Is it worth installing amd 64 bit

[huanito]

I have AMD4000 with 256mb ram and OEM version of amd64 bit windows.
I haven't tried it yet, but is everything going to work? i'm on nforce3

 

[magomago]

if i were you the first thing i'd do before investing in a new copy of windows is getting more ram. it doesn't matter if you have a 10Ghz processor, you are really going to choke with such a small amount of ram...

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: magomago
if i were you the first thing i'd do before investing in a new copy of windows is getting more ram. it doesn't matter if you have a 10Ghz processor, you are really going to choke with such a small amount of ram...

Agreed, 64 bit operating systems really begin to sing when they have more than 4gb of ram installed. You should have at least 1.5gb or more Before you even consider using it.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: magomago
if i were you the first thing i'd do before investing in a new copy of windows is getting more ram. it doesn't matter if you have a 10Ghz processor, you are really going to choke with such a small amount of ram...

Agreed, 64 bit operating systems really begin to sing when they have more than 4gb of ram installed. You should have at least 1.5gb or more Before you even consider using it.

LMAO....this is wrong, Windows XP x64 is great even if you don't have a lot of memory. I would recommend 512 megs though, 256 is a little to low for Windows XP 32 bit or 64 bit.

For those that don't know Windows XP x64 is greatly tweaked and runs a lot better then the 2001 version that M$ released. It's based on Windows Server 2003.

I believe 5.2.3790.1830 is the final build, a nice step up from 5.1.2600 !!!

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: magomago
if i were you the first thing i'd do before investing in a new copy of windows is getting more ram. it doesn't matter if you have a 10Ghz processor, you are really going to choke with such a small amount of ram...

Agreed, 64 bit operating systems really begin to sing when they have more than 4gb of ram installed. You should have at least 1.5gb or more Before you even consider using it.

LMAO....this is wrong, Windows XP x64 is great even if you don't have a lot of memory. I would recommend 512 megs though, 256 is a little to low for Windows XP 32 bit or 64 bit.

For those that don't know Windows XP x64 is greatly tweaked and runs a lot better then the 2001 version that M$ released. It's based on Windows Server 2003.

I believe 5.2.3790.1830 is the final build, a nice step up from 5.1.2600 !!!

I'm sure somebody who refers to Microsoft as M$ would know more about their products than someone who isn't biased against them, wouldn't they? :roll:

I too would recommend getting more RAM before doing anything else. Not only will the OS run better but why bother spending so much on a mobo/CPU if you're not going to be running any applications that need the power? Get at least a gig and you'll be happy.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: magomago
if i were you the first thing i'd do before investing in a new copy of windows is getting more ram. it doesn't matter if you have a 10Ghz processor, you are really going to choke with such a small amount of ram...

Agreed, 64 bit operating systems really begin to sing when they have more than 4gb of ram installed. You should have at least 1.5gb or more Before you even consider using it.

LMAO....this is wrong, Windows XP x64 is great even if you don't have a lot of memory. I would recommend 512 megs though, 256 is a little to low for Windows XP 32 bit or 64 bit.

For those that don't know Windows XP x64 is greatly tweaked and runs a lot better then the 2001 version that M$ released. It's based on Windows Server 2003.

I believe 5.2.3790.1830 is the final build, a nice step up from 5.1.2600 !!!

I'm sure somebody who refers to Microsoft as M$ would know more about their products than someone who isn't biased against them, wouldn't they? :roll:

I too would recommend getting more RAM before doing anything else. Not only will the OS run better but why bother spending so much on a mobo/CPU if you're not going to be running any applications that need the power? Get at least a gig and you'll be happy.

I use M$ cause it's shorthand and they are $$$$ so it fits.

The usual shrill "you don't need 64 bit on the desktop" are people who have not installed x64 yet and don't realize that it is greatly tweak, tuned, bug fixed and superbly responsive.

x64 is the bomb and shows that when M$ really tries they can make a damn nice Operating System just wish the hardware makers would start cranking out more 64 bit drivers.

The sweet spot for memory is ½ to 1 gig of DDR for most Desktop users.

Bottom Line: Install Windows XP x64 on a seperate partition and use it for everything that can be done with it, switching back to the 32 bit version for what you have too.

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: magomago
if i were you the first thing i'd do before investing in a new copy of windows is getting more ram. it doesn't matter if you have a 10Ghz processor, you are really going to choke with such a small amount of ram...

Agreed, 64 bit operating systems really begin to sing when they have more than 4gb of ram installed. You should have at least 1.5gb or more Before you even consider using it.

LMAO....this is wrong, Windows XP x64 is great even if you don't have a lot of memory. I would recommend 512 megs though, 256 is a little to low for Windows XP 32 bit or 64 bit.

For those that don't know Windows XP x64 is greatly tweaked and runs a lot better then the 2001 version that M$ released. It's based on Windows Server 2003.

I believe 5.2.3790.1830 is the final build, a nice step up from 5.1.2600 !!!

I'm sure somebody who refers to Microsoft as M$ would know more about their products than someone who isn't biased against them, wouldn't they? :roll:

I too would recommend getting more RAM before doing anything else. Not only will the OS run better but why bother spending so much on a mobo/CPU if you're not going to be running any applications that need the power? Get at least a gig and you'll be happy.

I use M$ cause it's shorthand and they are $$$$ so it fits.

The usual shrill "you don't need 64 bit on the desktop" are people who have not installed x64 yet and don't realize that it is greatly tweak, tuned, bug fixed and superbly responsive.

x64 is the bomb and shows that when M$ really tries they can make a damn nice Operating System just wish the hardware makers would start cranking out more 64 bit drivers.

The sweet spot for memory is ½ to 1 gig of DDR for most Desktop users.

Bottom Line: Install Windows XP x64 on a seperate partition and use it for everything that can be done with it, switching back to the 32 bit version for what you have too.

Well, my apologies. Anytime I have EVER seen M$ used to abbreviate the company, it's someone who is bashing them and talking about how they're so evil blah blah blah.

 

[KoolDrew]

You ahev 256MB of RAM with a 4000? WTF? Definitely get some more RAM before doing anything else.

 

[CalvinHobbs]

Originally posted by: huanito
I have AMD4000 with 256mb ram and OEM version of amd64 bit windows.
I haven't tried it yet, but is everything going to work? i'm on nforce3

first thing how did you manage getting a 4000+ and only 256MB of memory, the 4000+ ate your budget?
My advice will be install x64 if you have got all the drivers for your hardware...else not getting sound or intenet connection may leave a bad taste among other things...no internet connection meant that no activation of xp64bit for me so after fifteen days i had to abandon using it...well that's my opinion..by the way anything good observed in IE64bit?

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: magomago
if i were you the first thing i'd do before investing in a new copy of windows is getting more ram. it doesn't matter if you have a 10Ghz processor, you are really going to choke with such a small amount of ram...

Agreed, 64 bit operating systems really begin to sing when they have more than 4gb of ram installed. You should have at least 1.5gb or more Before you even consider using it.

LMAO....this is wrong, Windows XP x64 is great even if you don't have a lot of memory. I would recommend 512 megs though, 256 is a little to low for Windows XP 32 bit or 64 bit.

For those that don't know Windows XP x64 is greatly tweaked and runs a lot better then the 2001 version that M$ released. It's based on Windows Server 2003.

I believe 5.2.3790.1830 is the final build, a nice step up from 5.1.2600 !!!

I know it will work with less than the amount I recomended, so will windows xp, 2000, me, 98, and 95 will work with 6mb! You can have less than that but It's not going to be fun. Any 64bit os will really begin to strut it's stuff when it has more than 4gb installed,

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: magomago
if i were you the first thing i'd do before investing in a new copy of windows is getting more ram. it doesn't matter if you have a 10Ghz processor, you are really going to choke with such a small amount of ram...

Agreed, 64 bit operating systems really begin to sing when they have more than 4gb of ram installed. You should have at least 1.5gb or more Before you even consider using it.

LMAO....this is wrong, Windows XP x64 is great even if you don't have a lot of memory. I would recommend 512 megs though, 256 is a little to low for Windows XP 32 bit or 64 bit.

For those that don't know Windows XP x64 is greatly tweaked and runs a lot better then the 2001 version that M$ released. It's based on Windows Server 2003.

I believe 5.2.3790.1830 is the final build, a nice step up from 5.1.2600 !!!

I know it will work with less than the amount I recomended, so will windows xp, 2000, me, 98, and 95 will work with 6mb! You can have less than that but It's not going to be fun. Any 64bit os will really begin to strut it's stuff when it has more than 4gb installed,

Over 1 gig is a waste for most desktop users at this point in time. Maybe in the future we will need more or if your working with Adobe photoshop as a professional or any other software app that can make use of over 1 gig of memory.

For most 512 megs to 1 gig will suffice.

 

[CalvinHobbs]

the only time my memory usage reached 532megs was when i was doing encoding a dvd..else it never goes beyond 400megs

 

[Googer]

It's pointless, apparently you don't understand my statement.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: Googer
It's pointless, apparently you don't understand my statement.

Oh we get it, for Servers, 64 bit is a godsend since it can use lots of memory and cache files. Nothing like having the ability to use more then 4 gigs of memory.

Just think the OP wouldn't need more then 1 gig for basic Desktop use.

 

[user1234]

yeah, 1.5 gig would kill your performance since it's not dual channel. 2 gig can run dual channel, but it's still slower wether you use 4x512mb or 2x1gb and costs a lot more. So I'd say you should ONLY get more than 1 gig if your normal usage requires it. For most desktop users, they never come close to filling up the whole 1 gig. Also , there is no game in existence which runs better with more than 1 gig then with just 1 gig. Understand ?

But...in the near future - with the introduction of dual core, you get a realistic ability to run more apps simultaneously, even doing video encoding while playing Half Life 2.... So then it's quite likely that you'll need more than 1 gig. But for single core desktop PCs (which are 99% of all PCs) 1 gig is more then enough. If you get more then 1 gig it's only going to grow you're e-$%^, not your performance.

 

[CalvinHobbs]

you just said it :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: user1234
yeah, 1.5 gig would kill your performance since it's not dual channel. 2 gig can run dual channel, but it's still slower wether you use 4x512mb or 2x1gb and costs a lot more. So I'd say you should ONLY get more than 1 gig if your normal usage requires it. For most desktop users, they never come close to filling up the whole 1 gig. Also , there is no game in existence which runs better with more than 1 gig then with just 1 gig. Understand ?

But...in the near future - with the introduction of dual core, you get a realistic ability to run more apps simultaneously, even doing video encoding while playing Half Life 2.... So then it's quite likely that you'll need more than 1 gig. But for single core desktop PCs (which are 99% of all PCs) 1 gig is more then enough. If you get more then 1 gig it's only going to grow you're e-$%^, not your performance.

 

[Googer]

I am putting 2 or 3 gb in my next system. If I could afford it I would max out my 32bit os at 4gb, but It's too much $$$ For me at this time.

 

[user1234]

Originally posted by: Googer
I am putting 2 or 3 gb in my next system. If I could afford it I would max out my 32bit os at 4gb, but It's too much $$$ For me at this time.

sure, if you really need it for whatever reason like professional graphics and video work, or multitasking workstation type applications. Whatever. Just realize that it's not what most people use their computers for, therefore it's not applicable to normal folks. But feel free to do it for your specialized needs, I mean you probably are required to by someone anyway, so maybe you don't even have a choice...and get that dual core as well, it will help for these types of usages

 

[Zebo]

You guys saying you need more a gig of ram are just wrong. I show the same ram use between XP and 64XP, about 60 megs on boot. Course I turn off almost every service there is on both but still much lower than you're FUDing.

huanito, install it!!! It's faster that's for sure, about 7-10% accross benchmark board. but you really need more RAM, I mean 256 is a fusken joke even with window 95 let alone 5 OS's later and years of bloat later. Plus you are starving your expensive processors bandwidth with one stick, which is meant to run in Dual channel, robbing at least 10% in performance!!!!

Here get this: http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820145440

And throw that 256 in the garbage can or sell it or something.

 

[user1234]

that googer dude is really messed up with the 1.5 G number ? what is that ? then he's saying he wants 4 G ? cool, but what are you running a multiuser OLTP database or something ? if you're a home user, even gaming enthusiast, anything more than a gig will just slow you down. That's why memory prices have gotten cheap, because after the big upgrades from 256 to 512 and maybe even 1GB, there is absolutely no reason to upgrade further for 99% of users. Gone are the days of 64/128 mb where the first advice you read was to get more memory in order to get better performance. The increase in memory capacities have really outstripped the growth of software requirements, and now we're faced with a situation where you can get all the memory you'd need for a very low cost. For most users even 512 is suffucuent, but 1G still offers some advantages especially for more demanding users.

 

[Grubert]

Originally posted by: user1234
Also , there is no game in existence which runs better with more than 1 gig then with just 1 gig.

FWIW I read there is some benefit when playing a crowded World of Warcraft.

 

[CalvinHobbs]

from xp64 to memory..this thread is losing it's origins

 

[Praytus]

EQ2 also benefits from more then 1GB of ram

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: user1234
that googer dude is really messed up with the 1.5 G number ? what is that ? then he's saying he wants 4 G ?

What exactly in your opinion is messed up? It is possible to have 1.5gb (512*2) + (256*2) = 1.5gb @ 1t in the newest AMD processors (2t in wincheseter and older).

Yes I want 4gb, but can only afford 3gb now[ (1gb*2) + (512*2) =3gb . When 1gb sticks drop another $100 a piece I will add another 2 or 4 gb.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You guys saying you need more a gig of ram are just wrong. I show the same ram use between XP and 64XP, about 60 megs on boot. Course I turn off almost every service there is on both but still much lower than you're FUDing.

..... I mean 256 is a fusken joke even with window 95 let alone 5 OS's later and years of bloat later...

And throw that 256 in the garbage can or sell it or something.

You must not remember Windows 95 very well, It was not too uncommon in those days for a brand new system to have 8mb of ram, 16 was common but 32mb was considerd to be extreme (much like 4gb is today). Most systems ran fine with 8 to 16 mb installed. Your comment on 256mb not being enough for windows 95 just is not realistic. back in 1995 128mb of ram would max out most motherboards, It seemed like an unimagineable amout of memory.