• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

4GB Ram: Windows7 x86 or Windows7 64

D

Davegod75

Diamond Member
I have a 512mb video card as well.

Will Windows 7 x86 use all my 4gb or do I have to use the 64 bit version?
 
Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Somebody needs to make a sticky for this 32bit vs 64bit crap.
Click to expand...


Isn't it a de facto sticky? I don't think the topic ever leaves the first page :^P
 
Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Somebody needs to make a sticky for this 32bit vs 64bit crap.
Click to expand...

There is no discussion. There is absolutely no reason to get x86 unless your CPU doesn't support 64-bit operating systems. End of story.
 
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Somebody needs to make a sticky for this 32bit vs 64bit crap.
Click to expand...

There is no discussion. There is absolutely no reason to get x86 unless your CPU doesn't support 64-bit operating systems. End of story.
Click to expand...

This.

And eventually even Adobe Flash will be 64 bit!
 
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Somebody needs to make a sticky for this 32bit vs 64bit crap.
Click to expand...

There is no discussion. There is absolutely no reason to get x86 unless your CPU doesn't support 64-bit operating systems. End of story.
Click to expand...

This.

And eventually even Adobe Flash will be 64 bit!
Click to expand...

"THAT'LL BE THE DAY"
 
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Somebody needs to make a sticky for this 32bit vs 64bit crap.
Click to expand...

There is no discussion. There is absolutely no reason to get x86 unless your CPU doesn't support 64-bit operating systems. End of story.
Click to expand...

This.

And eventually even Adobe Flash will be 64 bit!
Click to expand...

Any time someone says "there is no discussion" there most surely is.
I would go with 64b so that you can upgrade the RAM later if you so choose.

But it has been proven time and again (check google-->tomshardware) that 32bit is faster, and uses less RAM. It is faster because the words with 64bit are twice as long, and it uses less RAM because the memory pointers in all your programs are twice as long, too. At 4gb you are better off with 32bit for the speed (and because being able to address the extra 768MB of RAM is negated by the larger pointer sizes). Once you have 6-8GB is it worth having 64bit.
 
But it has been proven time and again (check google-->tomshardware) that 32bit is faster, and uses less RAM. It is faster because the words with 64bit are twice as long, and it uses less RAM because the memory pointers in all your programs are twice as long, too. At 4gb you are better off with 32bit for the speed (and because being able to address the extra 768MB of RAM is negated by the larger pointer sizes). Once you have 6-8GB is it worth having 64bit.
Click to expand...

True in theory, but false in actual practice. While the OS is indeed larger due to the larger data sizes, its offset but access to the full amount of memory and bear in mind many applications are still 32bit apps anyhow (that dont have the extra data overhead you mention). There really is no reason for someone with 4gig to not be running 64bit. I recommend it to those with 2 so they have the choice to upgrade later.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
True in theory, but false in actual practice. While the OS is indeed larger due to the larger data sizes, its offset but access to the full amount of memory and bear in mind many applications are still 32bit apps anyhow (that dont have the extra data overhead you mention). There really is no reason for someone with 4gig to not be running 64bit. I recommend it to those with 2 so they have the choice to upgrade later.
Click to expand...
Aaah, but there is. If you're like me and sticking to XP SP3 until Win7 hits, x86 would be a much better choice from a compatibility standpoint 😉
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
But it has been proven time and again (check google-->tomshardware) that 32bit is faster, and uses less RAM. It is faster because the words with 64bit are twice as long, and it uses less RAM because the memory pointers in all your programs are twice as long, too. At 4gb you are better off with 32bit for the speed (and because being able to address the extra 768MB of RAM is negated by the larger pointer sizes). Once you have 6-8GB is it worth having 64bit.
Click to expand...

True in theory, but false in actual practice. While the OS is indeed larger due to the larger data sizes, its offset but access to the full amount of memory and bear in mind many applications are still 32bit apps anyhow (that dont have the extra data overhead you mention). There really is no reason for someone with 4gig to not be running 64bit. I recommend it to those with 2 so they have the choice to upgrade later.
Click to expand...

Yes with 4GB it is offset by access to the full 4GB of memory-- but at the end of the day there is no benefit to having 64-bit on that 4GB of memory, because the extra 512MB-768MB is taken by larger memory addresses (even in 32-bit mode the programs still have 64-bit memory addresses, to Windows. To themselves they only see 32-bits but the performance loss and memory waste is still there).

The performance loss is about 5-10%, and is two-fold:
1). Instruction sizes are 2x as large as with a 32-bit OS. CPU spends extra time interpreting these instructions.
2). Memory addresses are 1.5-2x as large as in the 32-bit install. CPU spends extra time processing (accessing, writing to, etc) these memory addresses.

In certain applications there is a noticeable speedup-- particularly encoding and in de/compressing files. I didn't notice much change in encoding (it's already going to take 30 minutes who cares); however I have noticed a speedup thanks to 64-bit in WinRAR'ing. Some benchmarks have it as much as 50% faster in en/decoding. It's usually more like 30-35%. I definitely noticed a speedup.

So let me say again, with 4GB and you are sure you are not going to upgrade RAM, you are better going with 32bit, even though you can't access but 3.25GB of it. If, however, you have more than 4GB of RAM, it is worthwhile to run 64-bit.
 
Just use 64 bit, there is no debate, you wont notice any difference. Only difference you will notice is the lack of having to reinstall everything again when you do need 64 bit. Ive been using 64 bit vista for ages and theres been no problems related to its 64 bitness. Im one of these people who does a lot of different things on my lappy, music, movies, games, other etc so if there were problems i likely would run into them.

Also you will get the full 4GB, a nice bonus i guess.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Yes with 4GB it is offset by access to the full 4GB of memory-- but at the end of the day there is no benefit to having 64-bit on that 4GB of memory, because the extra 512MB-768MB is taken by larger memory addresses (even in 32-bit mode the programs still have 64-bit memory addresses, to Windows. To themselves they only see 32-bits but the performance loss and memory waste is still there).
Click to expand...

There are more changes in the x64 architecture than just access to more than 4GB virtual address spaces. Depending on usage, you can gain from running 64bit apps.

About address sizes. If you are talking about page table usage, Windows 32bit runs in PAE mode by default, and thus each PTE is 64bit wide, just as they are in the 64bit OS.
 
(even in 32-bit mode the programs still have 64-bit memory addresses, to Windows. To themselves they only see 32-bits but the performance loss and memory waste is still there).
Click to expand...

Sure, at the kernel, but not in user mode and thats where the waste you complained about really occurs.

1). Instruction sizes are 2x as large as with a 32-bit OS. CPU spends extra time interpreting these instructions.
Click to expand...

You make it sounds like the CPU has to do 2 reads to get an address, that is simply not true.

[2]). Memory addresses are 1.5-2x as large as in the 32-bit install. CPU spends extra time processing (accessing, writing to, etc) these memory addresses.[/quote]

No it doesn't, the CPU is designed for 64bit addresses. Based on your argument, at 16bit chip should be 1.5 to 2x faster than a 32bit chip...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top