64 Preview were 4% to 51% slower than 32-bit, with the average speed
about 20% slower. It is far too early to
reach any conclusions in this area, but there is a lot of driver optimization
to be done to make up this kind of delta.
With the CPU and memory providing faster 64-bit performance, we have to
believe the drivers play a big part in this disappointing gaming performance.
Epic was
demonstrating UT 2004 64-bit at the release of the Athlon 64 last September,
and by all reports the performance was amazing. Perhaps we will only see the promised
advantage of 64-bit in games written or compiled for XP64. As we have already said, it is too early to
draw conclusions; We are only asking
questions. nVidia, ATI, Microsoft, and
chipset manufacturers really need to improve drivers to the point where 64-bit is at least on par with 32-bit when running 32-bit games. AMD
has argued all along the advantages of backwards compatibility with 32-bit
games. This will still be a 32-bit world
for a while and competitive gaming performance running 32-bit games is
extremely important. We fully expect
gaming to improve as we move toward the release of XP64. ATI has no published drivers for 64-bit, and
nVidia's release drivers now are nearly 3 months old. As we have seen over and over in the past,
drivers are what make the difference in games.
With the release of XP64 Preview we should now see ATI and nVidia making
giant strides in 64-bit graphics drivers.
Aquamark 3
would not run under XP64 preview, but the rest of our gaming benchmarks would
run. X2 has always had problems with
image tearing on nVidia cards and the image tearing is even worse in XP64, but the
benchmark does complete and provide believable results.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
Pumpkinierre - Monday, February 9, 2004 - link
#30 they used an nvidia5950 with a released (but maybe not mature) 64bit driver for the tests. I suggested using 32bit drivers (#17) to see if the core of the OS was the problem but INTC(#18) kindly referred me to a post that shows that once the 32bit code goes into the WOW dlls its 64bit thereafter. So its difficult to isolate the problem, one way, as one post suggested, is lower the resolution and take the workload of the graphics card and perhaps use older games that are less video card dependent. If the difference between XP and Win64 result does'nt narrow with these settings then it is the OS core/WOW that is more likely at fault. From the large discrepancy in the older games Quake3 and Comanche4 results, I suspect it is not just the drivers at fault.The Lost Circuits post (#18) also indicated that Win64 handled 16bit apps. as well Sniper #28 but probably via a different module.
vedin - Sunday, February 8, 2004 - link
Sniper, you have to take into account the fact that that was, unless I'm wrong, an almost generic Microsoft ATI driver, and NOT a 64bit driver from ATI...seeing as ATI has no such driver. Neither did the chipset maker for that matter, so the AGP "Bus" would lag a bit too. Heck, I'm surprised any of the games worked AT ALL. I expect to see no less than a 30% performance boost on ATI's first released 64bit driver, and I think it will actually BE in the neighboorhood of the exact defficit that we see now. After the second or third revision, I expect the games to get on average of 5-20% faster than they would with the newest 32bit drivers on 32bit Windows.Can you say, preview, beta copy?
dvinnen - Sunday, February 8, 2004 - link
It's not emulation. All they did was add another layer for 32 bit code. While this will hender proformance, current code ges through so many layers as it is, it won't be that noticable. Certanly would not hender proformance to the tune of 50%Sniper342 - Sunday, February 8, 2004 - link
I think this article is promoting some misconceptions...When running 32 bit applications, like pretty much all current games, on the 64 bit edition of Windows XP, the 32 bit games will be running through a seperate subsystem, sort of like an emulation or compatability mode type thing. So that's probably why the games are running slower...
The conclusion in this article regarding 64 bit gaming performance seems false, and the test doesn't seem very logical. To know the 64 bit gaming performance, a 64 bit build of THE GAME must be tested... The 64 bit operating system was only able to run the current games due to the compatability emulation-ish mode, so of course it's usually slower...
Read Microst's FAQ for Windows XP 64 Bit edition:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluatio...
"Q. Will my applications be faster on Windows XP 64-Bit Edition?"
"Most 32-bit applications should continue to perform best on 32-bit versions of the Windows operating system."
"Q. Will Windows XP 64-Bit Edition support 32-bit applications?
A. A key feature of Windows XP 64-Bit Edition is its ability to run 32-bit Windows-based applications unmodified on the 64-bit platform. To enable this capability, Microsoft has added a new 32-bit subsystem to Windows XP 64-Bit Edition. This subsystem—Windows on Windows 64—provides the 32-bit Windows services needed for applications to run properly even if they are not 64-bit. (Note: This subsystem does not support 16-bit applications.)"
Wesley Fink - Sunday, February 8, 2004 - link
DivXNetworks is a launch parther of AMD and the official site for Divx. They claim the 64-bit version of Dr. Divx leaves everything avaible in the dust. As soon as Dr. Divx 64 is released we will be publishing benchmarks.AMD included coupons for Dr. Divx 64 in the retail version of Athlon64 FX processors.
Visual - Sunday, February 8, 2004 - link
---- Wesley Fink wrote ----XP64 uses DirectX 64 and a Direct X 32-bit version. We were told there may be a problem with enabling DirectX 64 in this Preview Edition. We did run DXDiag for 64-bits and checked to make sure DX64 was enabled.
----
well, i'd imagine that the 32bit apps use the 32bit directx anyway, so it doesnt matter if 64bit directx is enabled.
you know what i think you should add to this article? i'd be curious to see SiSoft Sandra 2004 32bit version on the 64bit windows. that way we can get numbers for "Change 32bit to 64bit OS only" and "Change 32bit app to 64bit app".
wow if that divx thing gets even better with 64bit app & codec then AMD be kings of the world!
the article is good news, i like it!
sipc660 - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
i'll save my money for a nice gigabyte mobo based on sis 756 and pci express 16x radeon (R423)of coarse some DDR2(if supported)
by then (probably mid 2004) xp64 should be mature as well as drivers.
then i'll ask these cocks if they still don't beleive the gaming power of 64 bit could not improve.
remember
they don't kill the rooster because he sings, but because he sings at the wrong time LOL
so be "as sabirun"= means patient.
wait and we will wait with you.....
go amd
michael3333 - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
Also, the Microsoft site specifically stated that this Windows will ONLY work on an Opteron/AMD64 based processor system. No mention of anything Intel. If this Windows will work on Intel Xeon CT than Intel will have to used licensed AMD 64 technology right? LOLmichael3333 - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
drivers, drivers, drivers. 16 registers. AMD64 can run 32 bit inside 64bit but those 16 registers is what will speed things up. How does anyone say Prescott looks good based on a crappy driver run Preview version of a 64bit windoze using almost all 32bit tests? UH oktantryl - Saturday, February 7, 2004 - link
Is it just me, or does it seem strange testing out the capabilities of a 64-bit processor and OS with 32 bit application benchmarks?