I'm using Windows 32-bit. How much Dolphin 64-bit version faster than 32-bit version in the current development build? In the future, will the performance of 32-bit version get improved? For other emulators, it seems that there is virtually no difference in performance between 32-bit and 64-bit version.
I don´t really know the speed diference between x86 and x64, but I can tell you that the x64 architecture allows you to use all the hardware having a really good experience that you couldn´t reach with x86 platforms (x86 makes reference to 32-bit architecture); for example, Windows x64 editions can handle larger RAM amounts than Windows x86 platforms (and more RAM basically means more speed). You can even use some features that only a x64 platform can handle.
If memory serves, with my rig I got an extra 30 or so FPS in the WindWaker test thread. You can check it out here:
https://forums.dolphin-emu.org/Thread-th...t=haddockd
Other folks are seeing increased FPS with 64-bit versions. But you need to remember that was with frame limiting off. Real game framerates will only be slightly higher assuming your CPU and GPU can handle themselves.
I've seen people say at least 10%
When I was using a core 2 duo at 2.8 ghz melee(which is a lightweight game) would lag when there were 3 cpus on screen. I upgrade to 64bit windows 7 and that with 3 cpus and many other lightweight games became easily playable. I don't know percentage wise but it makes a sizable difference.
delroth mentioned it was around 30% in his tests, if that's worth anything to this discussion. I never wanted to take the chance, so I went 64-bit when I got this computer.
Thank you everybody for the information. 10%+ is a lot improvement. Another question, does it faster only for CPU bound tasks or for GPU bound tasks as well?
I hope that 32-bit version will catch up with 64-bit version in the future. I don't want to install Windows 64-bit only for Dolphin because I will have to reinstall all the programs.
Quote:I hope that 32-bit version will catch up with 64-bit version in the future.
That's not possible
Like a turtle vs a rabbit .
Once i switch to 64bit version , i will never go back
Lol, 32 Bit to catch up? It can't, that's the whole point of 64 Bit, So you can use more ram, etc, etc. 64 Bit is simply better than 32 Bit.
There's a few major optimizations in the 64-bit JIT (mostly the fastmem stuff, IIRC) that the 32-bit JIT doesn't have, but I hear they're possible to port over. 64-bit will likely still be a tiny bit faster if that ever happens, though.
Also, how the fuck is it that OS X did the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit so smoothly and Windows couldn't? There's no separate 32- and 64-bit versions of OS X or of OS X software (woo, universal/fat binaries), and the kernel itself can be either of the two and still run both 32- and 64-bit software as long as the CPU supports it. (And they've already gone ahead and dropped support for 32-bit CPUs in Lion and 32-bit kernels/device drivers/EFIs in Mountain Lion. They probably won't drop 32-bit app support for quite a while/ever, though.) Did Microsoft seriously never figure out how to make their executable format support fat binaries, or autodetect the CPU arch and choose to load a 32/64-bit kernel/base OS based on that? Were they seriously unable to figure out a way to simplify this instead of separating the two really-damn-similar architectures?