32 bit or 64 bit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Todd Hudson
  • Start date Start date
T

Todd Hudson

Using the exact same hardware, and running Vista 32 or Vista 64.

Is there any benefits to the 64 bit, ie better performance, etc? Remember,
same processor, same amoutn of RAM, etc.

I am using an AMD Turion dual core 2 GHz with 1 GB RAM.

Thanks
 
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that to run 64 bit mode
you needed a machine with 64 bit architecture eg a titanium processor etc.

Regards - Jagman
 
Jagman said:
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that to run 64 bit mode
you needed a machine with 64 bit architecture eg a titanium processor etc.
Click to expand...

You're a bit out of touch. All current Pentiums, Celerons, Core 2 Duos,
Xeons, Athlons, Semprons, Turions, and Opterons have 64-bit modes.

ss.
 
Titanium is a different 64-bit architecture which has been relegated to the
highend Server market. For workstations and consumer segments, Intel and AMD
have released 64-bit processors called x86-x64 which runs both instruction
code without any bottle neck in performance. These can be easily identified
by AMD64 and EM64T (Intel) - Extended Memory 64 bit Technology.
 
Jagman said:
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that to run 64 bit
mode you needed a machine with 64 bit architecture eg a titanium
processor etc.
Click to expand...

Jagman:

Many, if not most, new computers are 64-bit capable. But they do not use
the Itanium architecture, but rather the 64-bit architecture pioneered
by AMD (and later adopted by Intel). This architecture can support
either 32 or 64 bit OS's, and 64 bit OS's running on it will support
both 64 bit and 32 bit applications.

David Wilkinson
 
This is an excerpt from my ActiveWin Vista review:
Some of the more technical features of Vista are what I would consider to be
ready for the mainstream. For instance, all Editions of the OS except for
Starter Edition will be available in 64-bit flavors'. The interface and
features are identical in every way to its x86 counterpart except for
compatibility with 32 bit device drivers and 16 bit applications. The
advantages of a 64 bit Windows for consumers is not immediately seen, but
power hungry users such as scientist, number crunching business intelligence
users and environments where video editing/rendering and DNA Modeling are
done will see the deep benefits of being able to handle up to 128 GBs of
RAM, although there aren't any Workstation's that can hold that amount of
memory, its comforting knowing the capability is there I guess. Driver
support is still an issue for 64-bit Windows, but with the aim of making
64-bit computing mainstream through Windows Vista, developers will support
the platform more readily I believe. I personally have not had any driver
issues with Vista x64 except for the thumb drive hanging the system when
plugged into a particular USB port, everything else works just fine.



All built in Windows applications are 64-bit native such as Windows Movie
Maker and Photo Gallery although there remains a 32-bit Internet Explorer to
maintain compatibility with web extensions that might not have been updated.
Performance is still an issue, and even on the RTM release I truly have to
say I am not satisfied. From installation to general use, the 64-Bit version
of Vista feels groggy, running applications such as Office 2007 take a hit,
applications take much longer to launch and at times become non-responsive.
Hardware is also another factor when it comes to performance and 64-bit
Windows, and I honestly believe to get a satisfactory experience, a dual
core processor with at least 2 GBs of RAM and a 256 MB video card or higher
is a recommended minimum. Microsoft has announced all kernel mode drivers
must be signed before they can be installed. This will ultimately be a
benefit for the consumer to provide a more reliable experience, the
essential aim, which is to reduce system failure as a result of badly
written device drivers or drivers written with the intent of causing
malicious harm, you can't go wrong there.



Another security feature that has been causing a lot of controversy called
Patch Guard provides a protective shield around the Windows Kernel that
prevents certain individuals from simply patching it, whether it's to
optimize third party applications or for unknown malicious purposes. Kernel
patching was not something consented by Microsoft in the first place, in
which case, they saw the 64-bit release of Vista as an opportunity to start
a clean slate and educate both developers and users about the negatives of
doing this in the first place. But this has affected certain Security
vendors such as MacAfee (which is still unsatisfied) and Symantec, which
have since worked out an agreement with Microsoft to get controlled access
to the Windows Kernel. Unlike Windows Vista x64, Vista x86's kernel remains
patchable. So for persons who want a really, really, secure and powerful
version of Windows, Vista definitely has something to offer.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E8E5CC039D51E3DB!9709.entry
 
Thanks for the info, we still haven't helped Mr Hudson. BTW I assume that
the previous socket 478 Pentium chips were all 32 bit?

Regards Jagman
 
A titanium processor might be great for reducing laptop weights, but I think
you meant to say Itanium. ;)
 
OOPS

Corrected & redfaced.

Thanks

Colin Barnhorst said:
A titanium processor might be great for reducing laptop weights, but I
think you meant to say Itanium. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Jagman said:
Thanks for the info, we still haven't helped Mr Hudson. BTW I assume that
the previous socket 478 Pentium chips were all 32 bit?
Click to expand...

I think everybody's bored of answering that question. It won't take long to
find many discussions here asking that.

In answer to your question, yes, I think the first Pentiums with EM64T
support were LGA775 Prescotts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4

ss.
 
Synapse Syndrome said:
You're a bit out of touch. All current Pentiums, Celerons, Core 2 Duos,
Xeons, Athlons, Semprons, Turions, and Opterons have 64-bit modes.
Click to expand...
Define "current".
 
Roscoe said:
Define "current".
Click to expand...


In production, not new old stock. I'm not sure about Celerons and Semprons,
but the rest have been 32/64 for ages now.

ss.
 
I've got the same setup on my HP nx6325, but with 2GB of memory. Running
Vista Ultimate RTM. But you'll need the RAM. This puppy is a HOG!

1GB wouldn't do squat. Or it wouldn't do what I could do with W2K and 1GB.
So, minimum memory is 2GB to get some performance. And as soon as the price
of the 2GB modules come down from CHF 1,500.00 each, then I'll buy 2 and
double-up to 4GB. Right now, a 1GB module is only around CHF 200.00 or so.

But it runs great.

However, if you only use the default app shortcuts, beware that many are the
32-bit apps, not the 64-bit ones. Need to find all the 64-bit .exes and
make shortcuts. And always have a shortcut to IExplorer 32-bit, since Flash
isn't working well in 64-bit, but does on 32-bit.

Hope this helps.

--
Mark-Allen Perry
160825 / 1112165
Windows Vista X64 Ultimate
RTM Build 6000.16386
ALPHA Systems
Marly, Switzerland
mark-allen @ mvps . org
 
I commonly run with 60% of ram used with 2GB. It will take all the ram you
want to throw at it and put it to good use. But then I would rather have
the ram in use than the virtual memory.
 
Colin, good point there... if you check TaskMan, all available mem is used.
But IMHO, it still doesn't manage it well. There seems to be some lag time
for it to allocate to new processes. Or maybe I'm just being a bit too
picky.

--
Mark-Allen Perry
160825 / 1112165
Windows Vista X64 Ultimate
RTM Build 6000.16386
ALPHA Systems
Marly, Switzerland
mark-allen @ mvps . org
 
Back
Top