AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ - 32-Bit or 64-Bit?

[itakey]

Should I run this chip on Windows XP Pro 64-Bit? Or just keep it at 32-Bit?

My guess is that it is built to run on 64-Bit so why not.

Also, how does this chip overclock???

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: itakey
Should I run this chip on Windows XP Pro 64-Bit? Or just keep it at 32-Bit?

My guess is that it is built to run on 64-Bit so why not.

Also, how does this chip overclock???

Win Xp 32 bit is much better than the 64bit version. Vista on the other hand is the other way around.

I had my X2 3800+ at 2.7ghz for the last 16 months without any problems at just a notch above stock voltage. Almost all chips should make at least 2.4ghz.

 

[j0j081]

Win XP 64 is actually pretty good now. When it first came out there were all kinds of problems mainly due to poor drivers but now it's on par with regular XP. The 64 bit OS itself is way snappier and games run about the same. Only problem is if you have old games that won't install on it.

 

[itakey]

So far XP 64 has been good. There was only one program that was open source that said it might experience issues, and they had a link to a microsoft registry fix directly from Microsoft...i'll stick with it to keep the benefit of using 4GB.

 

[Pyrokinetic]

I run XP 32-bit, works fine for me; your own needs will determine what you will use. I have my 3800+ clocked at 2.8Ghz (1.65V -- I use a Thermalright heatsink with that -- 32C temp at idle). Some will clock higher, but 2.6 to 2.8 is average.

 

[jonmcc33]

There's no reason to run 64-bit unless you are using a 64-bit application. If you only have 32-bit applications then running then on a 64-bit OS doesn't give you any benefit.

 

[j0j081]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33
There's no reason to run 64-bit unless you are using a 64-bit application. If you only have 32-bit applications then running then on a 64-bit OS doesn't give you any benefit.

the OS itself seems way faster though and things seem a lot faster when a lot of ram is in use like alt tabbing out of a game. I wouldn't say there is no reason because if you like playing with things that could be enough.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: j0j081

Originally posted by: jonmcc33
There's no reason to run 64-bit unless you are using a 64-bit application. If you only have 32-bit applications then running then on a 64-bit OS doesn't give you any benefit.

the OS itself seems way faster though and things seem a lot faster when a lot of ram is in use like alt tabbing out of a game. I wouldn't say there is no reason because if you like playing with things that could be enough.

Plus there's the upgrade path to more than 4GB of RAM (which is really the only point of 64-bit...the performance gains are on the order of around 5%).

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: j0j081

Originally posted by: jonmcc33
There's no reason to run 64-bit unless you are using a 64-bit application. If you only have 32-bit applications then running then on a 64-bit OS doesn't give you any benefit.

the OS itself seems way faster though and things seem a lot faster when a lot of ram is in use like alt tabbing out of a game. I wouldn't say there is no reason because if you like playing with things that could be enough.

LOL! Seems faster and playing with things...really. Are you playing with any 64-bit applications?

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Plus there's the upgrade path to more than 4GB of RAM (which is really the only point of 64-bit...the performance gains are on the order of around 5%).

Doesn't matter if you are using 32-bit applications. They will never benefit from that.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Plus there's the upgrade path to more than 4GB of RAM (which is really the only point of 64-bit...the performance gains are on the order of around 5%).

Doesn't matter if you are using 32-bit applications. They will never benefit from that.

They will if you're running a bunch of them.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can at least have 4GB+ available to Windows. So, say when you boot up Vista and it eats up a gig of memory, you can have that much more to run other stuff.

Besides, newer games are 64-bit (Crysis), and most programs that will need that kind of memory will offer a 64-bit executable.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Plus there's the upgrade path to more than 4GB of RAM (which is really the only point of 64-bit...the performance gains are on the order of around 5%).

Doesn't matter if you are using 32-bit applications. They will never benefit from that.

They will if you're running a bunch of them.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can at least have 4GB+ available to Windows. So, say when you boot up Vista and it eats up a gig of memory, you can have that much more to run other stuff.

Besides, newer games are 64-bit (Crysis), and most programs that will need that kind of memory will offer a 64-bit executable.

Running a bunch of them? Care to show me who here really does that and how much it takes to fill up that much RAM?

Crysis 64-bit? I wasn't aware that Crysis used up that much RAM or would benefit at all from the ability to use more.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Plus there's the upgrade path to more than 4GB of RAM (which is really the only point of 64-bit...the performance gains are on the order of around 5%).

Doesn't matter if you are using 32-bit applications. They will never benefit from that.

They will if you're running a bunch of them.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can at least have 4GB+ available to Windows. So, say when you boot up Vista and it eats up a gig of memory, you can have that much more to run other stuff.

Besides, newer games are 64-bit (Crysis), and most programs that will need that kind of memory will offer a 64-bit executable.

Running a bunch of them? Care to show me who here really does that and how much it takes to fill up that much RAM?

Crysis 64-bit? I wasn't aware that Crysis used up that much RAM or would benefit at all from the ability to use more.

The Crysis dev has stated that load times are reduced with 4GB+ of RAM.

Since 32-bit apps are capped at 2GB per thread, it would take a couple of serious apps to fill up 4GB.

My Vista idles at around 1GB of RAM usage with just FIrefox running. If I ran a game like C&C3, my usage would go up to around 3GB. There are plenty of games that use up around 2GB of RAM, and going forward I would expect them to eat up more.

I don't see how it hurts to reccomend 64-bit Vista when it costs the same as 32-bit Vista. Why are you so bent on 32 bits?

I'm sure there are plenty of Photoshop users that need that kind of memory.

Oh, and *I* need that kind of memory when I'm working on a large wireframe model in 3D Studio, especially when rendering a hi-def image. :light:

OP: You should install 64-bit Vista at this point. Its growing pains seem to be mostly over. Its problems have been over-blown IMO.

 

[j0j081]

what's the big deal? let people run what they want. it's certainly not harming anything unless an older program they need doesn't work but you can check that out ahead of time. at least there aren't 500 updates to install right after a clean install of XP SP2.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Plus there's the upgrade path to more than 4GB of RAM (which is really the only point of 64-bit...the performance gains are on the order of around 5%).

Doesn't matter if you are using 32-bit applications. They will never benefit from that.

Not true. Under Vista x64 (unsure about XP64), 32-bit application processes can receive an entire 4GB of VM space. Under 32-bit XP/Vista, they only recieve 2GB of VM space. A lot of recent games bump up against that limit. Moving to 64-bit is one fix for that issues, due to the increased user-mode VM space.

 

[itakey]

Now you guys have me debating if I should switch back to Windows XP 32 bit. I am definitely NOT running Vista just yet, so that isn't a candidate right now.

Is the XP 32-Bit RAM limit 4GB? I thought it was 3GB and that is why I considered 64-bit. Or should I switch back to 32-Bit XP with 4GB?

 

[hans007]

there really is no point to running 64bit unless you have over 3gb ram. its not really any faster for normal apps.