Just wondering wat effect/advantages/disdvantages with 32bit vs 64 bit OS in terms of
1) Gaming
2) compatibility
3) performance
4) normal every day work, web browsing etc
5) new drivers?
All i noe the is that 32 bit only registers up to 3gig of ram while 64bit = 4gig. So please fill me in on the rest ^^ planning to upgrade to 64bit OS.
difference between 32bit vs 64bit OS
my2cent
Snograt
Actually, with the 64bit OS, you can go up into the realms of 128GB if you really want to 
("Only" 8GB with Home Premium though )
I waited a long while before switching to Vista 64 - the problems with driver compatibility and 64bit are well known. The system has been going for long enough for most of these issues to be ironed out and, since installing 64 I have had zero problems.
Unless you have some very old or very unusual devices in your PC that have no 64bit drivers available, you should have no problems.
("Only" 8GB with Home Premium though )I waited a long while before switching to Vista 64 - the problems with driver compatibility and 64bit are well known. The system has been going for long enough for most of these issues to be ironed out and, since installing 64 I have had zero problems.
Unless you have some very old or very unusual devices in your PC that have no 64bit drivers available, you should have no problems.
cebalrai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by my2cent
Just wondering wat effect/advantages/disdvantages with 32bit vs 64 bit OS in terms of
1) Gaming 2) compatibility 3) performance 4) normal every day work, web browsing etc 5) new drivers? All i noe the is that 32 bit only registers up to 3gig of ram while 64bit = 4gig. So please fill me in on the rest ^^ planning to upgrade to 64bit OS. |
Brianna
My brother has Vista Ultimate 32 bit, and I have Vista Ultimate 64 bit.
Our only differences are he is able to play games with less problems it seems (less weird bugs, hard to explain) and there is *Tons* more drivers/driver support for 32 bit, I find it hard to get certain things for 64 bit. Such as certain applications and such, they will only work on Vista 32 bit but not 64.
As far as actual game play itself (Aside from rare bugs, which may not always be related to 64 bit) it's good, and smooth, don't notice any differences.
And 64 bit has the advantage of going 4+gigs of RAM, that's why I got it.
If you don't have 4 gigs of RAM, and you definitely don't plan on getting 4 gigs, then don't get 64 bit, cause there's no real point other than that it seems. And from my understanding that is a moot/retarded limitation. I'm sure there's some super technical reason though, which I'm too lazy to look into.
Our only differences are he is able to play games with less problems it seems (less weird bugs, hard to explain) and there is *Tons* more drivers/driver support for 32 bit, I find it hard to get certain things for 64 bit. Such as certain applications and such, they will only work on Vista 32 bit but not 64.
As far as actual game play itself (Aside from rare bugs, which may not always be related to 64 bit) it's good, and smooth, don't notice any differences.
And 64 bit has the advantage of going 4+gigs of RAM, that's why I got it.
If you don't have 4 gigs of RAM, and you definitely don't plan on getting 4 gigs, then don't get 64 bit, cause there's no real point other than that it seems. And from my understanding that is a moot/retarded limitation. I'm sure there's some super technical reason though, which I'm too lazy to look into.
cebalrai
There's also the potential future advantage of 64-bit being able to better run applications that alone use several Gigs of memory. Nothing like that exists currently - at least nothing a home computer user would use.
Snograt
By the time mainstream 64-bit applications and particularly games arrive, you will have probably changed your Pc half a dozen times and will be using Windows 15.
And it will be a 128 bit system
And it will be a 128 bit system
Quaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snograt
By the time mainstream 64-bit applications and particularly games arrive, you will have probably changed your Pc half a dozen times and will be using Windows 15.
|
chuxanator
Its hard to find drivers for 64-bit.
Xp - supports 4gb RAM
Vista - 8gb RAM
Xp - supports 4gb RAM
Vista - 8gb RAM
Admael
It's easier to find drivers for Vista 64, than it is for XP 64 :<
3 Reasons why people go 64: 1. Ram support, 2. 64-bit applications, 3. Because it's better than 32-bit.
3 Reasons why people go 64: 1. Ram support, 2. 64-bit applications, 3. Because it's better than 32-bit.
Lania Elderfire
The days of 32-bit is coming to an end. 4GB limit is becoming more and more of a problem for a lot of applications, and even some games can end up using tons of memory to the point it needs to use the swap disk. With Sp1 out for vista, there really is no reason not to go with 64bit vista.
cebalrai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lania Elderfire
4GB limit is becoming more and more of a problem for a lot of applications
|
Admael
No application uses more than 4GB of RAM!
Remember it's the speed of the RAM that matters, not the quantity!
Remember it's the speed of the RAM that matters, not the quantity!
my2cent
thnxs guys, that cleared up sum fog for me.
cebalrai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Admael
No application uses more than 4GB of RAM!
Remember it's the speed of the RAM that matters, not the quantity! |
With memory-hogging vista, quantity is a major issue. Compare the same system running Vista with 1 GB versus 3 GB and you'll see what I mean.
cebalrai
And unless you use odd/old hardware, it's not difficult to find drivers for Vista-64. This used to be a major issue for sure, but it's just not anymore. And it will continue to be even less of an issue in the future.
People come to this forum and make all kinds of baseless declarations, ie "it's hard to find drivers of 64". Heck, my 8-year old printer works fine on it, as does my webcam and all my other peripherals. Even my old joystick from 2002 that I use for Flight Simulator works perfectly.
You'll be fine with 64 driver support. If you have any uncommon bits to your computer, you can check compatibility before you buy.
People come to this forum and make all kinds of baseless declarations, ie "it's hard to find drivers of 64". Heck, my 8-year old printer works fine on it, as does my webcam and all my other peripherals. Even my old joystick from 2002 that I use for Flight Simulator works perfectly.
You'll be fine with 64 driver support. If you have any uncommon bits to your computer, you can check compatibility before you buy.
Admael
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cebalrai
You keep saying that but it's not true. Speed matters, sure. But for multi-tasking, quantity is a huge factor. How can you say that the quantity of ram isn't an issue?
With memory-hogging vista, quantity is a major issue. Compare the same system running Vista with 1 GB versus 3 GB and you'll see what I mean. |
And "multi-tasking" is thrown around a lot. Same with "memory hog Vista".
I didn't say the quantity of RAM doesn't matter, but it doesn't matter as much as the speed of the RAM.
As above, once you have your solid 2GB, you don't really any more "quantity"
cebalrai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Admael
As above, once you have your solid 2GB, you don't really any more "quantity"
|
2) Considering that apps will certainly benefit from increased quantity of RAM in the future, I think it's unfair to suggest that there's no reason for people to be buying more than 2 GB today.
Lania Elderfire
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cebalrai
What applications are choking on "only" 4 GB ram? You say there are a lot, so I'm expecting a long list.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Admael
As above, once you have your solid 2GB, you don't really any more "quantity"
|
Also different "speeds" of the ram only yeilds negligible performace. Look at all the benchmarks comparing DDR2 and DDR3 memory in real-world tests. YOu might get 1-5 FPS, 2-6 second shorter encoding... etc Definitely does not justify the costs of the DDR3 memory over DDR2. Take a look at this article. http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...ddr3-1333.html
So no there isn't a huge list of apps, but enough of a list and enough of a reason as to why 64-bit is being pushed so much lately.
cebalrai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lania Elderfire
Have you tried opening multiple large poster sized images on photoshop to edit a whole bunch all at once?
|
And I agree with you on the quantity thing.
Brianna
Agree'd with Quality over Quantity.
RAM hog Vista is non existent, it just uses more than windows XP so everyone freaks out. I have 2 GB of ram and I've only ever used up to 60% while running Guild Wars, FireFox, and tons of other chat programs/small things on the side, for the life of me I can't see why anyone needs more than 2 gigs right now, maybe in the future..? But not right now it.
RAM hog Vista is non existent, it just uses more than windows XP so everyone freaks out. I have 2 GB of ram and I've only ever used up to 60% while running Guild Wars, FireFox, and tons of other chat programs/small things on the side, for the life of me I can't see why anyone needs more than 2 gigs right now, maybe in the future..? But not right now it.
Lania Elderfire
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brianna
Agree'd with Quality over Quantity.
RAM hog Vista is non existent, it just uses more than windows XP so everyone freaks out. I have 2 GB of ram and I've only ever used up to 60% while running Guild Wars, FireFox, and tons of other chat programs/small things on the side, for the life of me I can't see why anyone needs more than 2 gigs right now, maybe in the future..? But not right now it. |
Other games that are soon to be coming out like Farcry 2, Fallout 3, and other top teir direct X 10 games recommend at least 2 gigs of ram... so for gamers that like FPS, and want to play top teir DirectX 10 games, you'd be better off having more than 2 gigs... especially since DDR2 Ram is so cheap right now.
Brianna
I play Call of Duty 4 on max settings with no problems, and I've played Crysis on medium settings without much problems either, didn't notice my RAM being an issue at all. I'm not saying that under intense usage that it doesn't help to have more, I know it does, but it isn't entirely necessary to have 4+ gigs of ram.
And especially your video card's onboard ram comes into play here with games, I think any true gamer is going to have 512mb or more of onboard card ram, it sure does help.
And especially your video card's onboard ram comes into play here with games, I think any true gamer is going to have 512mb or more of onboard card ram, it sure does help.
Lania Elderfire
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brianna
I'm not saying that under intense usage that it doesn't help to have more, I know it does, but it isn't entirely necessary to have 4+ gigs of ram.
|
Besides like I said before a lot of directX10 games coming out this fall and winter have a 2 gig minimum as a recommended system requirement.... By the time windows 7 comes out games running direct X11 will definitely require a minimum of 4 gigs or more. 5 years ago system requirements were usually 256MB of ram with 512MB recommended. Today the minimum requirement is essentially doubled or quadrupled with the advent of Vista especially in games like crysis.... In another 5 years?.... I have no idea where it's going to be.... this is all starting to get nuts eh?
I even remember back when 4 MB of ram was a lot and it cost like 90$ for just 1MB of ram... lol
It's easy to add more ram when needed though, but W/O a 64-bit OS you're basically stuck with 3.25 GB of available ram.
Admael
I stick by my comment where 2GB of RAM is enough, and there's no need for 4GB. And I've decided to back it up.
I boot to Vista, where's what my resources look like:
It's not fun at all, it's not fun at all. At 2GB, 46% of my physical RAM is gone at boot.
So I decided to "multi-task", the applications are sorted by the amount of RAM taxed.
In short, I can tab through all my games perfectly, I get the same amount of FPS in every game, 76 in GWs, 76 In CoD4, 76 in Bioshock, 55 in Assassin's Creed. There are bit of slow down between loading screens, but that's not a problem right? I can just tab to another game while it loads! And it's nothing I can do about it, the bottleneck is at the hard drive.
The short answer is always: "buy more RAM", but that's not always the best solution. Upgrading from 2GB->8GB isn't to speed up a slow system.
But then again, if you still have 256MB-1GB, you might want to make the effort.
I boot to Vista, where's what my resources look like:
It's not fun at all, it's not fun at all. At 2GB, 46% of my physical RAM is gone at boot.
So I decided to "multi-task", the applications are sorted by the amount of RAM taxed.
In short, I can tab through all my games perfectly, I get the same amount of FPS in every game, 76 in GWs, 76 In CoD4, 76 in Bioshock, 55 in Assassin's Creed. There are bit of slow down between loading screens, but that's not a problem right? I can just tab to another game while it loads! And it's nothing I can do about it, the bottleneck is at the hard drive.
The short answer is always: "buy more RAM", but that's not always the best solution. Upgrading from 2GB->8GB isn't to speed up a slow system.
But then again, if you still have 256MB-1GB, you might want to make the effort.
Lania Elderfire
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Admael
And it's nothing I can do about it, the bottleneck is at the hard drive.
|
Having more memory isn't about "Can you do it" ...it's about "can you do it faster".
If the hard drive was as fast as Ram, there wouldn't be any need for RAM.
Admael
Blasphemy! My machine doesn't crawl! I play those games fine!
But I know what you mean, even Vista's Aero forfeited its share of memory to priority programs to go first.
But I know what you mean, even Vista's Aero forfeited its share of memory to priority programs to go first.
Lania Elderfire
The other things with games is that swapping between an active game really doesn't show "real" multi tasking as the windows OS will put all it's resources into that one active game, while the inactive games get the lowest processor priority, and the lowest share of the physical ram.
The best way to show multi-tasking is to have the games running in windowed mode rather than full-screen and try to make all the games run decently in that mode....
The best way to show multi-tasking is to have the games running in windowed mode rather than full-screen and try to make all the games run decently in that mode....
NeHoMaR
My opinion: Forget about x64 OS.
Oh! and about RAM, 2GB are absolutely enough. The big amount of RAM used by Vista is just cache, that cache is "deleted" if a game need the RAM.
Also, some small thing is true about x64: 64bits software is a little faster, but you get a big incompatibility issue with old software and current 32bits software (when I say software I am including games of course)
Maybe, in the future, the next Windows will be 64bit only (or 128bit? lol), and everybody will be forced to upgrade, not today.
Oh! and about RAM, 2GB are absolutely enough. The big amount of RAM used by Vista is just cache, that cache is "deleted" if a game need the RAM.
Also, some small thing is true about x64: 64bits software is a little faster, but you get a big incompatibility issue with old software and current 32bits software (when I say software I am including games of course)
Maybe, in the future, the next Windows will be 64bit only (or 128bit? lol), and everybody will be forced to upgrade, not today.
Thizzle
32-bit is 32-bit and 64-bit is 64-bit. Which means anything running on those has to be coded especially to that OS. Usually 64-bit is for 4GB of RAM or more and for server machines.
Admael
I use 2GB on 64-bit.
It's enough to multi-task 4 games and Photoshop. If you can't then it's clearly NOT the RAM, which brings me to my point.
You can't expect 'more RAM' will do things more efficiently if the rest of your machine is up to par. That's all.
It's enough to multi-task 4 games and Photoshop. If you can't then it's clearly NOT the RAM, which brings me to my point.
You can't expect 'more RAM' will do things more efficiently if the rest of your machine is up to par. That's all.
cebalrai
For anyone buying a computer right now though, there's no reason to buy more than 2 GB. RAM is UBER CHEAP at the moment. And it might not stay that way forever.
Lania Elderfire
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cebalrai
For anyone buying a computer right now though, there's no reason to buy more than 2 GB. RAM is UBER CHEAP at the moment. And it might not stay that way forever.
|
Also I doubt DDR3 will ever drop in price as it did for DDR2 as much as I think they'll control the supply more to keep prices high.