32 or 64 bit?

You are very ignorant fro someone with so much cash to spend on that system you have.

Get the 64bit edition and don't look back. You system will eat vista alive. :)
 
Easy to jump on the 64 band wagon but you wont get any real benefit at present.

I have opted for a 32 Home Premium OEM as its cheap to replace at £72 if you do too many hardware changes. I am sure Home supports Quads as its by the socket not the cores in the licence.

If you have dual boot XP Pro and opt for vista 64 then its a good choice but for a single boot I'd stick to 32 bit.

Check out reviews and benchmarks plus the availability of 64 bit specific software first as its pointless having 95% of your stuff running in 32bit mode lol

The time for 64 bit native OS and Apps is not yet here as much as few people would have us believe.

Most software does not take advantage of dual cores let alone quad.

Also of note that game performance under vista does not significantly jump if you install 4gb of memory at present. Most games 5-10% benefit and at £200 for your memory would be ill advised.
 
se4m0nkey said:
Easy to jump on the 64 band wagon but you wont get any real benefit at present.

I have opted for a 32 Home Premium OEM as its cheap to replace at £72 if you do too many hardware changes. I am sure Home supports Quads as its by the socket not the cores in the licence.

If you have dual boot XP Pro and opt for vista 64 then its a good choice but for a single boot I'd stick to 32 bit.

Check out reviews and benchmarks plus the availability of 64 bit specific software first as its pointless having 95% of your stuff running in 32bit mode lol

The time for 64 bit native OS and Apps is not yet here as much as few people would have us believe.

Most software does not take advantage of dual cores let alone quad.

Also of note that game performance under vista does not significantly jump if you install 4gb of memory at present. Most games 5-10% benefit and at £200 for your memory would be ill advised.
Click to expand...

Quick Q for you mate. I have 2GB running in dual channel at the mo at 800MHz. If I did buy another 2GB (2*1GB) would I lose my DDR? As in each stick running at 400MHz?

Cheers.
 
I assume you mean would you lose dual channel not DDR.
Provided you have identical specced memory I would say no. Plan to do it myself later but current benchmarks seem to suggest at present unless you have a 64bit os and something that requires that amount its not worth the premium for the real world benefits.

Sure someone may disagree but for me investing another £200 for a minimal performance increase would be pointless. Benchmarks vary from game to game, some show no benefit from 2 to 4gb some show as much as 10-15%

When you actually work it out in frames per second its actually pretty minimal, SLI gives a better return.

You never know with DX10 and newer games we may need it more in the future. To have it now is more one up manship :O)

With the advent of ready boost PCIEx1 cards coming up in the next few months, this may turn out to be of greater benefit. Who knows?
 
se4m0nkey said:
With the advent of ready boost PCIEx1 cards coming up in the next few months, this may turn out to be of greater benefit. Who knows?
Click to expand...

I have no space. I have 2 * 16 speed slots taken up by one graphics card, 1 * 1 speed used by me TV card, 2 * PCI taken up by a Wi-Fi and sound card and my 1 * 4 speed inacessable because of my lower 16 speed slot taken up by my graphics water cooler.
 
Vista 32-bit is a waste of £72.

If your processor can support it, and you can run all your old apps with no performance hit, and the driver support is as good as 32-bit, why bother installing the x86 version?

I've been running x64 for just less than a week now. It's so good i've removed my XP install and merged the partitions.
 
Im on 32 bit. When I build a new computer at the end of the year, ill go to 64 bit.

Though one thing I only found out AFTER I bought vista is that on boot you can disable enoforcement of signed drivers on x64. This is what really put me off at the start asI assumed I wouldn't be able to use most of the programs I wanted. With hindsight had I known I probably would have gotten it straight away.

Oh well, Im gonna build an entirely new computer at christmas. Will hopefully get at least £1000 for this machine then which will go some way to paying for a new one!
 
Tute said:
Vista 32-bit is a waste of £72.

If your processor can support it, and you can run all your old apps with no performance hit, and the driver support is as good as 32-bit, why bother installing the x86 version?

I've been running x64 for just less than a week now. It's so good i've removed my XP install and merged the partitions.
Click to expand...

I'm buying vista x64 soon, I need to wait untill I'm off sixth form before I order, I won't be in other wise. Xp will soon be gone from my machine.
 
Go 64, The guy saying you'd see no benefit over 32, Is to put it simply, Wrong.

Eugh, I'll add to this. Cos it sounded blunt :p

32 bit version is unfortunately going to be more attractive to most users as the 64bit version is going to have various incompatibilities down the line, Software and drivers that dont get released etc.

But the x64 versions of Vista are far more secure and reliable than the 32-bit versions. And they support larger amounts of memory.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom