Community Newsletter: Q&A: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system?
- 7/18/08 3:07 PM
32 vs 64
by jambay - 6/27/08 9:39 PM In reply to: 32 vs 64 bit... by Wolfie2k5ciao wolfie2k5,
i read about the issue regarding the 32bit vs 64bit and you mentioned about which appilcation will be used to whether it would be suitable for a 32 or 64bit processor.
i use a laptop aspire 1650 and i want to use it for edit and video encoding, i think i am using a 32bit processor running windows xp. is the 32bit just right for this application?
thank you and best regards,
jambay
confusion on 32 vs 64
by petite1945 - 6/27/08 11:22 PM In reply to: 32 vs 64 bit... by Wolfie2k5From all the meterial Ive read, archtecture of the motherboard plays the biggest roll in what processor you use.
If you motherboard is 32bits and your processor is 64?, The processor can run any faster than the motherboard allows.
The 32bit motherboards are very in expensive and do a good job, but if, I had a 64bit cpu, I would want it in a 64bit motherboard so it would run the speed it was desighed for.
64bit motherboards are quite expensive as of now.
(32bit motherboards have chips on them to run at 32bit per second) and that all they can do.
All this means is that the chips on the 32bit board can move memory or electric pulses at 32bit per second and no more.
That is what the archetecture of the board is designed only for.
you could use a 64bit cpu, but whats the point, it on will run up to the motherboard speed and if you over clock it or speed it up, it will eventually burn out something on the 32bit motherboard.
Cpus that are 64 bit are designed to run at 64bit per second and with the 64bit designed board, it is very fast.
I havent got into dual core yet!
I amagine they could have made a dual core 32bit I dont know, but when dual core, from what I understand was offered, 64bitcpus were already the thing wanted most.
Also people seem to think, memory is the same as something magic that the cpu just has, but the memory stick is like a short term storage for the cpu or processor to store what the processor is using so that it doesnt have to slow down or at least run as fast as it can with the storage capability the motherboard uses.
You need as much memory as you can aford, and most cpu or processor manugactures state, what or how much memory sticks you shoud use with your processor.
Motherboard speed is what sets the rate at what is read per second of time by you cpu or processor and transfer rate is what the memory does to transfer information to you storage device or (Your harddrive)
All four things must work with the design of the manufacture, motherboard,Cpu or processor, and memory sticks to Harddrive.
I hope this helps someone, it took a long time to simplify these things and I think theres just a little to much majic out there!
Sincerely,
petite1945@att.net
hola y no se
by ppchuy72 - 6/28/08 8:08 AM In reply to: confusion on 32 vs 64 by petite1945Hola y no se
I disagree with you
by LMF5000 - 6/29/08 1:06 AM In reply to: confusion on 32 vs 64 by petite1945"64 bit" and "32 bit" refer to the WIDTH OF THE PROCESSOR BUS (i.e. if data traveled on roads, the number of bits is like the number of lanes on those roads). "64 bit" DOES NOT MEAN 64 bits per second - a modern processor can transfer data at a rate of several megabits per second. (And as far as I know, for your motherboard to be a socket 775 i.e. good for mounting an intel core2 duo or quad, it has to be 64 bit because the core2 is a 64-bit CPU, but I'm not 100% sure about this)
Please make sure the information you're giving is accurate before you post. :/
32 vs 64 bit
by dragonlordwarlock - 6/28/08 7:24 AM In reply to: 32 vs 64 bit... by Wolfie2k564 Bit systems are technically faster providing everything runs in 64 bit mode. A processor then is able to process twice as much data given a processing cycle. But you must remember a computer is a system that is the product of all it's parts, both hardware and software. A 32 bit OS on a 64-bit CPU will only gain marginal performance gain, a 64-bit OS would boost performance providing there is everything you need available for 64 bit to avoid performance bottlenecks (device drivers etc). Lastly, the gains will be small if you just running 32-bit applications, as they are not written to take advantage of the 64-bit environment.
Thus, if you want to go with 64-bit you have to go all the way. I have a desktop running a 64-bit CPU and the 64-bit Open Suse Linux. I run 32-bit Windows for the moment on my other machines, as most of my Windows applications are basically 32-bit. For most applications the lowest common denominator determines performance, the biggest hit is Linux apps are not optimized for speed so the 64-bit performance boost is great to make this my system for doing the hard and dirty work.
So, before upgrading, determine if you're needs is 64-bit or 32-bit. That being said you can gain a lot from multi core cpus if you are looking for multi tasking performance.
Vista Home premium 64
by ricketywolf - 6/20/08 8:22 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I put together a desktop last year and equipped it with a dual core AMD 64 processor. Since I had a 64 bit processor, I figured it made sense to get Vista Home Preimium in a the 64 bit version.
It ran fine, but I quickly ran into software compatability issues because Vista 64 was not yet supported. Even some of the major security software makers were not supporting Vista 64. In fact, even Microsoft did not have a ONE Care version for 64.
But it appears that the software support has finally caught up with Vista 64.
My laptop also has a dual core chip but it has Vista Premium 32. I have not had any problems with it.
FYI, my desktop processor runs at 2 ghz, has 3 gbytes of RAM, 256 Mbytes of video ram and two 160 gbytes 7200 rpm SATA hard drives. Currently I have two flat pznel monitors hooked up and d not have any problems. By the way, I found that BitDefender virus software supported Vista 64. Also Explorer has a 64 bit version for Vista 64.
Hope that helps some.
64 systems
by petite1945 - 6/27/08 11:29 PM In reply to: Vista Home premium 64 by ricketywolfThe 64bit motherboard and dualcore 64 are the best for now, but Vista has run into some problems. I am still using winxp pro, because of this. Microsoft knows of these problems.
The software companies, just havent been able to stay up with users needs.
One reason is that it takes 3-6months to design a good system and the same time to debug it.
They know they jumped the gun on Vista and are working day and night to fix it.
One reason was Linux was coming out with it version of Vista.
GO FOR VISTA 64
by Hank Wells - 6/28/08 1:56 AM In reply to: Vista Home premium 64 by ricketywolfI ran the Beta's RC releases of Vista 64 but when it was time to put my hand in my pocket I followed the advice of several mazines which was, there are enough problems with Vista 32 and it will be some time before 64-bit drivers and sofware are available.
However it did not work out liked they said and apart from problems from Creative drivers I had no problems EXCEPT lots of disc spinning I had 2GB of fast RAM then 3GB plus the OCZ 4GB USB drive (forget the USB thumb drives speeding things up unless you think that about 2% is going to make a difference, Remember USB Thubm drives have a life expectancy which is short compaired to hard disc's.
I installed Vista 64 on this PC last March along with 8GB of RAM which was 250% more expensive than it is now and have not regreted it at all. Running the custom PC bench marks image editing has increased by 20%, Video Editing and Multi tasking by a simular amount. I admitt there are some programs That no longer run and things like PCI TV Cards and programs made by small companies that are for the 98 ME and XP time, but no worse than from Win 98 and XP change over. Check software before buying; there is a difference between 'Works with Windows Vista' and 'Certified for Windows Vista' with the former being maybe with 64-bit and the latter being 'has been tested with Vista 64'.
Jannerhank
bit by bit...
by fabianhow - 6/20/08 9:01 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
nowadays most processors are 64bit processors as they support both 32bit and 64bit OSes. 32bit Oses support only max 4Gb RAM but 64bit Oses support max 128GB RAM. 64bit Oses hardly have any software which supports it, but 64bit OSes are mostly used only in server workstations.
WOW 64bit!
by d_vasegh - 6/20/08 9:08 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hi
There is lots of advertisement about 64bit processors and OS to show those are faster and have great performance vs. 32bit, but something hide behind that.
how many 64bit utility do you know? 1 or 5 or 10.
Certainly you can't find more than 5 although all 64bit processors and OS have second compiler to run 32bit software and hardware but in these conditions your system should suffer more pressure.
vista
by petite1945 - 6/27/08 11:32 PM In reply to: WOW 64bit! by d_vaseghYes it hard to use something that you cant find sofware for.
I remember when windowxphome came out it was hard to find anything that would work on it!
My personal 64-bit use
by sircanegiem - 6/20/08 9:20 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hello, I have a bit of insight to your question, though probably not as much as other users do.
I have a dual boot of 32-bit Vista and 64-bit XP. I was going to just stick with my Vista install, but after I installed 64-bit XP, I haven't booted Vista since. There are two main reasons for this in my personal setup, the first being that I have 4GB RAM, and the second is virus incompatibility.
Memory Limitations:
32-bit OS'es support up to 4GB RAM -- calculated by taking 2^32 -- but don't allow all you to use all of it because it uses a portion for "process address space". In my 32-bit Vista install, although I have 4GB RAM, only 3.25GB showed up in the task manager. This number can be as high as 3.8GB available, or sometimes as low as 2.5GB or less.
In a 64-bit OS, the memory limit is 128GB -- basically no limit. The only two exceptions to this are in 64-bit Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium. Premium has a cap of 16GB, and Basic has a cap of 8GB.
Virus incompatibility:
Believe it or not, a 64-bit OS makes your computer immune to several viruses, especially ones that have been around for a long time. It used to work in reverse, because many antivirus programs didn't work in 64-bit, but that's a thing of the past. Because 64-bit OSes can only accept 32-bit and 64-bit code, viruses that don't use these codes are incompatible with a 64-bit OS. Also, the 64-bit OS is written differently and even some newer viruses may not affect it.
On the same note, there is one yellow flag before considering a 64-bit OS, and that's hardware and software compatibility.
Software/Hardware compatibility issues:
While it's a relatively minor issue now, it's worth mentioning. Just like some viruses that don't have the correct code can't work in a 64-bit OS, neither can older hardware or software.
In the case of hardware,
Before I buy any hardware, I make sure it's 64-bit compatible. If you have current hardware you can't live without, check online if there's a 64-bit driver for it first, or if the 32-bit version works. The only thing I had to upgrade was my webcam, which was six or seven years old... go figure! Mostly everything made within the past three or four years works in a 64-bit environment now.
In the case of software,
None of my programs have had a problem running in 64-bit XP besides iTunes - which only likes 64-bit Vista - though the 32-bit version works fine. 99% of programs that're out there today can be installed in a 64-bit OS without any problem, and I don't even second-guess compatibility issues anymore.
Once again, any hardware or software put out within the last few years or so will almost surely have a 64-bit driver or naturally be 64-bit compatible.
-----------------------------------
The bottom line is that if you're installing 4GB or more RAM, want a bit of extra security from viruses and the like, and there aren't 64-bit compatibility issues with your hardware/software, you shouldn't have any problem installing a 64-bit OS. After using a 64-bit OS for a few weeks, I'll never go back to 32-bit. Sorry for such a long post!
How does this affect 32-bit viruses / trojans, etc.
by rasmasyean - 7/13/08 1:31 AM In reply to: My personal 64-bit use by sircanegiemI understand that 32-bit programs run in x86 emulation mode in Vista 64. So if there is a 32-bit virus, does it automatically go into x86 mode to run? Or do you have to intervene and allow it to run in x86 mode manually?
64 bit Windows Vista
by karlviehe - 6/20/08 9:23 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I recently bought a Toshiba notebook at BestBuy that came with 64 Windows Vista, 2 x 200 GB HDD and 4 GB of memory.
At one point I installed a Trasncend 32 GB SSD and ReadyBoost recognized it and set it up a extended memory ( also at 4 GB ). However, shortly thereafter the operating system complete froze into an unrestorable state. Toshiba technical assistance insisted the only resolution was to reinstall the operating system, which I did.
In general, commercial software for personal use is not yet written to 64 bits, so there is little advantage to have the OS at 64 bits.
It is rumored that Photoshop "CS4" will be 64 bits, so for someone doing a lot of photo and video work should see some real improvement in processing.
kwv
chill dude...
by santoshmadigela - 6/20/08 10:53 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
dont think much about 32bit and 64bit.. its not the choice between money or girl.. just go for 64bit.. yeah it is far advanced processor than 32bit.. vista works on it more faster.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
