64 bit CPU vs 64 bit OS

[Andology]

Hi guys,
i've been away in Thailand for about 7 years, kinda feel like i've been out of the 'top spec' hardware arena for that long, although i can get 'most' stuff i need, just never as easy as it was while i was living in the UK and getting OcUK to send me over the latest stuff (used to be mad poster on here many years ago, back in the days of getting the old Athlons from 1.2Ghz up to around 2Ghz with 25 million fans! - but cant remember my old login / password)...

So anyway, i am looking to upgrade my system now that we have recently moved to Cyprus and will be coming to UK on holiday at the end of May, so need to get all my new system's components decided on before we get there....

Looking at one of those juicy QX6700 chaps (2.66Ghz, would be nice to get up to 3Ghz) and i am assuming this is 64 bit? would this mean that i should get 64 bit OS to ensure i maximize the performance or what?..
Although i have run XP pro on my main system for around the last 4-5 years or so (or whenever it came out) i recently (about 4 months ago) got a copy of Vista Business edition... which i kinda like, particularly as it seems to handle multiple monitor setups slightly better although my new Matrox Perhillia Triple screen card doesnt seem to like Vista all that much, which is just as well, as for 3D, it sucks.. (anyone want to buy it? brand new!)...

Just read a test / review on HardOCP which was looking at the performance gain of the Quad core architecture over single & dual core using Supreme Commander and the findings in regard to the performance differences between XP & Vista were even more interesting..

Anyone who has had experience going from 32 bit OS to 64 bit OS would be great to hear from, as either way, i will be upgrading OS at same time as main system, i will sell my old system with the new Vista already installed...

BTW - If people are wondering why i may be crazy spending the extra sheckles on the QX Series of Quad cores vs a high end Dual Core, i basically push multi tasking to it's limits (hence needing 3 monitors vs even the 2 i run now)... I run several companies, one is a Web design company (www.4dflash.com) so when designing websites, i tend to have Fireworks / Dreamweaver, Flash and sometimes Swift 3D open all at the same time (spread across the multiple screens so i can drag and drop from one app to the other) - in addition, i run an Aerial Photography company and regularly have to 'touch up' images of up to 8Mb in size which really sucks CPU power, especially when applying affects at full res.. I also do a lot of Video editing and currently, a 1 hour video presentation takes around 4 hours to render, similarly, when creating 3D amimations in Swift 3D, at full res (HD) it can take around 3 minutes to render EACH frame of a 800 frame animation...

The biggest issue for me, is that in addition to all the work programs i have running, i also usually have Outlook 2007 running on the 3rd screen, along with MSN, iTunes and maybe a couple of browser windows as well as my FTP program... The worst problem is in terms of work-flow... Particular, when i am either rendering full res 3D scenes, or rendering a full length Movie (pinnacle Studio) my entire system is completely bogged down and it is very difficult to do anything else while it is rendering, meaning i have to wait like 12 hours till it has finished before i can do anything else with my PC...

From what i have heard, the QX Quad Core processor is going to really help relieve my system from the abuse i give it, i dont like banging the sides of performance limitations so it is most definately time to upgrade...

So, 64 bit or not 64 bit OS??

Finally, just so you know, i intend on using an Abit IN9 32X Max board with the QX6700 and Some super quick (1150Mhz) 2GB RAM..

Sorry post was so long, first post here on OcUK for like 6 years so feel like i have to make up for lost time

Thanks for any advice guys,

Cheers

Andy

 

[Corasik]

Check with your software to make sure it supports multi processors, a lot of video editing software does, and some photo editing packages do as well. If your main software supports multi core, then the more cores you have the better. (Even a dual processor, quad core xeon workstation, to get 8 cores!).

Even if your software doesnt make full use of the cores, at least you can leave a video edit running on one core, while doing a photo retouch at the same time on another core. So you wont have to just sit there for an hour doing nothing while the first job is being crunched.

32 bit V 64bit. Well I've got XP Pro, XP Pro X64 edition, and Vista 64Bit. To be honest at the moment I prefer the XP Pro X64 edition. It supports all my hardware, and is extremely stable, and fast. A few annoying niggles with Vista 64, mostly it has a habbit of nagging if you run software which isnt signed. Rather annoying. Even so its working 'ok' for the moment.

If your computer is running slow because of lack of memory, then a 64bit OS is the answer. Most modern motherboards support at least 8GB of ram, but a 64bit OS is required to make proper use of it. 32Bit windows can be 'tricked' into using 3GB of ram, but I believe even then any '1' application can only request 2GB. So if your photo editing software is trying to get more than 2GB, a 64bit OS and a boad load of memory could improve performance.

 

[Andology]

Hi Corasik,
Thanks for your post.. Although I have been running Vista Business for the last 3 or 4 months, i am thinking of going back to XP Pro with the 'new' system. I guess from your post, the QX6700 supports true 64bit processing and so would clearly benefit from a 'true' 64 bit OS... Since (like you) i feel XP is a (currently) faster & more compatible OS for me, i will go back down the XP route, i had looked on the OcUK software section at the OS selection and didnt see a WinXP Pro in 64 bit version so i wasnt sure even it existed and maybe only get 64 bit processing with Vista or something..

I am assuming you have a 64 bit cpu so i wonder if you have seen any differences between 32/64 OS as it seems you have used both?

I'm gonna go back to double check the software section again on OcUK and see if i can find XP 64 bit!

in regards to RAM, i am more than likely going to go just 2GB again on the new system (only cost reasons) but maybe upgrade later... only it would be far better to get only 2GB sticks as it will leave more room for expansion later on... I think the higher speed RAM will make a difference vs just having more from what i am using now. I think (cant remember for sure) that the current RAM sitting in my main PC (on laptop right now) is only PC3200 (400mhz i think) it is Kingston KVR stuff... I think the difference between this and the current FSB of my system (667) should be a massive increase on it's own as the QX6700 + Abit board will have FSB of in excess of 1066...

Still final confirmation that getting Win XP Pro 64 bit version over the 32 bit version with my inteded setup will see (tangible) performance enhancements would be much appreciated...

Thanks guys.

Andy

 

[Corasik]

Really you'll only notice a difference in performance with 64 bit, if you stuff the computer with ram, and the software is able to make full use of it. If your system is only 2GB, then the biggest benifit of 64 bit's already been lost.

That said, you'll still gain the benifit of the additional cores, so really its two separate issues. Of course, if you buy the 64 bit version, and then upgrade to 4GB, or even 8GB later, at least you'll know your OS is ready to make full use of the memory.

There are 'some' driver issues with 64bit XP, but most 'standard' hardware works fine, pretty much just a few oddball printers, and scanners that dont have good 64bit driver support.

In conclusion, if your going to stick with 2GB ram, stay with the 32bit OS. If you think that more ram might well find its way into your PC sooner rather than later, thats when the 64bit OS becomes attractive.

 

[Andology]

Hi Corasik,
Thanks for your reply...

funny you should mention the 2Gb vs 4Gb issue.. i was reading about that on another post (and wont go too heavily into it here as obviously this is the CPU forum ..

Suffice to say, i am pretty much leaning towards throwing in 4Gb of the OCZ (2GB x 2) Vista Gold Series rather than going for the 'overclockability' of the OCZ (1GB x 2) PC2-9200 1150MHz Passive/WaterCooled chaps as they are pretty much identical in price... due to my intended Abit IN9 32Max WiFi board, i can obviously O/C RAM / CPU independantly so i would just hold back from OC the RAM quite as much but with the benefit of having 4GB.... In which case, the 64-bit Vista would be a better way to go...

Although WinXP is a faster (leaner at least) OS for games, I have a PlayStation 3 for games so not amazingly bothered about gaming, although i am right into Tiberian Wars at the mo on PC! - non-the less, silly to have a 8800GTX sitting in there and not put it to good use so i could always sort out a dual boot system similar to when i used to have 98SE & XP in dual boot config (i'm assuming there is a way to do it with XP & Vista, not looked into that yet)...'

Anyway, i'm gonna go put a post on the RAM forum now in regards to choice above, but thanks a lot for your help dude, muchos gracias!

Cheers.

Andy