Community Newsletter: Q&A: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system?
- 7/18/08 3:07 PM
I also concur with Barry
by koolkinkajou - 7/18/08 7:25 PM In reply to: I concur with Barry Watzman by ytvetteHe's right on the money. Unless the person buying the computer has some high end purpose requiring a lot of memory they should stick to 32 bit for now. They will have a lot less headaches.
64-Bit Sux...
by Rj032 - 6/30/08 3:18 AM In reply to: 32-bit vs 64-bit Processors by WatzmanRather go with the 32-Bit operating system, there are stil too much problems with the 64-Bit system
32-bit vs 64-bit Processors (for GIS/CAD)
by joshebrum - 6/30/08 7:36 AM In reply to: 64-Bit Sux... by Rj032This thread couldn't be more timely (eventho I'm entering late) having just returned from vacation and am now shopping for a new PC to handle my GIS (geographic information systems) data and programs. Like CAD, GIS also fits what Barry mentioned early on in terms of "specialized applications" and (again, following Barry) i THINK i know what i want/need, but would still like to hear from other GIS or CAD users. Are there any out there with direct experience on 32 vs. 62-bit systems using ESRI or other similar products?
I currently have a 32-bit XP pro system and am tired of it running out of memory on my when it processes spatial data for 2-3 days and then craps out. Processing w/AMLs in A/I (or batch scripts in ArcGIS/View 3.x) turns out to be either too complex (for the amount of memory I can utilize w/a 32-bit system) or the datasets are too large that I have to subset the data to avoid runnin out of memory, and would rather have the comptuer chew on a single task/dataset for a longer period than have to deal with additional workspaces (i.e., filesets). From what I understand 64-bit will take care of this (mostly because of the memory utilization compared to 32-bit systems) ...or maybe it will just arrive at the "out-of-memory" error faster?! Also, I think I have a pretty good handle on what kind of graphics card I need for this machine (i.e., for better rendering of GIS 2D/3D displays) but am less sure about things like dual vs. quad core and whether having RAID would help when memory use approaches its threshhold (and whether I might need a 2nd OS to handle older apps).
Again, any feedback from GIS users with direct experience in this area would be greatly appreciated (eventhough i think I'm ready to pounce on an XP64 machine soon). If cost wasn't a big issue, is there something even better?
Thanks, Josh E.
PS: I already know about the issue re: AV3.3 setup on a 64-bit system, and the required work-around to get it installed.
Solidworks propaganda.
by rasmasyean - 7/3/08 6:21 AM In reply to: 32-bit vs 64-bit Processors (for GIS/CAD) by joshebrumNo
by rashidtem - 6/30/08 7:59 AM In reply to: 64-Bit Sux... by Rj032Not with Mac, We are 64bit and still doing a wonderful job.
My experances Vista 32/64
by Hank Wells - 7/19/08 1:19 AM In reply to: 64-Bit Sux... by Rj032I changed to Vista 64 from Vista 32, I am sitting here with just my desktop and this page open and my memory monitor says I am using 22% of my 8190MB Which is 1802 MB, so I have 6390MB for anything else I want to run like photo editing etc.
Now if I was using Vista 32 I would only be allowed a maximum of 4GB (I would not be certain it would see all that as mine never showed more than 3GB even when the BIOS showed 4GB)! Now do you think my desk top would scale itself back? Well sort of; as it would be using 900MB with just under 3.2 GB left so it will use the hard drive as a memory location which is slower but you could 'watch the pritty little spinning circle' while it is happening!
My advice is if you use your PC for emails casual web surfing, listening to music, not video editing or gaming, while multi tasking you can be happy with Vista 32.
But if you want to do photo editing with heavy resources programs like Photoshop, video editing, gaming,CAD etc 64 bit is the way to go. In a very few years time you will have to go to 64 bit same as you had to change from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95.
I expect people are planning Windows 128-bit right now!
Jannerhank
Using more getting less
by petite1945 - 7/19/08 4:50 PM In reply to: My experances Vista 32/64 by Hank Wells64bit is great, but you need to max out you ram, and if your motherboard isn't up to what 64bit ask then what is the point. 32bit does just as well.
Now if you use dual core 64bit you have a little more useful options, doing more than one thing at a time.
by the time systems designers catch up to 64bit thay will all be dual core and I think buying single cor 64bit processors is not a good idea.
as I stated buy the time systems designer catch up the dual 64bit processer will, be the main thing.
32-bit vs 64-bit Processors - from Barry
by Arlette Harcourt - 7/1/08 11:31 AM In reply to: 32-bit vs 64-bit Processors by WatzmanJack, I would follow the usual logical and practical information from Barry Watzman. His ansqers are a blend of sound technical knowledge and good old common sense.
Thank you Barry
Good points but...
by rasmasyean - 7/3/08 6:16 AM In reply to: 32-bit vs 64-bit Processors by WatzmanBarry has some decent points but...
He is missing the fact that Vista has SuperFetch...
64-bit lets you upgrade > 4GB TOTAL RAM (system RAM + graphics card + other devices)
And as you load more and more demanding applications (many opened at once) in the future, you will notice the difference. Because Vista has S3 sleep state built-in, you will find that you will just sleep your computer so you can turn it on in 5 seconds later and keep all your apps open for convienince instead of closing them to "save RAM".
SuperFetch explaination:
Vista uses extra RAM to store commonly used files in a new activity known as “disk caching”. The computer uses artificial intelligence to determine which files will be used most and copies it to RAM (where it is much faster than accessing your hard disk). This includes components of the programs you use on a regular basis. When you need more RAM for programs you launch, etc. the computer purges the “least likely used” files from RAM to make room for the new program. That’s why if you look at the performance monitor, Vista always has near zero “free” RAM. So in theory, the more RAM (for disk cache) you have, the faster your computer will operate. This can also be augmented (to a lesser effect) with a flash drive/card with a technology called ReadyBoost. Just stick it in and select “Speed up my system” and leave it there.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=6
64-bit vs 32-bit Processors...
by Wright Track - 9/19/08 12:00 PM In reply to: 32-bit vs 64-bit Processors by WatzmanI've read a great deal of this thread and noticed some differences of opinion, but also a factor that hasn't been addressed.
I have a Dell Precision M90 laptop, T7200 processor (Core 2 Duo 2.0 Ghz), Nvidia Quadro FX 2500M video card (512MB dedicated), Running WinXP Pro x64 - factory installed.
I bought it with 3GB ram and decided to upgrade to a 4MB (2x 2GB) matched pair, to take advantage of the dual-channel properties.
The BIOS shows all 4GB, but the OS system windows shows only 3.25GB, and it is *not* performing as it should with my copy of Solidworks 2008 (x64 version).
I 'chatted' and emailed extensively with the Dell senior tech (the regular tech that answered the phone had NO idea what he was talking about). Within those communications, it came to my attention that although the advertisement for this unit clearly indicated it was a 64-bit system and could 'handle' 4GB of ram, the motherboard has a 32-bit chipset, which apparently bottlenecks the system to 32-bit, rather than a true 64-bit.
Of course Dell firmly stated that their advertisement was accurate and upheld all the claims. I've read and read about this and still don't know if I really do have a 64-bit, and if so, why is it not reading all 4GB of ram -and- why isn't my SolidWorks 64-bit application performing?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks;
Andrew
Jack, Here is the best answer for your questions. Enjoy!
by SinbadSailor - 6/20/08 7:43 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Jack, here is a great site for a very complete answer:
"http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5709"
I thought that after 40 years in the business, I knew it pretty well but I read the entire page at this site and then copied if off, it's that good. It answers all your questions in great detail so I won't bother to repeat it and sound like more of an expert than I am.
We have XP, SP3, Vista and even 98 in the house along with an old IBM 486 and an Apple II that brings back the memories. I also keep an old 8K CPU board from an early system I used to sell. Just think, if we toggled 4 8K boards together in those days, we actually wound up with 32K of memory --what a staggering thought at the time! Ha Ha!
We also used to write binary code sequences for addressing text strings. Who can do that today????
Thanks for the link to the NI article. Very informative.
by Cadillac84 - 6/28/08 8:33 PM In reply to: Jack, Here is the best answer for your questions. Enjoy! by SinbadSailorAs you said, it was very readable and well worth the effort.
Would love to have answer
by Barker C - 6/20/08 8:19 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Me too, same question.
Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee k
by dilchh - 6/28/08 12:37 AM In reply to: Would love to have answer by Barker Cdear friend first
you desaid what have you work on them. you wish to work xp or vista, this run on 64bit.if you want to be used grapical game,animation so you buy c2d &c2d extream,amd atlone 2400+ i have suggest you will buy c2d extream .it featurs that
(1660fsb.L2-8MB ,2.8GHZ)
THATS MY A
SO THANKS FOR Q. BY
DILIP YADAV
32 vs 64 bit...
by Wolfie2k5 - 6/20/08 8:20 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Jack,
For what it's worth, ALL CPUs these days are pretty much capable of 64 bit operation. In fact, you'd be hard pressed finding a new one from AMD or Intel that wasn't 64 bit.
The REAL question these days is do you go with 2 cores, 3 cores or 4. Forget single core chips - they're pretty much on the same evolutionary path as the Dodo. Most low end computers these days are dual core. Most of the high end are quad core. Somewhere in the middle are AMD's new triple core Phenoms.
The question you need to be asking yourself is WHAT are you going to be using the computer for? Are you going to be using it to play games, edit and encode video or simpler tasks like web surfing and word processing? The harder the task - games (and I don't mean the occasional round of Solitaire) and video editing, the happier you'll be with more cores. While a dual core chip ought to be able to handle the same task, the task WILL take somewhat longer. Meanwhile, a quad core monster gamimg beast will be overkill for simple web surfing and office tasks.
Vista... 32 or 64? That is the question. On the one hand, the 32 bit version is mostly compatible with most XP applications and games. The 64 bit version is a bit more finicky when it comes to certain apps. On the plus side, Vista 64 has better driver support than XP 64 ever did. Once again, you need to do a bit of research. Do the applications you want to use work with the 64 bit version or are they limited to 32 bits? That's about the extent of the advice I can give - given I have no idea what you plan on doing with the computer.
As far as "future-proofing" goes... It's a bit of a crap-shoot. Technology evolves and things CAN change drastically - almost overnight. As an example, a buddy of mine bought himself a huge full tower case many years ago - with an oddball AT power supply. His rationale - it would be a hedge against future upgrades - just swap out the motherboard, CPU and so forth. Unfortunately, he got maybe one upgrade out of it before the entire industry went to the ATX format making the case, the power supply and pretty much everything obsolete. Since the power supply was an oddball shape, there's no easy way to swap in a modern ATX supply. Now that his old power supply's dead, his only real option - attach a large chain to it and use it as a boat anchor for a large yacht.
If you're buying a desktop, make sure you're buying parts that are industry wide standard. That way, the odds are you'll get some extra life out of the case - even if things change.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
