Trade in and Save $50 with HP
Community Newsletter: Q&A: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system?
- 7/18/08 3:07 PM
Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system?
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) - 7/18/08 3:07 PM
Question:
Hi! I hope you can help me out. I'm in the process of buying a new computer and it's already pretty difficult to figure out what's what with specs and all, but the two bit (pun intended) is figuring out the differences between 32bit versus 64bit processors. I can only assume the 64bit processor is faster, or am I wrong? I'm not very tech savvy, but I would like to know if it's something I need to consider when making my new system purchase. The other one bit (pun intended again) has to do with Windows Vista, do I go 32bit or 64bit version? Are there any advantages of going with Vista 64bit? Please help me out, I'm really confused here and I would love if you could give some simple explanations to clear up this whole bit between the processor and Vista. One more thing, will buying a 64bit PC be somewhat future proofing my new desktop purchase? Thank you all for your help!
Submitted by: Jack W.
Here are some answers from our members to get you started, but please read through all the submission within this discussion thread for more helpful advice and information.
New Computer --Submitted by Zouch
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=298600&messageID=2796684#2796684
32 vs. 64 bit... --Submitted by Wolfie2k5
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=298600&messageID=2796150#2796150
32-bit vs. 64-bit Processors --Submitted by Watzman
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=298600&messageID=2796094#2796094
I run 64 bit XP --Submitted by pixelsmith
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=298600&messageID=2796501#2796501
If you have any additional advice or explanation for Jack please click the reply link below and submit your answer. Please be as detailed as possible in your answer and if you have examples, please provide them. Thanks!
64bit good and bad
by rthrelkeld - 6/20/08 6:57 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
64 bit is really faster. I don't have exact numbers, but I've run 32bit and 64bit version of XP Pro, Vista, and 2003/2008 server - each test on the same hardware for 32 and 64bit. The 64 bit feels about twice as fast for my admittedly unscientific tests.
The other major pro is it can use all the memory your box can handle. 32bit machines are limited to about 3.25Gb of memory. I have 4Gb installed on all my servers, desktops, and laptops due to my development environment. The 32bit systems cannot effectively use i all. More memory usually means faster applications.
The cons mostly come down to the lack of 64bit drivers and a few programs that don't run well on 64bit machines. If you have older equipment or moderately rare equipment, the supplier probably does not have 64bit drivers and never will. If you are using fairly recent and popular equipment, then you probably can find drivers.
As to availability, I think all the recent dual cores and above are really 64bit. You can (and most people do) run 32bit operating systems on them, but then they basically run in emulation mode. This is part of the speedup in moving to 64bit.
Microsoft is moving to all 64bit for servers starting with 2008. I'm guessing desktops are not far behind. That will also fix the driver issues long term.
Richard Threlkeld
64 bit is crazy fast
by hvypetals - 6/27/08 8:27 PM In reply to: 64bit good and bad by rthrelkeldIve got my rig setup with xp pro 64 and 4gb of ram and two sata drives in RAID 0. yes i said RAID 0.
Windows updates in a minute flat. no joke.
nosebleed fast.
fallout 3 here i come
Raid 0 is nothing new.
by angrykeyboarder - 6/28/08 12:56 AM In reply to: 64 bit is crazy fast by hvypetalsIt was the deefault on my box I got in late 2004 (AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 2GB RAM, XP Pro 32 bit).
And honestly I think you're overstating your speed.
Switch to RAID 1 or no raid at all and you'll see little difference.
BTW, I disabled RAID and saw little difference. It was more problematic for me to have it.
But we digress...
64 bit vs 32 bit
by Themisive - 6/28/08 8:12 AM In reply to: 64bit good and bad by rthrelkeldI did have a 32 bit system for quite a few years, however, I decided to invest in a 64 bit O/S recently after doing some research. One the things that made the idea attractive was the fact that a 64 bit system usually has a sort of emulator, allowing you to use older 32 bit programmes. Also another factor was that I didn't want to upgrade to Windows Vista as yet for a variety of reasons so I decided to stick with Windows XP - the Pro edition; this allows me quite a bit of choice, though of course older programmes just will not run.
At the same time, most makers of the various peripheral systems do have 64 bit drivers out now for their products, so if you're still in a quandry, I'd say go for 64 bit, you'll gain more than you lose.
Yes, and XP Pro x64bit Edition....
by JCitizen - 6/28/08 6:02 PM In reply to: 64 bit vs 32 bit by Themisiveis built on the Server 2003 kernel so it is even more secure that the origninal XP! I tried the introductory CD on my laptop and it ran like a top! The only problem was HP didn't want to admit they had any drivers and I had to run around and do some armtwisting to get them but they are there!
I will try Vista, but I'm not worried if it doesn't work, as I would be happy to return to XP x64!
32 vs 64
by jdp06 - 6/20/08 6:58 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hello Jack!
Well my personal preference when building a PC is 64bit it is also more compatable with most downloads I find.
However I would strongly recommend staying away from Vista. I use XP at home and Vista at work and my XP PC outperforms the Vista machine (which I might ad has more faster components than my home PC as it is newer). Here is what disturbs me the most the faster machine is so slow with Vista on it I could go to sleep while waiting for even the browser to open. I have taken my maintenance software to work and used it BUT Vista being Vista just uses TOO many resources for my liking.I could go on and on but this is my opinion in a nutshell. Those Mac ads aren't far off with the workings of Vista as it asks you everytime you do something for permission to do it! REAL PAIN! Good luck in your search and I hope I have helped.
P.S. There are still alot of program compatabilty issues with Vista still as well.
Jim
32-bit vs 64-bit Processors
by Watzman - 6/20/08 7:08 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Jack, the simple answer for almost anyone who asks this question is to ignore the whole issue and simply go ahead and install a 32-bit version of your OS (both XP and Vista come in both 32- and 64-bit versions).
The distinction between 32- and 64-bit relates to the instruction set executed by the CPU (in which all software must be written), 32-bit and 64-bit instruction sets are different.
Almost ALL current processors (both Intel and AMD) support both instruction sets, the exceptions mostly being "low end" processors (some Celeron and some other low-end CPUs), but, again most CPUs from both Intel and AMD now support both 32- and 64-bit instruction sets. So, on that basis, on most system, you could run either the 32- or 64-bit version of either XP Pro or Vista (both come in both versions, although they are different OS' in each case (there is not a 64-bit version of XP Home as far as I know).
Aside from the CPU, there are no other hardware issues with the computer itself .... that is, if your CPU supports 64-bit instructions, you can use a 64-bit OS if you want to.
But the point is that for far more than 90% of typical computer users, you don't want to.
For the typical average computer user, 64-bit offers no advantage and quite a few disadvantages. The disadvantages include the fact that drivers for the 64-bit OS' and a LOT of hardware DO NOT EXIST (at all), most programs do not come in a 64-bit version and while 32-bit software will run on a 64-bit OS, in that configuration it frequently runs SLOWER than the 32-bit version on a 32-bit OS, and there are a lot more compatability problems and issues with older software (as well as older hardware).
Given that, you might wonder why anyone would use the 64-bit OS and/or whether it is right for anyone. There are relatively few software programs available in 64-bit versions. But there are SOME applications for which 64-bit versions are available and which do show a significant performance gain when the 64-bit version is run compared to the 32-bit version (on either a 32- or 64-bit CPU). However these are not "normal" applications ... rather they are very specialized applications like CAD (computer aided design) and certain graphics and 3D rendering applications. The people who use these types of applications are generally VERY knowledgeable (mostly engineers, scientists, graphics professionals and mathematicians) and they know what they need and what they want. For ALMOST everyone else .... if you are asking the question, you are an "average" user and you want to stick with a 32-bit OS and 32-bit applications (e.g. you want to stick with plain old normal, garden variety, software).
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Barry Watzman
I concur with Barry Watzman
by ytvette - 6/27/08 7:33 PM In reply to: 32-bit vs 64-bit Processors by WatzmanBarry's answer is the most accurate and correct answer. Go with that one. Someone else here said a 32-bit processor can't support 4gigs of memory. I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
No it is the case.
by angrykeyboarder - 6/28/08 1:05 AM In reply to: I concur with Barry Watzman by ytvette(sort of)
A 32-bit CPU can support a maximum of 4GB of RAM. But 32-bit Operating Systems will only see 3GB of of that 4GB.
So if you've got less than or equal to 3GB of RAM then a 32-bit os is cool.
With 3 to 4 GB of RAM either 32 or 64 bit works but you won't get the benefit of that last GB of RAM in a 32 bit OS.
So basically, if you're going with more than 3 GB of RAM you need a 64-bit OS (and that's mandatory for over 4 GB).
4GB of RAM on a 32 bit Vista
by monsdomain - 6/28/08 8:23 AM In reply to: No it is the case. by angrykeyboarderMicrosoft must have already addessed this with recent Vista updates because I have a 32 bit Vista OS with 4GB of RAM. When I look at my system information (Computer Properties), it indicates "Memory (RAM): 4.00 GB". Is this not the case with other 32-bit users?
My opinion on the 32 bit vs 64 bit: My recommendation is to stick with 32 bit like what most have already explained. Upgrading to a 64 bit OS will likely require you to upgrade all your peripherals. AMD and Intel are just setting up the stage for the future of computing and it will take several more years before softwares and drivers catch up with 64bit compatibility. Bottomline, save yourself some frustration and stick with a 32bit. I am a gamer and do some personal video editing and I find 32bit adequate for my needs.
System:
Quad Q6600
4gb Ram
nVidia 8800 GTS
32vs64
by petite1945 - 6/28/08 8:57 AM In reply to: 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit Vista by monsdomainI couldnt agree more!
It is kinda the case
by 3rdalbum - 6/29/08 1:06 AM In reply to: No it is the case. by angrykeyboarderOperating systems can see all the RAM that's in the computer, but they will only be able to access between 3 and 3.4 gigabytes of it. This is due to hardware that directly accesses memory, and some kernel cache.
But (and this is a big but) most modern processors support a feature known as Physical Address Extension or PAE. This is especially useful on 32-bit processors, but all 64-bit processors support it too for some unknown reason. A 32-bit operating system that recognises PAE can actually address more than 4 gigabytes of memory, but no program will be able to individually use more than 4 gigabytes of RAM.
If you had 6 gigabytes of RAM installed, you could run three programs that take up 2 gigabytes of RAM each; but you could not run a program that takes up 5 gigabytes of RAM. For that, you still need 64-bit.
This all depends on you having a compatible operating system. If you're running Windows XP or Vista, or a basic Windows Server operating system, you're out of luck. Linux users have been enjoying PAE for years.
64 bit vs 32 bit
by wheatonview - 6/28/08 2:05 AM In reply to: I concur with Barry Watzman by ytvettemy pc, has vista basic, i have a 32 bit pc, with 4 GB ram,it runs fast. my friend on the other hand has a pc 64 bit with vista pro. we did a test while on the phone, both keyed in the same website, guess what? with the 32 bit vista basic, the website was up 3 seconds faster than his big ole 64 bit 4 gb. GO WITH THE 32 BIT, ALONG WITH VISTA BASIC, SAVE YOURSELF SOME MONEY.
That may change with IE 8...
by JCitizen - 6/28/08 10:17 AM In reply to: 64 bit vs 32 bit by wheatonviewSome programs like IE 7 may work with x64 systems but they are not optimized for them yet, many of them run in an emulation mode that does not work as well as a dedicated x64 application.
That being said, unless you just like being on the bleeding edge, you might as well save your money and go for x32.
Myself, I'll buy the retail box version of Vista so I can have both modes depending on how I install them. I will definitely make sure my equipment is expandable to full x64 ability.
Why get caught flat footed when all the really cool 64bit games and applications come out!?!
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
