• 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

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

Don't run them on the machine in spec matey, machine I use has 4gig installed and a Quadro FX. Its a system thats not overclocked however (which I'm really going to have to do), and that may wield some positive results.
 
In response to the original post... The Pentium D is so bad in its implementation of EM64T, that in general its faster and better to simply treat it as a 32bit processor and run 32bit windows.

Athlon64's and Core2 Duo's on the other hand were designed from outset to be high performance 64bit x64 processors and therefore run extremely well in both 32 and 64bit modes.

There is a lot of rubbish in this thread.. 32bit limited file formats.. What a load of... 80x86 is 64bit built ontop of 32bit ontop of 16 bit. You can still run MS-Dos 3.2 on the latest x86 processors if you really want to, and its not 'software' emulation its full hardware support.

In 16bit mode (virtually unused these days) applications have access to 8bit and 16 bit registers, 32bit mode adds 32bit registers, and 64bit mod adds 64bit registers.

In theory 64bit is the most flexible, as it can still access the original 8bit registers (AH/AL/BH/BL etc etc). But it can also be used in 'lazy' mode where even a some 1+1 = 2 calculation can be made using 64bit registers.

The two biggest advantages of 64bit mode are the ability to access more than 4gb of memory, and the ability to work on 64bit math without resorting to very complex code. However even that is 'somewhat' more limited than it may seem at first glance. That '64bit' math only applies to 'Integers' (whole numbers), as the 80x87 'co processor' was already capable of working with 32bit, 64bit and even 80bit extended 'floating point' math, and even 32bit and 64bit integer math. To make matters even more confusing MMX also supports 64bit integer maths, and SSE supports up to 128bit math.

Thats not to say that giving the main x86 processors the ability to work in 64bit natively is a bad thing, it adds futher flexbility to an already well featured instructionset, and the functions possible within the main processor are quite different to the pure math functions which can be made by the x87 maths extensions, or the MMX/SSE modules.
 
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

Kids.......Don't do Drugs ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
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

Stick with 32b I have tried 64 and have used 4gb ram and to be honest I couldn't tell the difference and in benchmarks some were a lot worse on 64.
 
Back
Top Bottom