Introduction

Today Microsoft released the first service pack for their Windows 7 operating system to the general public.

1. Well I tested the two on 3D Mark Vantage and I got a huge performance boost from Vista to Windows 7. I only got 78 more points for the CPU on Windows 7 but I got 1,605 more points with Windows 7 on the graphics tests, that's about a 30% performance boost. This is impressive. Nvidia 8800 Ultra, 768 MB Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E6850; 3.00 GHz.
2. NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT. Gaming graphics. 1279 MB Total available graphics memory. Primary hard disk. 80GB Free (98GB Total) 5.4. Windows 7 Ultimate.
3. Different graphics cards operations perform differently within a GPU. The architecture and drivers may be optimized for 2D at the expense of 3D, for instance, or for shader throughput at the expense of geometry calculations. Desktop graphics performance ('Graphics') is a different set of API calls than a typical gaming graphics application.

If you want to easily get an idea of what your graphics card can do, benchmarking your GPU is a great way to see how it will cope with all the latest PC games.These benchmark tests will push your.

Officially Microsoft's release notes suggest no changes that would have any effect on graphics card performance, but we wanted to do our own testing. We used the final version of Service Pack 1 on our graphics card review system and compared the performance of ATI's and NVIDIA's latest flagship graphics card in our extensive benchmark suite.

3d Business Gaming Graphics Performance Windows 7 64

3d Business And Gaming Graphics Performance Windows 7 Free Download

Test System

Test System
CPU:	Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz (Bloomfield, 8192 KB Cache)
Motherboard:	Gigabyte X58 Extreme Intel X58 & ICH10R
Memory:	3x 2048 MB Mushkin Redline XP3-12800 DDR3 @ 1520 MHz 8-7-7-16
Harddisk:	WD Caviar Black 6401AALS 640 GB
Power Supply:	akasa 1200W
Software:	Windows 7 64-bit / No SP and SP1
Drivers:	NVIDIA: 266.58 ATI: Catalyst 11.2
Display:	LG Flatron W3000H 30' 2560x1600

Benchmark scores in other reviews are only comparable when this exact same configuration is used.

• All video card results were obtained on this exact system with the exact same configuration.
• All games were set to their highest quality setting

Each benchmark was tested at the following settings and resolution:

• 1024 x 768, No Anti-aliasing. This is a standard resolution without demanding display settings.
• 1280 x 1024, 2x Anti-aliasing. Common resolution for most smaller flatscreens today (17' - 19'). A bit of eye candy turned on in the drivers.
• 1680 x 1050, 4x Anti-aliasing. Most common widescreen resolution on larger displays (19' - 22'). Very good looking driver graphics settings.
• 1920 x 1200, 4x Anti-aliasing. Typical widescreen resolution for large displays (22' - 26'). Very good looking driver graphics settings.
• 2560 x 1600, 4x Anti-aliasing. Highest possible resolution for commonly available displays (30'). Very good looking driver graphics settings.

There is no doubt that MS Windows 7 is much faster than MS Windows Vista, as a proof of it huge number of tests you can find in web [1]. In reality, OS loading speed as well as software launching time is what regular user mainly notices first. It is more specific to notice and benchmark performance improvements in applications and games while this performance differences is not measured in tens of percents.

Another question is does it really have significant performance differences between Windows 7 32 bit version and 64 bit version? From my subjective experience I can say, 32 bit version is slightly faster in launching of the programs, although there is no evidences seen in tests below. Still there are legitimate concerns that running 32 bit software on 64 bit OS might lead to some performance fall, because in order to run 32 bit programs emulator (Wow64) is used. In some sources you can find that this performance fall is measured up to 2% only.

With Windows 7 64 bit ability to use more RAM (more than 3Gb), you should concern that addressing also become longer (address to memory area). This might be an issue, what OS run out of RAM and virtual disk (swap) is used, and amount of information transferred from / to hard drive will be larger than in case of 32 bit OS. Some sources claim that for 2Gb RAM usage, in 64 bit OS will consume up to 300 – 400 Mb more.

Fortunately there are some pros as well. With a 64 bit bus amount (and speed) of transferred information will grow. More over extra registers in CPU can be used for operations.

I have noticed very interesting issue with Windows Experience Index, where one of benchmark parameters (memory operations per second) in Windows 7 64 bit is lower than in 32 bit. Till now I was unable to find reasonable explanation.

Hardware used :

Mainboard - Gigabyte HA65M-UD3H-B3
CPU - Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500 CPU @ 3.30GHz
RAM – 4Gb (2 x Kingston 99U5471-002A00LF 2GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-10700U DDR3-1334 (9-9-9-25 4-34-10-5))
VGA - Intel(R) HD Graphics Family (6SP 850MHz, 512MB DDR3 1.33GHz 128-bit, Integrated Graphics)

1.Tests - Windows Experience Index

32 bit	64 bit	difference
Processor (calculations per second)	7.5	7.5	0
Memory (memory operations per second)	7.6	5.9	-22,37%
Graphics (desktop performance for Windows Aero)	5.2	5.2	0
Gaming graphics (3D business and gaming graphics performance)	5.8	5.8	0
Primary hard disk (disk data transfer rate)	5.9	5.9	0
Kopējais	5.2	5.2	0

2. HD Tune Pro. (v 4.60)

Two identical Hitachi hard drives are used in tests. Even I had suspected that 64bit windows are slower, there is no evidences seen in tests. Hard disks had similar characteristics. There are no write tests. I have noticed also, that Total Commander (32bit program) works very slow on copying of small files while working on Windows 7 64bit.

32 bit MS Windows 7

64 bit MS Windows

3. SiSoft Sandra Lite 2011.6.17.50

I made some benchmarks on CPU, RAM, GPU and .NET multimedia. With the test methodology you can get acquainting in SiSoft Sandra web page [4]. I would not say developers generously wrote about it.

CPU performance did not bring any surprises, as expected significant growths of performance were running cryptographic algorithms. That can be explained with ability for 64bit to use extra CPU registers. Significant success was also with multimedia benchmark. Slight performance drop was with RAM and GPU. I would like to hope, that in real life running compound programs summary performance improvements will give noticeable performance jump.

4. Conclusions

64 bit OS has future if software developers will create more 64 alternatives. Very interesting web is http://www.start64.com. As it can be assumed – developers of compression and multimedia software can shine placing out 64bit their software products. Still I was confused, there is no 64bit alternative for VLC player.

Processor (CPU)

Processor Arithmetic

32 bit	64 bit
Aggregate Arithmetic Performance	66 GOPS	62.45 GOPS	-5,68%
Dhrystone iSSE4.2	86.65 GIPS	83 GIPS	-4,40%
Whetstone iSSE3	50.2 GFLOPS	47 GFLOPS	-6,81%

Cryptography

32 bit	64 bit
Cryptographic Bandwidth	1.75 GB/s	2 GB/s	14,29%
AES256-ECB iAES Cryptographic Bandwidth	5.52 GB/s	5.51 GB/s	-0,18%
SHA256 iSSE4 Hashing Bandwidth	565 MB/s	798 MB/s	41,24%

Multi-Core Efficiency

32 bit	64 bit
Inter-Core Bandwidth	8 GB/s	8.15 GB/s	1,88%
Inter-Core Latency	48.3 ns	40.4 ns	-16,36% (!)

Multimedia

32 bit	64 bit
Aggregate Multi-Media Performance	94.86 MPix/s	129.52 MPix/s	36,54%
Multi-Media Integer x16 iSSE4.1	123.72 MPix/s	156.26 MPix/s	26,30%
Multi-Media Float x8 iSSE2	72.73 MPix/s	107.36 MPix/s	47,61%
Multi-Media Double x4 iSSE2	38.7 MPix/s	58.21 MPix/s	50,41%

Memory

Bandwidth

32 bit	64 bit
Aggregate Memory Performance	17GB/s	16.73GB/s	-1,59%
Integer B/F iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth	17GB/s	16.74GB/s	-1,53%
Float B/F iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth :	17GB/s	16.72GB/s	-1,65%

Cache and latency

32 bit	64 bit
Cache/Memory Bandwidth	94.64GB/s	92GB/s	-2,79%
Integrated Data Cache	437.88GB/s	403.61GB/s	-7,83%
L2 Cache	348GB/s	345GB/s	-0,86%
L3 Cache	171.22GB/s	168.32GB/s	-1,69%

* Higher scores are better

32 bit	64 bit
Speed Factor	38.90	38.30	-1,54% (!)

3d Business Gaming Graphics Performance Windows 7 Pro

* Lower scores are better

Video

GPGPU/GPCPU processing

32 bit	64 bit
Aggregate Memory Performance	5.42GB/s	5.41GB/s	-0,18%
Internal Memory Bandwidth :	12GB/s	12GB/s	0,00%
Data Transfer Bandwidth :	2.44GB/s	2.43GB/s	-0,41%
Internal Memory Bandwidth :	12GB/s	12GB/s	0,00%
Bandwidth Efficiency :	58.02%	57.85%	-0,29%
System to Device Bandwidth :	3GB/s	3GB/s	0,00%
Device to System Bandwidth :	2GB/s	2GB/s	0,00%

GPGPU/GPCPU Bandwidth

3d Business Gaming Graphics Performance Windows 7 64-bit

32 bit	64 bit
Aggregate Shader Performance :	14.77MPix/s	15.34MPix/s	3,86%
Native Float Shaders :	52.6MPix/s	54.4MPix/s	3,42%
Emulated Double Shaders :	4.15MPix/s	4.33MPix/s	4,34%
Aggregate Shader Performance :	5.74GFLOPS	6GFLOPS	4,53%
Native Float Shaders :	20.45GFLOPS	21.15GFLOPS	3,42%
Emulated Double Shaders :	1.61GFLOPS	1.68GFLOPS	4,35%

.NET Multi-Media

32 bit	64 bit
Aggregate Multi-Media .NET Performance	10.7MPix/s	15MPix/s	40,19%
Multi-Media Integer x1 .NET :	20.32MPix/s	28.7MPix/s	41,24%
Multi-Media Float x1 .NET :	5.63MPix/s	8MPix/s	42,10%
Multi-Media Double x1 .NET :	18.27MPix/s	15.77MPix/s	-13,68%

1. http://www.pcworld.com/article/172509/windows_7_performance_tests.html

2. http://blog.tune-up.com/windows-insights/32-bit-vs-64-bit-more-bit-more-performance/

3. http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2889&Itemid=126

4. http://www.sisoftware.net/