Desktops: Dual or single core

32bit OS on 64bit cpu?

If you are BUYING a computer, it is unlikely you would get this problem as I can't find any manufacturers who do not supply an OS taking full advantage of the processor's abilities.

If you are BUILDING a computer, this question needs an answer in addition to your one.

I read in a recent issue of a technical magazine an article recommending cheap but powerful configuration for a new PC build. In that article, they ended up designating an AMD 64 bit processor but then installed WinXP Home on it (32 bit OS on 64 bit CPU). I was interested as the build I am currently designing appears to "require" 64bit simply because within it's lifetime I would have to upgrade to that anyway (I don't want to go down the dual-purpose slot idea for other reasons) but for the time being, I want to be able to stick with my existing Win XP Pro and all the associated software. (Only when I do a major hardware upgrade on another system would I want to buy Win XP64 and install that on both.)

I understand that a 32bit OS on a 64bit processor is not going to be using much of the hardware, but that is fine. But until I read that article, I had understood that if you installed a 64bit processor, you HAD to have a 64bit OS.

Is that true?

Has anyone built a 64bit AMD system and run 32 bit Windows on it? How did it perform?

Ah the other side of the question - 32 bit apps on 64 bit OS

In reply to: 64-bit... by jackintucson 

Thanks Jack. I wanted to wait until the OS settled down before I actually put dollars into it

I understood of course that the 64bi OS is no advantage except when 64 bit apps were run on it. But I also understood that there was a downside to installing the 64bit OS when ONLY 32bit apps are run - something to do with overhead etc. Not that I would notice on a newly built machine, but you suggest that it isn't an issue. Thanks for that too!

(NT) Yes.

Poifect!

Thanks David - great answer.

So now I can finish the design and not include the cost of the new OS. I LOVE my old OS *lmao*

So that's it. Life goes on - just not ALL of life and not ALL just yet

GOD PEOPLE ARE MAKING THIS MORE COMPLICATED THEN IT SHOULD B

Look I have made an earlier post. KarlMarx stated his/her reasons how he/she will use his/her computer, so why is everyone debating about this??? Did Karlmarx want a mac? NO, did Karlmarx state that he/she wanted an Intel NO. Did KarlMarx state he/she wanted an Opteron, NO. So why is everyone saying the FX is more gaming or saying something useless that has nothing to do with Karlmarx's post. There should have been one reply to Karlmarx's post that is it, and it should have said GET THE DUAL CORE AMD X2 4800+
Karlmarx said he/she wanted to use his/her desktop on "media, office and statistics application". That is why there is dual core SO GET THE AMD X2 4800+.

Go with the Dual Core

Simply put, since both processors are Socket 939 and are approximately the same in price (give or take $20-$30). If you are trying to get the most bang for your buck, you might as well go tthe dual-core route. It's unlikely that you will realize 100% potential of the 4800, but it is a little more future-proof and eventually all desktops are going to migrate to a multiple processor environment.

Dual Core all the way

Id have to say dual-core, even id you dont have any dual core apps you can still assign tasks to the second procesor.