An easy question: XP x64 vs Win7 x64?

By Mechagran
Apr 27, 2012
Post New Reply
  1. For gaming, and on my specs below im being told xp is the better bet for gaming than win7 64.

    Need some advice / opinions.....

    Im running ( i appreciate this is not cutting edge)

    AMD athlon dual core 3 ghz ( 2x64)
    Asus m2n32 sli deluxe
    New 2tb sata hd... Empty at present and in need of an os!
    Gpu - Hd 6870 2gb
    Psu tagan 520w ( 2 x 22A 12v rails)
    6 gb ram

    So should i go xp 64 or win7 64? Cant decide and future
    Gaming is important! :)

  2. Marnomancer

    Marnomancer TS Booster Posts: 808   +51

    Windows 7 x64. XP x64 was a huge failure, and though the driver support is good now, why buy the old? MS has stopped support for XP anyway. E.g., Halo 4 won't run on XP, x32 or x64. And future games will follow that example.
    Windows 7 x64 is better than XP x64 in all terms, performance, stability, compatibility, etc.
    So go for Windows 7 x64.
    c3h899 likes this.
  3. Leeky

    Leeky TS Evangelist Posts: 4,378   +99

    If future gaming is important like you state, the only option is Windows 7 x64 in my honest opinion.
  4. Mechagran

    Mechagran TS Rookie Topic Starter

    Thanks gents, im pretty sure my friend was wrong. Didnt stop him sending me xp though as "he knows best". Lol i shall lodge it somewhere unpleasant. Appreciate your help
  5. slh28

    slh28 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,925   +170

    Does your friend live in 2003? Windows 7 is the only way forward.
  6. fimbles

    fimbles TS Evangelist Posts: 1,284   +158

    Directx 10 and 11 are unsupported on xp also.

    Both essential for modern games.
  7. psycros

    psycros TS Booster Posts: 763   +252


    XP is far easier to use, has superior networking, a functional search and far better performance and compatibility with older applications. But if DX10/11 games are a user's only concern, then Seven is indeed the way to go.
  8. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TS Evangelist Posts: 1,187   +177

    You can disable the windows search service and then the search returns to WinXP style searching. This is WinXP x64 he is talking about... not WinXP. Compatibility is rubbish. It is effectively Win2k3 x64 (I.e. the server OS). Who games on that? And seriously how many people do you know who even use WinXP x64? Or even ever used it?

    You can run 16-bit apps natively if you don't patch it to SP1 from what I'm reading there.
  9. psycros

    psycros TS Booster Posts: 763   +252

    I'm talking about 64 bit. And I've used it continually almost since release. So has nearly everyone I know at one time or another. I know almost everything about it, including the DirectX issues that SP-1 can cause. Its still the best OS overall that Microsoft has produced, IMO. It suffered from subpar driver support because Microsoft didn't do the smart thing and let it simply identify itself as server.
  10. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,702   +338

    Man, Psycros, I'd really like to defend you, just because I'm almost always defending the underdog. But I simply can't here.

    You are clearly in some exclusive club that most of us are not. Most people have never even heard of XP 64, yet you have a whole group of people that use it and even at that apparently have not even thought of other OSes.

    Regardless of your expierence with XP64, I think it is fairly well known ( I have not, nor will I try to fact check this) that XP 64 has horrible compatibility problems. Those were addressed in Vista 64, and further adressed in 7 64.

    Subpar driver support, as you said. Is ALL of that fixed now? I bet it isn't, I bet there is some new hardware out there that has vista and 7 64bit support that isn't supported in XP 64. You are latching onto a dying OS.

    Embrace and further argue for the server side of it, your argument on the user side is dying with (and before) the support for Vista.
  11. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,702   +338

    That is partially true. Windows XP 64bit was only for the Itaniums, and initially was all that was available. However, later on Windows XP Professional 64 came out, and that will run on the more traditional x64 processors.

    So it is plausible for someone to be running a 64bit XP. A few people on these forums do.

    I don't think there are many (any) good reasons to choose XP 64 over 7 64.
  12. Marnomancer

    Marnomancer TS Booster Posts: 808   +51

    But I essentially don't get the point: Why choose a dying, out-dated system?! That sounds like the kinda thing my dad would do. Just because "it has been around longer", in his words.
  13. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,374   +289

    There are some situations where you need the older OS Marno. For instance, in our medical departments here they have very expensive hardware that requires Windows 98 and drivers that only work when you use that OS. You have to make other arrangements in situations like this such as putting up hardware firewalls around these machines. If the device is $75,000+ then you'll sacrifice a little more to keep it up and running.
  14. Marnomancer

    Marnomancer TS Booster Posts: 808   +51 x64 wont run x16. I get it.
    But IMHO that's unlikely the case with gaming.
  15. ruready2

    ruready2 TS Enthusiast Posts: 219

    Windows 7 x64 has the option to install and run in Windows Xp mode. It also has Compatibility mode for running software designed for any of the older versions of Windows. I have a few software that will only run in Windows 98 compatibility mode.
  16. mentech

    mentech TS Rookie

    I am using Windows XP Pro x64, and have dumped Windows 7 (both x32 and x64 versions) just because Windows 7 is not fully compatible with my AverTV super 7 - most of the analog Cable TV channels on Windows 7 are without sound. I have tried all driver/application versions but in vain, even though the download page says it supports Windows 7 x32/x64!

    Windows XP Pro x64 on my PC is rock solid, and compatiable with all of my peripheral devices - printer, scanner, TV tuner, and sound card! FineReader ORCs much faster in Windows XP Pro x64!
  17. wizardB

    wizardB TS Rookie Posts: 53

    XP64 is far superior to Win7 the only possible reason to use Win7 would be if you played your game at DX11 max res,for anything else a properly setup XP64 machine will kick a Win7 in the nuts :)
  18. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,374   +289

    lol ^^
  19. Marnomancer

    Marnomancer TS Booster Posts: 808   +51

    Since I have utterly failed to understand the logic (or proof/benchmarks) behind this, I would be very pleased and satisfied if someone can explain please this to me. :confused:
  20. Doctor John

    Doctor John TS Enthusiast Posts: 247   +15

    As I understand it, the argument is that despite many technical, physical, and ergonomic deficiencies, XP64 can cause testicular injury to the corresponding Windows 7 system, to wit 64-bit. Which is fair enough...
  21. Marnomancer

    Marnomancer TS Booster Posts: 808   +51

    Hehe, I definitely understood that, but I'm not sure whether XP's kick will reach that high. If I believe the benchmarks, reviews, and own experience, XP64 sucks. So that won't be a valid defies logic, you know.
  22. Zen

    Zen TechSpot Paladin Posts: 938   +44

    Benchmarks and comparisons, Windows 7 vs. Windows XP (64-bit), this is a pretty easy contest for me to call! Without diving into to much technical mumbo jumbo, we will simply bring up "resources"! I've been using Windows XP both (32-bit) and (64-bit) since the year 2002, with a slight break away while using Windows Vista (64-bit) back in 2009 for about a year. What made me switch back and dump Vista, even with it's (64-bit) architecture, the answer was resource management! On the same computer I'm using now, I had run Windows Vista (64-bit) and Windows XP (64-bit), lets see, my resource meter is only showing 12% of all my RAM being used running Windows XP as to maintain normal operations, and back in the day I can remember Vista using approx. 40% to 60% of my RAM just to maintain normal operations on this computer. Now recently I have dabbled with Windows 7 (64-bit) on a similar computer as to my own, yes, I have to admit that Microsoft is on the right track, for the resource meter on that computer only showed that Windows was using approx. 20% to 30% of the RAM just to maintain normal operations. Maybe with the up coming Windows 8 Operating System, Microsoft will pick up where they left off with Windows 7 and perhaps have an even better resource management system.

    Personally I like the idea of having a lot of my resources free'd up and being able at a moments notice, blast open programs and applications with speed, not waiting around for Windows to decide to free up some resources when it decides to allow my request for service to go through.

    And for some to say "Windows XP sucks" that's just not being fair! As far as the premise to this topic area, about the future of gaming and such, the logical choice would be for a person to choose a modern day Operating System if the DX-10 and DX-11 areas important. The best I got with my Windows XP (64-bit) is DX-9c, games like Call of Duty 1 through 3 will do just fine with that format, but with today's games, even I have to know when to say when, I would recommend modern vs. old when it comes to gaming. And for some around here to say that Microsoft has officially dropped support for Windows XP are totally wrong. For those of us who choose to stick with Windows XP (64-bit), and for those like me who purchased an enterprise business license for the operating system, we still get updates and future service packs, when available.

    But in the end it simply boils down to one thing, "what your needs are"! Today we live in a time that there's just about an operating system out there for everyone. People who prefer the older stuff like me have the option of using system like Windows XP and or Windows 2000 Professional, which by the way 2000 Pro is still supported with updates with an enterprise business license. For those who want to using something a little bit more modern, but without being totally "cutting edge" they can choose to use something like Windows Vista (32-bit) or (64-bit). Those who want all the bells and whistles and eye candy, and who want the peace of mind knowing that anything they stick inside their computers will work, those people can choose something like Windows 7! Heck for people who want to break away from the death grip of Microsoft can choose a Linux based operating system. And for those who want to get even more radical than just straying away from Microsoft, those people can spend the coin and pop for a Apple computer and use an Apple based Operating System. It just boils down to what a person is looking to get out of their operating system, and more importantly, it comes down to what a person is going to do on their computers!

    "The luxury of choice"!
  23. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,374   +289

    You are thinking as if RAM is a consumable - you need to keep in mind that a good caching system will use more RAM - almost all of it if nothing else needs it. Also, you can't ignore the horrible driver support for XP64. I've had to build, manage, and support XP64 machines at my job and they were a nightmare compared to the 7 64-bit machines I've had to care about. When you start talking about benchmark performance, even if you do get slightly (and I do mean slightly) better performance on some apps running XP64 it's usually so minute that it doesn't even matter - like saying I got 154 fps on "x" game vs 149 in Windows 7. It just doesn't matter on modern hardware. Add to that the excellent driver support on 7, the convenience of DX 10/11 as well as DX 9 compatibility, and great application support these days.
  24. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,702   +338

    @ Zen

    The reason XP shows so much more free is because it isn't managing RAM as well as it could. Vista and 7 use Superfetch. They background load frequently used programs so you can launch them faster. If you don't launch them and something requires that RAM, it is instantly dumped, so you aren't taking a performance hit there.
  25. Techni-bits

    Techni-bits TS Rookie

    Tested results.
    After running windows 7 64-bit as a means of retaining the use of my 8gb ram for performance I was gutted to see that the OS itself uses so much resources and with the DX10/DX11 on top that with my hardware I could get almost twice the performance when I went to XP 32-BIT only without DX10/11. With games like crisis and so forth I get much more FPS and even with just 4gb ram recognised or 3gb without system use. Even vista 32-bit runs like a dog compared to XP. I am going to try XP 64-bit because its more efficient by far then windows 7 or vista. How ever aboviously some content will not be compatible. but for what does work its well worth the greater gaming experience:) the difference really is shocking. A dual boot system is great for the few games and software that do not work with XP 64-bit, Hope that helps this is just what I found and in my opinion can compensate for a fare bit of moneys worth in terms of hardware.

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
