is ever processor post 2004 is 64 bit?

[VirtualLarry]

Yeah, I've heard about running 64-bit Vista having lower overclocks than 32-bit too.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Also its harder to get stable OC on 64bit then it is on 32bit.

Say what? Either your OC is stable or it isn't. I have NEVER heard of that before. Have any links?

I don't have any links, but there have been reports of this since the introduction of XP64. If you think about it, it makes sense. 64-bit OS is more demanding of the CPU than a 32-bit OS.

 

[2March]

Originally posted by: Fox5
The big issue with 64 bit is probably not so much 4GB+ of ram (though you may want to upgrade later...and btw the limit is more like over 3GB, so 4GB systems should use 64 bit anyway) but that 32 bit processes (programs more or less) can only use up to 2GB of memory space (including virtual memory on the hard drive) in a 32 bit OS, but up to 4GB on a 64 bit OS. There are games out that crash due to running out of process memory on a 32 bit OS now, despite only being 32 bit apps.

I believe this to be incorrect. In a 32 bit enviroment an app can simply use more then 2 GB when the appropriate flag is set. There is an app (forgot it's name) that can set this flag and then this limitation does not apply. I know this because I needed it for Flight Simulator 10.

But still, it's far from perfect with 1 Gig lost on Shadow RAM I can get about 300-400 meg extra in 32 bit in XP and about 200 in Vista. 64 bit is the way to go.

 

[Rifter]

I dont have links but it is fact, i have read numerous articles from reputable sites including this one that state 32bit will let you get a higher OC than 64bit.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Yeah, I've heard about running 64-bit Vista having lower overclocks than 32-bit too.

With my old Phenom (PhI, not PhII) I could run 2.9GHz in WinXP 32 bit. With Vista 64 Ultimate anything above 2.7GHz resulted in BSOD's. My current PhII will run up to 3.8GHz in Vista 64, so who knows, maybe I could get another 100-200MHz in XP.

But, I have 8GB of memory. I don't need it, but it's cheap and I have a 64 bit OS, so why not? The only thing I've noticed so far with 4GB vs. 8GB is when I close something that is demanding on my system, like Age of Conan I have an instantly usable desktop. Before with 4GB I'd close out the game and I'd have to wait for the desktop to 'reload'. My icons were not there, the hard drive was caching like mad getting everything back to normal. With 8GB there is none of that.

As for the OP, is every processor 64 bit since then? I don't think so, but most are.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Also its harder to get stable OC on 64bit then it is on 32bit.

Say what? Either your OC is stable or it isn't. I have NEVER heard of that before. Have any links?

I've had stable OCs in 32-bit Windows crap out in 64-bit Ubuntu before.

 

[LoneNinja]

Even some of the older Phenom I articles show that there are lower overclocks in Vista 64 than Vista 32. One such article I recall showing this was on this website when the SB750 was released and they did an article to show it's overclocking results using ACC vs not using ACC, they also had a section of 32bit vs 64bit.

 

[Rubycon]

Probably goes along the lines of disabling HT to gain higher o/c on i7. I've seen in the past with my QX9650 I could be prime/linx/occt stable for DAYS yet get artifacts in encoded videos so I'd have to back down even more. If your goal is max stable o/c and your software does not utilize ALL CPU features/functions how can you really be sure the chip is stable? Definition of stable is producing accurate calculations even though chips have errata when they start messing up due to excessive clock speeds - IMO they are not running properly. Even though Windows may never crash seemingly due to a chip problem.

So a system hitting 4.2GHz in 32bit OS only hits 3.9GHz in 64 - the former is kind of cheating like turning OFF HT on i7.

 

[OverVolt]

All the programs I want to run are 32-bit, so I see no point in running 64-bit as a PC gamer.

I don't need to look at 100 tabs of web pages at once >.>

So thats the only practical thing 64-bit does? Even the ram argument is bit wonky, AFAIK 32bit processes crash if they hit 2Gb. I mean whats better than playing ONE game at a time? Playing TWO games at a time! Woohoo!!! :disgust:

It's not like I need 2Gb for my 32bit games, and 6Gb to run bloat in the background. I guess I could alt-tab out to watch hulu and read 1,000 guides at once, or something. There just isn't a big CONSUMER market for 64bit software, hence it has gone nowhere in 4-5 years.

 

[2March]

Originally posted by: OverVolt
All the programs I want to run are 32-bit, so I see no point in running 64-bit as a PC gamer.

I don't need to look at 100 tabs of web pages at once >.>

So thats the only practical thing 64-bit does? Even the ram argument is bit wonky, AFAIK 32bit processes crash if they hit 2Gb. I mean whats better than playing ONE game at a time? Playing TWO games at a time! Woohoo!!! :disgust:

It's not like I need 2Gb for my 32bit games, and 6Gb to run bloat in the background. I guess I could alt-tab out to watch hulu and read 1,000 guides at once, or something. There just isn't a big CONSUMER market for 64bit software, hence it has gone nowhere in 4-5 years.

The reason why you are wrong has been allready posted in this thread. Which makes the reason for your post anyones guess...

 

[LoneNinja]

Originally posted by: OverVolt
All the programs I want to run are 32-bit, so I see no point in running 64-bit as a PC gamer.

I don't need to look at 100 tabs of web pages at once >.>

So thats the only practical thing 64-bit does? Even the ram argument is bit wonky, AFAIK 32bit processes crash if they hit 2Gb. I mean whats better than playing ONE game at a time? Playing TWO games at a time! Woohoo!!! :disgust:

It's not like I need 2Gb for my 32bit games, and 6Gb to run bloat in the background. I guess I could alt-tab out to watch hulu and read 1,000 guides at once, or something. There just isn't a big CONSUMER market for 64bit software, hence it has gone nowhere in 4-5 years.

64bit is almost needed for a high end gaming rig these days, crossfire/sli several cards together on a 32bit os and you'll end up really short on system memory. I also read some where(sorry no link to back this up right now) but Windows 7 is suppose to be the last OS to come available in 32bit from Microsoft, they are also urging OEMs to use Windows 7 64bit over 32bit.

Personally I see no reason to use a 32bit OS on a new build, but at the same time there is little reason to upgrade most current computers from 32bit to 64bit.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: LoneNinja

Originally posted by: OverVolt
All the programs I want to run are 32-bit, so I see no point in running 64-bit as a PC gamer.

I don't need to look at 100 tabs of web pages at once >.>

So thats the only practical thing 64-bit does? Even the ram argument is bit wonky, AFAIK 32bit processes crash if they hit 2Gb. I mean whats better than playing ONE game at a time? Playing TWO games at a time! Woohoo!!! :disgust:

It's not like I need 2Gb for my 32bit games, and 6Gb to run bloat in the background. I guess I could alt-tab out to watch hulu and read 1,000 guides at once, or something. There just isn't a big CONSUMER market for 64bit software, hence it has gone nowhere in 4-5 years.

64bit is almost needed for a high end gaming rig these days, crossfire/sli several cards together on a 32bit os and you'll end up really short on system memory. I also read some where(sorry no link to back this up right now) but Windows 7 is suppose to be the last OS to come available in 32bit from Microsoft, they are also urging OEMs to use Windows 7 64bit over 32bit.

Personally I see no reason to use a 32bit OS on a new build, but at the same time there is little reason to upgrade most current computers from 32bit to 64bit.

Microsoft could make this easy.
Don't release 32 bit Windows 7 except for netbooks.

 

[alyarb]

isn't that what they're doing?

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: LoneNinja

64bit is almost needed for a high end gaming rig these days, crossfire/sli several cards together on a 32bit os and you'll end up really short on system memory. I also read some where(sorry no link to back this up right now) but Windows 7 is suppose to be the last OS to come available in 32bit from Microsoft, they are also urging OEMs to use Windows 7 64bit over 32bit.

Personally I see no reason to use a 32bit OS on a new build, but at the same time there is little reason to upgrade most current computers from 32bit to 64bit.

Until MS fixes the print to onenote under 32 bit or releases the next version of onenote that is fully 64bit compatible, I'll still be in a 32bit OS.