If one advertises they drove 2 trims of the same car model to the airport back to back and found cars with 2" smaller wheels are lightning fast because it took 30 minutes longer in the other car then people are, rightfully, going to doubt the test instead of the wheel size. Especially when you're not the only one to have driven cars with different wheel sizes but you are the only one reporting it's the wheel size, specifically, that made the trip significantly longer to take and give the trip as your sole evidence for the claim you know why it was slower.
From my enterprise image/push creation days one example of something I did find different between x64 and x32 was the specific driver bugs/performance. The thing is it went/goes both ways on that, sometimes it's the 32 bit driver that's bugged, sometimes it's the 64 bit driver, sometimes there was a special patch version of the driver but the vendor didn't post both builds. You get the idea. In this case it wouldn't make sense to blame the <x> bit OS variant as inherently being massively slower, but it sure might seem like that with an n=1 test.
I've been doing it since W10 was released, and continue to this day.
The consistency is quite good.
It's actually such a simple comparison anybody can try it and see for themself.
Now that you mention it I actually did drive (rental) cars back & forth between airports when I was a student. We went south packed into one car, then came back from the resort areas in a half-dozen or more cars so they could replenish the ones needed in the rental lots hours to the north.
We really would all reach the destination at the same time, traveling at virtually the same speed, but you could easily tell the difference when you had a V8 under the hood compared to a 6-cylinder.
Neither one was a show-stopper and plenty of people wouldn't know the difference anyway.
It's not like some had air conditioning and some didn't, that was by far the most important feature, not performance ;)
It is definitely a simple comparison, which is why I asked how you explain others, such as myself, reaching different results with the same test if it's supposed to be inherent to the bitness itself? I can reproduce a couple percentage points difference (in either direction, depending on the measure), but nothing more. If it was inherently related to the bitness itself then that should not be possible.
Similarly, for the rental cars, if one you drove was really "lightening fast" compared to another rather than something you noticed while microbenching it up the on-ramp or similar then you probably deserve jail time for the speeding ticket. That or a Model T was a rental option :D. But again, the point was 2 cars of the same model with a different trim, not 2 completely different cars.
If one advertises they drove 2 trims of the same car model to the airport back to back and found cars with 2" smaller wheels are lightning fast because it took 30 minutes longer in the other car then people are, rightfully, going to doubt the test instead of the wheel size. Especially when you're not the only one to have driven cars with different wheel sizes but you are the only one reporting it's the wheel size, specifically, that made the trip significantly longer to take and give the trip as your sole evidence for the claim you know why it was slower.
From my enterprise image/push creation days one example of something I did find different between x64 and x32 was the specific driver bugs/performance. The thing is it went/goes both ways on that, sometimes it's the 32 bit driver that's bugged, sometimes it's the 64 bit driver, sometimes there was a special patch version of the driver but the vendor didn't post both builds. You get the idea. In this case it wouldn't make sense to blame the <x> bit OS variant as inherently being massively slower, but it sure might seem like that with an n=1 test.
I've been doing it since W10 was released, and continue to this day.
The consistency is quite good.
It's actually such a simple comparison anybody can try it and see for themself.
Now that you mention it I actually did drive (rental) cars back & forth between airports when I was a student. We went south packed into one car, then came back from the resort areas in a half-dozen or more cars so they could replenish the ones needed in the rental lots hours to the north.
We really would all reach the destination at the same time, traveling at virtually the same speed, but you could easily tell the difference when you had a V8 under the hood compared to a 6-cylinder.
Neither one was a show-stopper and plenty of people wouldn't know the difference anyway.
It's not like some had air conditioning and some didn't, that was by far the most important feature, not performance ;)
It is definitely a simple comparison, which is why I asked how you explain others, such as myself, reaching different results with the same test if it's supposed to be inherent to the bitness itself? I can reproduce a couple percentage points difference (in either direction, depending on the measure), but nothing more. If it was inherently related to the bitness itself then that should not be possible.
Similarly, for the rental cars, if one you drove was really "lightening fast" compared to another rather than something you noticed while microbenching it up the on-ramp or similar then you probably deserve jail time for the speeding ticket. That or a Model T was a rental option :D. But again, the point was 2 cars of the same model with a different trim, not 2 completely different cars.