• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

64-bit

Richard Beer

Richard Beer

Richard Beer

Associate
Joined
28 Mar 2007
Posts
114
My pc runs a 32 bit windows xp OS
To my knowlage my processor is a 64 bit processor

processor.jpg


If I installed a 64bit OS would my pc then run with the benafits of 64bit
 
Well your cpu is x64 yes, however, the only benefits for the consumer for x64 at the mo, is the ability to use more than 4gb of ram. if you do not have 4gb of ram. i wouldnt bother buying a new OS yet..
 
tbh iam not that knowledgeable about the subject. i would advise a wiki into x64 and along those lines.

I know for servers, its good as they can shift more data and all that. but.. hmm
 
Seriously mate... I would think the other way round actually.

Sure, a 64Bit OS can see lots more RAM than a 32Bit one, but thats only the tip of the iceberg.

Apps run smoother, games run sweeter, and overall its a much more slicker experience.

I would never waste my time going back to basic nasty XP because compared to XP64 ist a shambolic dire pile of tripe thats simply not smooth enough for me to waste my time with.

Of course, every PC is different and I have a couple of PCs that do indeed prefer to go with XP32, but then these, are my lessused PCs so I simply dont give a toss about them.
 
What a load of rubbish. In 99% of programs 64bit will make no difference at all, none. In the few that are optimised to benefit from it (certain encoding, rendering, compiling and a few game programs) there are sizable increases in performance.

I don't see how any 32bit OS can be classsed as a pile of crap. Most people on these boards still use a 32bit OS (Windows XP) and find it just fine for being snappy, responsive and a slick experience.
 
FatRakoon said:
Seriously mate... I would think the other way round actually.

Sure, a 64Bit OS can see lots more RAM than a 32Bit one, but thats only the tip of the iceberg.

Apps run smoother, games run sweeter, and overall its a much more slicker experience.

I would never waste my time going back to basic nasty XP because compared to XP64 ist a shambolic dire pile of tripe thats simply not smooth enough for me to waste my time with.

Of course, every PC is different and I have a couple of PCs that do indeed prefer to go with XP32, but then these, are my lessused PCs so I simply dont give a toss about them.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression stuf ran slower becxause it has to run 32bit programs through this WOW thing
 
BEn_2600+ said:
I was under the impression stuf ran slower becxause it has to run 32bit programs through this WOW thing
Click to expand...

because emt64/x86_64 processors have x86 instructions too theres no performance loss, its only on itanium systems performance is lost and thats because x86 instructions need to be translated to ones the itanium processors can understand.
 
Dureth said:
What a load of rubbish. In 99% of programs 64bit will make no difference at all, none. In the few that are optimised to benefit from it (certain encoding, rendering, compiling and a few game programs) there are sizable increases in performance.

I don't see how any 32bit OS can be classsed as a pile of crap. Most people on these boards still use a 32bit OS (Windows XP) and find it just fine for being snappy, responsive and a slick experience.
Click to expand...

Crap. Most people on here are using 32Bit OS because they cannot afford to up to 64Bit XP, and the ones that can afford to go to Vista are only 50-50 on 32 or 64 bit simply because they dont know about the benefits of 64 Bit. Those who have been lucky to compare 32 and 64 bit almost all come back and say that 64bit is superior.

Also, I never once said that XP was crap. Those are your words.
My words are that it is a shambolic pile of tripe, compared to XP64, and for me, that is the case.

Im not saying that 64bit is the best choice for all PCs becasuse this is not the case. Same as I will say that not all PCs are capable of running Vista, and the same wasy that XP will be better than Vista for some things on some PCs.

My 2 main PCs have been upped to XP64bit, and they are the smoothest they have ever been, run 100% of what I give them and dont even give me so much as the smallest flicker of imperfection. While on one PC in the LAN Room, Im running Vista32 and another is Vista46. I have run both these Vistas on other PCs and they have varying levels of success, and I will keep vista on the best performing PC, which may not be on the ones that its on right now?
Every PC is different.

However, as I said, on my main PC, I have run XP for over a year when I bought the board and I was very happy with it, and I got hold of the trial of XP64 from MS and I tried it on this PC and was blown away by how smooth the PC was.
Ok, fresh install and all that would make a PC run better, so, I ran a dual boot for a while, installing the very same apps in both 32 and 64bit and in all cases, yes, the differences were small and insignificant, if I could see any differences at all, but the overall experience was much smoother on XP64. The mouse never flickered, going from one app to another was sleeker.. Im not talkign about Notepad to MSPaint here, Im talking about Jumping from Office to Doom3, to HalfLife2 and so on.

For me, and my PCs, I have found that XP64 is that much better than boring XP, that I am upgrading the PCs to 64Bit. I would not be spending that much money if it wasnt going to make any difference would I?
 
If I'm truthful, I've seen absolutely zero benefits of using 64bit Vista, apps run the same, games run the same but it looks a lot nicer.

I found that Maya & Sony Vegas actually run slower but I thinks thats down to the coding of the software rather than windows.
 
Sure, some apps will run slower.

Although I also have Sony Vegas and I found it the other way round actually.

Not tried Maya however.

Are you only running 2GB though? - Vista will run a slight slower with 2GB than XP would, so take it to 4GB and then get back on it.

No, there is no excuse these days for not having 4GB
 
Seem to be a lot of crap in this thread so to speak.

The reason 64Bit is faster is not because it can use 4gb of ram. Windows wont run faster because it has 4gb it could use when it only needs 800mb.

It runs faster because of the way 64bit interprets coding. 32bit can only read a certain type of coding and the files in this coding all have to be the same size, so it has to fill them with "useless" information to make it the same size, 64bit has a differnt way of reading it and doesn't require this, i donty really know enough on the matter to tell you presice details however but Bit tech has an article on why 64bit is better and explains it a lot more detailed then i can. The way it uses it is faster then 32bit. it uses bigger file sizes however which is why it uses up more of your ram. People say its not as good because windows uses 800mb in 64bit and 700 in 32bit but it is because the file sizes are bigger. But as a result it is able to process things faster making 64bit run faster then 32bit but requiring more ram. Id say 3gb is more of a nessasity for 64bit. Idealy 4gb purely because its so cheap.
 
Last edited:
FatRakoon said:
Crap. Most people on here are using 32Bit OS because they cannot afford to up to 64Bit XP, and the ones that can afford to go to Vista are only 50-50 on 32 or ........?
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that 32 bit OS isn't going to be rubbish, slow or in any way different to the end user point of view. Your first post came across as if using a 32bit OS was some terrible burden. Also what do you mean by XP being boring compared to XP x64, they look and act exactly the same!

On to another point by 8igdave:

A 64bit OS can manipulate much larger chunks or memory, larger integer numbers and perform calculations with less memory hits as it can grab more in each transaction. Also the address space is not limited to a tad over 3GB meaning that with 4GB of RAM and Vista x64 you will ahve far snappier load times for most programs as Vista will use all your RAM to prefetch data.

A 64bit OS/CPU can store, manipulate and deal with 64bits of data per transaction which means that if you are performing a calculation with data larger than 32bits then a 64bit OS/CPU will do it faster than a 32bit one as it will have to perform less memory reads, manipulations and stores to do the same function.
 
Last edited:
Dureth said:
Also what do you mean by XP being boring compared to XP x64, they look and act exactly the same!
Click to expand...

LOL yes, they are on the face of it 100% identical.

I meant that its boring in a kind of "Everyone uses it and nowadays there is nothing special about it" kind of way.
 
Hey Richard Beer, you won't see a massive performance increase going from a 32-bit to a 64-bit operating system as of yet since many programs have been written for 32-bit architectures. However this will be changing in the future because with 64-bit being more recognized, more and more programs will be written under 64-bit architectures. When programs are released that are written specifically for 64-bit, you will then start to see a performance increase from 32-bit programs. You will also be able to utilise a full 4GB of RAM.

Now many people think that the only advantage to a 64-bit Operating System is that you have access to more than 4GB of memory, this isn't entirely true and this article explains this. Its a fantastic article and is well worth reading. :)

FatRakoon said:
Are you only running 2GB though? - Vista will run a slight slower with 2GB than XP would, so take it to 4GB and then get back on it.
Click to expand...

Hey FatRakoon, I would have to disagree with you their. I am currently using Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit and I have also used the 32-bit edition of Windows Vista, both with 2GB of memory installed and in my opinion, I feel that it is slightly quicker than Windows XP when say for example, opening applications up and generally navigating around the desktop. :)

FatRakoon said:
No, there is no excuse these days for not having 4GB
Click to expand...

I would also have to disagree with the above as well. Their is such as wide user base that are using computers today, that it would be completely dependent on what the user will be using their system for before taking your statement above into consideration. If someone is using their system purely for surfing the internet, checking their emails, word processing etc then 2GB of memory is more than enough.
 
Last edited:
Fire Wizard said:
If someone is using their system purely for surfing the internet, checking their emails, word processing etc then 2GB of memory is more than enough.
Click to expand...


No, I dont think you got how I was meaning that...

This Forum is called OVERCLOCKERS...

You know... People who overclock, or at the very least, want the best out of their hardware, no matter what computer they have!

I am assuming that the majority of people here, dont only want to have their computers to browse and do Emails.

Sure enough, if they only browse and do Emails, then why do they need Vista? - why would they even need XP? - Hell, if all the ydo is browse and EMail, they dont need half the junk that PCs have and for the most part, a £10 scrap heap recovered computer would do the job pressy much as fast as any other computer.

So, I stand by my quote, although I will accept that I should have expended on it rather than generalise for everyone.


Oh, and as a sort of side note to that, I will add a few thigns.

When I upped from 512K to 1MB, it was because a game was jerking. Apart from that one game, it made no other real-world difference ( at the time ) .

When I upped from 1MB to 2MB, again, I saw no benefit at all, and often wondered if I had wasted my money.

When I upped from 2MB to 4MB, I found absolutely no benefit what-so-ever.

However... I do Virtual Machines for testing O/Ses and various apps and what-not and so for VM its a must... For any other times, its not.

So, in that respect, 4MB over 2MB is a useless option.

However...

In saying that, and what I also said about 512K to 1MB then 1MB to 2MB and then 2 to 4 all showing no real difference, would I be able to take this machine now, back down to 512K? - surely if it didnt make much difference through all those upgrades, then it should not really make much difference to go back would it?

No, I could not, neither could you, or 95% of the population either, but why?

Because everythign we use our PCs for are getting more and more bloated.

So, even if we are happy with 1GB or 2GB now, its only a matter of time before we will need 4GB because our PCs are getting junked down.

Of course with RAM being as cheap as it is, for those of us who want to squeeze the best out of our PCs, then 4GB is a must.

If it was not a useable upgrade to go from 2GB to 4GB then there woulkd not be so many of us running 4GB would there? - we would all be still on 2GB

Its also better to have it and not need it, than to not have it but need it.

Bloody hell, I dont half waffle dont I?

LOL
 
Windows x64 is the faster OS. There are a number of places in the kernel where 64-bit word length really helps out (especially on the revised NT 6.0 kernel). Also AMD64 contains new instructions that allow for more efficient thread context switching and syscall's - which the NT x64 kernel takes advantage of.

Extended memory without any performance hit (like PAE had) is an added bonus and improves the scalability of the OS.

WOW64 (Windows on Windows) emulation isn't really an emulator but a wrapper. It has no discernable performance hit - and in fact optimisations in the X64 OS elsewhere negate any hit it does have. The AMD64 instruction set didn't deprecate the existing x86 instruction set- but merely built upon it. Therefore the only operation that WOW64 performs is to "switch" the CPU into 32-bit mode for the duration of that thread's execution and then when it's time slice is up it switches the CPU back into 64-bit mode. Luckily the cost of performing this switch is very very little because AMD64 was designed to do it.

The next Windows Client OS will be AMD64 only. 32-bit is actively being phased out at Microsoft. Compatibility will of course be provided for a long long time though. Indeed their next OS has a hypervisor (think VMware) underneath the kernel which is kind of like WOW64 on steroids.
 
FatRakoon said:
No, I dont think you got how I was meaning that...

This Forum is called OVERCLOCKERS...

You know... People who overclock, or at the very least, want the best out of their hardware, no matter what computer they have!
Click to expand...

not everyone can overclock and not everyone has the money for high performance hardware. instead they may have an interest in the latest hadrware, or could like giving out advise to others.

Why upgrade to 64bit OS when the 32bit versions work fine, hardware and software gaurenteed to work on 32, whereas 64bit drivers may not be released for older hardware.
Also if the users of the PC are new do you expect them to have 64bit OS when they have no need as most of the software they'll be using is 32bit, and they might not even know what 64bit is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom