Computer newbies forum: 64 bit/32 bit

Plue,

It has to do with the maximum addressable memory. That's only 4 Gb in the 32 bit machine. If you happen to manage a 6 Gb database (that are some 20.000.000 customers), you'd better have 64 bit.

For people like you and me, 32 is quite is OK. It will run everything you need.


Kees

If you are doing simple word processing, small spreadsheets, MS Office type work a 32 bit processor is fine. If you are running Vista you might want to invest in a dual core processor, since Vista is optimized for a dual core. Last on 64 bit, it is more than database size, although I would not recommend running a large database on your desktop computer (or notebook). Plus if you are interested in playing computer games, I would also recommend a 64 bit processor. Again a dual core would provide better performance.

Hello to all,

While it is technically correct to say "it has to do with the maximum addressable memory", the true definition of 64-bit computing refers to the CPU's ability to process instructions and data 64-bits at a time.

Fair warning: this subject is worthy of college-level computer science courses, but I hope to keep it simple by offering a few examples from PC history.

The original IBM Personal Computer was built using an Intel 8088 CPU. It was able to process instructions and data 16 bits at a time. However, for compatibility reasons, Intel chose to design it with an 8-bit data bus (used for communication with peripherals). It also had a 20-bit memory bus, which allowed it to support up to 1MB of RAM. Was it a 16-bit, 8-bit, or 20-bit processor? Answer: it was a 16-bit processor.

The second generation of IBM PC's, called the IBM PC AT, included an Intel 80286 processor. This processor could process instructions 16 bits at a time. It also had a 24-bit bus, which allowed it to support 16MB of RAM. This processor was, technically, also a 16-bit processor.

The third generation of Intel x86 processors was the 80386, which was Intel's first 32-bit architecture, owing to its ability to process instructions and data 32 bits at a time. It initially came in two versions, one for consumer PC's and the other for 'high-end' systems. The 80386SX had a 24-bit memory bus, so it supported up to 16MB of RAM. The 80386DX had a full 32-bit memory bus, and so it supported up to 4GB or RAM. The point is that both the 386SX and the 386DX were adequately referred-to as 32-bit processors.

Back in 1986 (when the i386 was released) 16MB of RAM were more than Windows could use. In fact, it was physically impossible to fit 16MB of RAM on a PC motherboard, even with a 32-bit processor on board. I was in college during those years, and I remember thinking about the 32-bit addressing capability (4GB of RAM) much in the way one might think today about a manned trip to Mars, or setting up a permanent station on the moon. Possible? Maybe 20 years from now...?? If we're lucky?

Fast forward to the year 2007... It's been 21 years since the first 32-bit CPU for the PC was released, and we are ~almost~ at the point where 4GB of RAM is affordable for the masses.

Should Plue worry about having a 64-bit PC? Probably not. But if Plue insisted on having a system that will run today's 32-bit Windows and still be able to support 64-bit applications in the future, there are two basic choices. AMD64 and Intel Core. Both come in single- or multi- core models. I personally recommend the AMD64's, but that's just personal preference. 1GB is probably enough RAM for Plue today, but to help ensure compatibility with future 64-bit applications, Plue should make sure the computer is upgradable to 4GB or even 8GB or RAM.

I hope I didn't make this topic too confusing. By the way, I agree 100% with Kees' statement that "For people like you and me, 32 is quite is OK. It will run everything you need."

Happy computing!

-elCharlie

Can anybody help me pls.....

I HAVE A LITTLE QUERY WITH DUAL CORE & CORE TO DUAL.
I WOULD BE VERY THANKFUL TO YOU IF YOU HELP ME TO FIND OUT THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DUAL CORE & CORE TO DUAL.

Pls can any one send me a mail to my Queries it will be very much helpfull. :ramesh_82mdu@yahoo.co.in

Here's the main thing. Price
By what you have said you want to do price is the issue. 64 bet will only run 64 bit if you have a 64 bit operating system with 64 bit drivers installed for your computer. Almost all computer systems unless you are specific will be loaded with a 32 bit operating system. Vista is that way too. The 64 bit AMD processor is just as good for the average computer user as the 32 bit intell processor. Just does not matter. Main thing you will want with either processor is at least 1G of RAM (prefer 2G) because thats where we as regular users will really see a difference in the speed of a computer. If you don't believe me try 512M of RAM with a 3G processor and then try 2G of RAM with a 2G processor and the second will always outpreform the first. Its the RAM. For the average user Wally World has what will work fine and you can add more RAM yourself very cheap. Hope this helps. Why pay more when you don't have to. I do not work for WW.

Actually, I have a 4200+ AMD X2 with XP Pro 64-bit, and I built a 6000+ AMD X2 with Vista Ultimate 64-bit. The person that uses the 6000+ plays Battlefield 2142. This game requires so much memory that having 32-bit OS is not feasible; the game will crash after running more than one Titan map in a row. You need not only 4 GB of RAM, 64-bit OS (to get that 4 GB RAM seeable instead of 3.5 GB), but run a patch that changes the game's run parameters to allow using more than 2 GB of RAM (in 32-bit, this is the maximum memory space for programs). My system may only run 2 GB of RAM, but it has fewer problems then both my XP MCE laptop and my Vista Business desktop.

Due to the monumental hardware requirements in today's games, having a 64-bit system with a 64-bit OS will keep you ready for the future, when you will need 16 GB of RAM to run the toughest stuff out there. Laugh at the 16 GB RAM all you want, but remember the infamous statement: "640kb of RAM is more than anyone will ever need."

By personal preference I use AMD 64 bit CPUs. However, just over a year ago I bought an Acer laptop with a Core Duo CPU. I chose the laptop after giving credence to the Intel hype.

Imagine my thoughts (unprintable) when I came to install a 64 bit version of Windows on it and the message appeared on the screen to the effect that the laptop is NOT fitted with a 64 bit CPU.

Further research showed that if I want to run a 64 bit Intel system then I would need the Core 2 Duo.

I am sticking with AMD.

RexUK

From what I'm gathering here.....it would be a safe bet to get a 64-bit capable PC,run a 64-bit O/S since it's backward compatible and it is the future for O/S's....maybe one of these dual core units could fit the bill!

There are some small pros and cons but as far as most people are concerned (including myself) it dosn't matter. There are both 32 and 64 bit versons of Windows Vista so it won't matter which you get.