is ever processor post 2004 is 64 bit?

[alee]

recently, i was asking my friend to install win7 64bit. he asked why i need 64 bit version. i said, that i am using AMD X2 64 bit and that's why i want to install it. He asked me, how much ram are you using. i said 2 G.

Then he explained something like this.

There is no need of using 64 bit OS Unless we are not using ram beyond 4G (for obvious addressing scheme reason). Moreover, he said that post 2004 every processor is 64 bit.

I am not sure about this. So i just wanted to confirm this thing. can you people please elaborate?

Moreover, is there any plus point or -ve of installing a 32BIT os on 64BIT os?

 

[Rifter]

your buddy is right, unless you have 4+GB of ram there is no point of going 64bit. However since ram is so cheap there is no reason not to have 4GB of it, so i would install 64bit anyways so when you decide to go with 4GB or more you will not need to reinstall windows to use all of it.

 

[alee]

thanks.

but what about that every processor is now 64 bit?

 

[Hacp]

That isn't really true. Only the more recent ones are all 64 bit. I don't think Yonah was 64 bit.

 

[alee]

that means, installing a 32 bit OS even on 64 bit machine is ok unless i don't have 4G + ram. right?

Is there any other benefit of having a 64bit/32bit machine besides having capability of adding more ram??

 

[LoneNinja]

All AMD desktop chips since the release of the Athlon 64 in 2003 have been 64 bit to my knowledge, I'm not sure when Intel switched. However I do know that my Core Duo T2500 (From 2006) is only a 32 bit processor, so saying all processors since 2004 support 64 bit isn't true.

 

[jandlecack]

Yeah, I don't think it's a clever idea to specify a certain date after which every single processor made is 64-bit.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Most processors, except ATOM/Celeron M chips.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

AMD Semprons are 32-bit, except for the models labeled "Sempron 64".

 

[2March]

Originally posted by: alee
that means, installing a 32 bit OS even on 64 bit machine is ok unless i don't have 4G + ram. right?

Is there any other benefit of having a 64bit/32bit machine besides having capability of adding more ram??

If you need your 4 gigs of RAM 32bits will shadow video RAM in system RAM. I hav 4 gigs on vista 32 and therefore lose the last Gig. Its not just about allowing more RAM but also about the ability to use it all.

 

[CKTurbo128]

Your friend is correct that using a 64-bit OS on a system with less than 4 GB of RAM will little benefits.

As for as processors with x64 support, saying that all processors produced after 2004 support x64 is only partially correct, as there were some additional CPUs (mostly Intel) that were released after 2004 that were 32-bit only. The following processor lines support x64:

* Athlon 64
* Sempron 64
* Athlon 64 X2
* Phenom I/II
* Turion 64
* Opteron
* Core 2 Duo/Quad
* Core i7
* Pentium Dual-Core
* Atom 200/300 Series
* Pentium D
* Pentium 4 (Late Prescott steppings)
* Celeron (Only Core 2-Based models)
* Celeron D (Late Prescott steppings)
* VIA Nano

The following processor lines do not support x64:

* Atom N & Z Series
* Pentium M
* Celeron M
* Core Solo/Duo
* Sempron (Socket 462, Socket 754/939 [non-E6 stepping])
* Athlon XP
* Pentium 4 (Early Prescott, Northwood, Willamette)

 

[aigomorla]

No one needs 64bit unless you want more ram then 3gigs.
Anyone that says you NEED 64bit is smoking some really nice stuff. (even 4gigs, 3gigs will show in windows, and windows will work fine with 3gigs showing out of the 4).

If in doubt and your on a 64bit system, pull up task manager and see how many programs have *32 next to it. That means your running in 32bit for that program, and you'll see a lot of programs run in 32 bit.

 

[taltamir]

would you people PLEASE stop using this strawman argument?

the 4GB limit is a straw man argument in regards to 64bit. 64bit lets you run 64bit programs, that might give you no benefit at all, or can be UP TO 5 (theoretically) times faster than 32bit.

I personally benchmarked 64bit 7z compression to be 27% faster than 32bit. Timing web browsers (opening with 100 tabs at once) seem to be 5 times faster (I don't have a tool for exact measurement). And I saw various professional benchmarks showing certain hash calculations (SHA1 and TTH for example) to be 3 to 4 times faster.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: taltamir
would you people PLEASE stop using this strawman argument?

the 4GB limit is a straw man argument in regards to 64bit. 64bit lets you run 64bit programs, that might give you no benefit at all, or can be UP TO 5 (theoretically) times faster than 32bit.

I personally benchmarked 64bit 7z compression to be 27% faster than 32bit. Timing web browsers (opening with 100 tabs at once) seem to be 5 times faster (I don't have a tool for exact measurement). And I saw various professional benchmarks showing certain hash calculations (SHA1 and TTH for example) to be 3 to 4 times faster.

very true..

however, in the OP's case, i dont think he will be running a 64bit software anytime soon.

What software do you mostly intend to use OP?

Also its harder to get stable OC on 64bit then it is on 32bit.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
No one needs 64bit unless you want more ram then 3gigs.
Anyone that says you NEED 64bit is smoking some really nice stuff. (even 4gigs, 3gigs will show in windows, and windows will work fine with 3gigs showing out of the 4).

If in doubt and your on a 64bit system, pull up task manager and see how many programs have *32 next to it. That means your running in 32bit for that program, and you'll see a lot of programs run in 32 bit.

Unigraphics NX6. Try it with 4GB on ia32. You can draw with your toes faster!

 

[brxndxn]

I say 64bit is faster across the board. Sorry but it is. Plus, 64bit OS's are less spyware-prone because spyware writers are lasy and do not feel like writing 64bit kernel attacks.

My real-world experience has 64bit systems running faster than 32bit. It is a gut feeling - but I would trust my own gut feeling over anything the goverment does.

Don't be gay. Run 64bit. I recommend Windows XP 64bit for life.

 

[Sylvanas]

64bit is faster indeed- there is no need to be buying 32bit anymore, the old 'compatability' argument doesn't exist anymore as every reputable hardware vendor/software have a 64bit capable product/software. There are numerous tests around the web that compare file compression and 3D rendering apps that show significant improvement with a 64bit OS- just to name a few.

I came across this comparison a few days ago while reading through some of my frequented websties. The tests are all with Linux but you see the same thing in Windows 32bit vs 64bit- of which a quick google search would set you on track. As you can see from the link above, vast improvements across the board in every situation.

 

[alee]

Originally posted by: taltamir
would you people PLEASE stop using this strawman argument?

the 4GB limit is a straw man argument in regards to 64bit. 64bit lets you run 64bit programs, that might give you no benefit at all, or can be UP TO 5 (theoretically) times faster than 32bit.

I personally benchmarked 64bit 7z compression to be 27% faster than 32bit. Timing web browsers (opening with 100 tabs at once) seem to be 5 times faster (I don't have a tool for exact measurement). And I saw various professional benchmarks showing certain hash calculations (SHA1 and TTH for example) to be 3 to 4 times faster.

well that was the thing i was trying to inquire as well. 64 bit, besides adding access to memory beyond 4G, definitely will have added to register size and computation of mathematics/scientific operations.

I think, that no matter if you are using a 64bit OS on 64bit machine, if the software you are using is not using 64bit power (registers and might be some new instruction set) then there is no difference of using the same software on 32bit hardware with 32 bit os (having same amount of ram say 3G).

 

[2March]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
No one needs 64bit unless you want more ram then 3gigs.
Anyone that says you NEED 64bit is smoking some really nice stuff. (even 4gigs, 3gigs will show in windows, and windows will work fine with 3gigs showing out of the 4).

If in doubt and your on a 64bit system, pull up task manager and see how many programs have *32 next to it. That means your running in 32bit for that program, and you'll see a lot of programs run in 32 bit.

You prolly want to expand your knowledge about apps a bit. FSX for example can use 4 Gb and will be very limited on 4Gb 32bit systems...

I can tell from my own experience. Freeing that extra Gb is crucial for several apps! And Vista's "don't know what to cache" technology will only make things worse.

 

[RallyMaster]

From my experience, 64-bit Vista is much more stable than 32-bit Vista. I could just be smoking crack though....

 

[TurtleCrusher]

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?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: alee
that means, installing a 32 bit OS even on 64 bit machine is ok unless i don't have 4G + ram. right?

Is there any other benefit of having a 64bit/32bit machine besides having capability of adding more ram??

Yes. Updated instruction set. X86-64 includes SSE2 and other advanced instructions as part of the instruction set, meaning native 64 bit programs/operating systems can show quite a bit more performance than 32 bit. (since SSE2 et al are optional in 32 bit)
However, even on 64 bit operating systems, most software is still 32 bit.

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.

For the most part though, it doesn't really matter. But since it doesn't really matter, there's no reason not to go for 64 bit and have upgradability on your side, and 64 bit has more security features in addition to be less targetted than 32 bit.

All AMD chips except some semprons have been 64 bit since Athlon 64.
Intel started sometime with the later Pentium 4's/Pentium D's, but core duo was 32 bit and so was pentium M. I believe all Core 2 Duos (and pentiums/celerons based on core 2 duo) are 64 bit.

Actually, just go 64 bit. Even if you only physically have 2GB, 64 bit will use virtual addressing on your harddrive to do more. It's slow, but it's doing it on both 32 bit and 64 bit vista, and wouldn't it be better to give it the ability (if it needs it) to allocate more than 3GB for a program, rather than just crash?
Or....
Just buy another 2GB. Ram is dirt cheap right now, it wouldn't cost more than $20.

 

[StinkyPinky]

If you have Vista, theres no reason not to go 64 bit if you have a 64bit cpu. I've experienced zero problems with Vista 64.

 

[alyarb]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Don't be gay. Run 64bit. I recommend Windows XP 64bit for life.

i knew you were out there, brother.

i love how everyone here takes this wonderful buzzword, "64-bit" and takes it as an analogy no farther than the width of the address bus. isn't this an unusual practice for forum goons? you would think that buses, registers, and instructions that are all twice as wide as before would gather up fewer naysayers and less criticism. I don't think anybody is on the fence about 32-bit systems versus 64-bit, I just think most people haven't "looked into" the differences in a few years. The differences are there though. The programs do run faster. The address bus is wider, but that is not what makes a program faster, that just gives it larger a domain from which it can assign coordinates for storage.

using the higher range of memory addresses to make available the extra RAM you already have is getting your money's worth on that storage. likewise, allowing your processor to work on 64-bit instructions because it can is getting your money's worth on that cpu power. the architecture has larger registers and more of them which means you get the data you want in one or two clock cycles rather than dropping everything to LOAD/STORE. this is a great weight off of your cache/memory system. you really do get through more instructions per width of memory bus. compared to 32-bit, x64 can do more with less and can do a lot more with the same.

 

[faxon]

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?

phenom 2 OC guide by anand? did you read it? they couldnt get the 940 to boot past 3.8 into 64 bit vista despite being able to get 4.2ish stable in 32 bit vista if i remember correctly.

ed: info here, as well as in the original OC guide. not a whole lot, but the point is it has happened http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=11