Athlon64 Owners: Please Take This Poll

asicman

Member
Aug 3, 2005
189
0
0
I would expect 32-bit windows apps to run a little slower under the 64-bit OS. Is this the case, though? Is driver support sparse for XP64? And how many 64-bit windows apps are out there?
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
I use windows xp 64bit and i wish microsoft would let me downgrade to xp32bit :(

driver support = bad
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
I use Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Version 5.2 with Service Pack 1. :p

Edit: on an Athlon 64 X2 4400+... the only thing I don't have drivers for is my Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Display 2. :(
 

asicman

Member
Aug 3, 2005
189
0
0
Originally posted by: ProviaFan
I use Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Version 5.2 with Service Pack 1. :p

Edit: on an Athlon 64 X2 4400+... the only thing I don't have drivers for is my Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Display 2. :(


Ah, I should have known from your nick that you were a photog.... Nice to meet you. I'm putting together a new system primarily for photoshop and video editting. I don't have a monitor puck yet, but have been looking at them. For now I've been using Adobe Gamma, which gets me pretty close.
 

BW86

Lifer
Jul 20, 2004
13,114
30
91
I use Windows XP 32-bit. I tried 64-bit, but they had no driver for my Santa Cruz :(
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
I would expect 32-bit windows apps to run a little slower under the 64-bit OS. Is this the case, though?

Supposedly they're a little bit faster because the OS has access to all of the extra general purpose registers and each 32-bit process can access up to 4G of VM instead of the 2G limit on 32-bit Windows, if the process is marked as large memory aware.

The major downside is that to run a 32-bit process you need a copy of it and a 32-bit version every library it needs, so you end up wasting a lot of disk space with multiple copies of libraries.
 

pcthuglife

Member
May 3, 2005
173
0
0
ubuntu 32bit - athlon xp 2500
ubuntu 64bit - athlon 64 3000

I see absolutely no difference in general performace.
 

doornail

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
333
0
0
32 bit Fedora Core 4 on an Athlon 64 3500 -- only because it began life on an Athlon 2200xp and I haven't gotten around to reinstalling / patching.

That and my buddies keep walking off with my Fedora DVD's.
 

Seeruk

Senior member
Nov 16, 2003
986
0
0
Trible-booting

WinXP32
Ubuntu32
Vista64

XP & ubuntu 32 because application support for 64 bit is still very low one either platform
 

Grant

Member
Oct 9, 1999
162
0
0
Dual boot Win XP pro 32 bit and XP64.

Not a lot of drivers for XP64 yet, so i'm still using the 32 bit for a while.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
XP.

I hope things start shifting to 64bit so I can use it for my processor before it's obsolete!
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
XP & ubuntu 32 because application support for 64 bit is still very low one either platform

If you install Ubuntu for AMD64 everything will be 64-bit except for closed-source things and there's nothing that can be done about that.
 

yukichigai

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2003
6,404
0
76
I dual booted x64 for 2 days. After that I never went back to 2k, except to install x64 when it went out of Beta status.

I have not had any problems with games and x64, at least compared to problems I've had with 32-bit XP. Everything runs just as fast, sometimes a little faster. It helps that my onboard devices are all nForce-based, as nVidia had 64-bit drivers out instantly. Same for my video card, as it's an x800 Pro and ATI did the same thing. My self-powered micro-LCD even works, and has built-in support with x64. (Chips 65550-based) The only things that chafe me with x64 are the fact that my TV tuner doesn't have driver support, and that there's nothing like Daemon Tools out for it yet. I've had to limp along with IsoBuster in the meantime.

I'd recommend going to x64 if you have major brand equipment only. Otherwise you may want to hang back.