win 7 32 or 64

Hi people got win 7 on thurs and now am thinking of installing today.The thing that i am unsure of is wether to go 64 or 32bit.Could anyone tell me of the benefits of the 64 over 32, apart from extra memory over 4gb being seen, and also of any major drawbacks of the 64 flavour.My pc is pretty modern, Q6600 chip,Asus pk5-c mb,4870 video card so surely no problems hardware wise,please correct me if i,m wrong.Look foward to any advice.Oh forgot to say it,s win 7 home premium retail version.

64-bit will make full use of all the new instructions that your processor can handle; 32-bit will effectively have your processor running with one hand tied behind its back as it can't make use of the extra instructions and registers. Unless you have any specific harware that doesn't have 64-bit drivers I can see no reason to use the 32-bit version.

Thanks for the quick reply, sounds like 64 the way to go but will most of my software be ok, got a huge games collection, as i was reading somewhere games with drm protection i.e mass effect don,t like 64 bit.

games with drm protection

I honestly don't know the answer to that. I've only got a few standard games like Flight Sim and Civilization. Anyone else know?

I have a Dell Vostro with Q6600 processor and 4gb RAM. W7 x64 runs superbly on it. I also run Photoshop CS4 and that loads as a 64 bit application.

The only minor snag I found is that my 8 year old Canon LIDE30 scanner does not have an x64 driver. I got round this by installing virtual Windows XP (free from Microsoft) and installing the scanner in that using the XP driver.

I've got a duel processor,so should I try the 64 or 32 upgrade ?

Just go 64bit - it's the future and support is excellent..

Remember - the 32 bit limit is the total memory installed and that includes your graphics card

I've had Windows 7 Professional 64-bit for a month now and so far I've had no problems with it (touch wood). I have a lot of games, some the latest games and some games that are a few years old and they work perfectly.

Mine's a Dell Studio with Q8300 Quad-Core with 6GB RAM for your information.

64-bit is definitely the way to go in my opinion.

My computer says it's 32 but as I say has got a duel processor.

What cpu is it ?

if your runnign a 32 bit os it will say 32bit cpu ...

Download Cpu-z

I could be wrong, but I don't think any dual-core processors are 32-bit. But it could be an older Pentium with hyperthreading - or you could even have two physical processors (but I doubt it). Post the model number of your processor and someone will enlighten you.

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

I could be wrong, but I don't think any dual-core processors are 32-bit. But it could be an older Pentium with hyperthreading - or you could even have two physical processors (but I doubt it). Post the model number of your processor and someone will enlighten you.

Believe the first pentium dual packaged cpus where 32bit only..

Although my memory almost certainly goes further back than yours, it is not so reliable.

In reply to a post by Yves:

The only minor snag I found is that my 8 year old Canon LIDE30 scanner does not have an x64 driver. I got round this by installing virtual Windows XP (free from Microsoft) and installing the scanner in that using the XP driver.

I have same scanner, but unfortunatly i have bought Windows 7 Home edition so cant have "Virtual Windows XP "

I'm builidng a new PC so also very curious on the pro's and con's of 64 Bit !

Thanks

In reply to a post by Yves:

I have a Dell Vostro with Q6600 processor and 4gb RAM. W7 x64 runs superbly on it. I also run Photoshop CS4 and that loads as a 64 bit application.

The only minor snag I found is that my 8 year old Canon LIDE30 scanner does not have an x64 driver. I got round this by installing virtual Windows XP (free from Microsoft) and installing the scanner in that using the XP driver.

I have no idea if this will be helpful, but someone got the lide 35 working on Vista 64, makybe the same drivers will work with your s.

Most vista drivers will work with Windows 7

http://www.vistax64.com/drivers/178581-canoscan-lide...

In reply to a post by Spasch:

Just go 64bit - it's the future and support is excellent..

Far better now than it was, I did have 64 bit windows 7 RC version on here, then I changed back to 32 bit due to my webcam not working, but I decided now to put on the 64bit version of the released version of Windows 7. Everything works apart from webcam, shame to lose it as it is a good camera, but such is life.

The only problem I had was that I have a device in my device manager saying Co-processor that have no drivers for, found out now that it is the internal video chip and it is not in use, so it don't matter. I wish there was a way to switch it off in the bios.

But yes, 64bit is the way to go, more software is being produced for it now and even new hardware is having drivers produced.

My Hp Scanjet 7650 scanner drivers come from Microsoft and also my canon Pima IP4200 printer.

Did you try it in compatibility mode?

Hi

64bit is the latest marketing to get people to upgrade to new hardware and computers, not everyone needs it.

Pro:
The one and probably only benefit with 64bit is it can access greater than 4 Gig of memory.

Con:
64bit programs and OS use more memory, this means in order to benefit from 64bit support for memory at 4GByte or above you need more than 4GByte, say 6 or 8GByte. If you only have 4GByte of memory you are probably better off sticking with 32bit and and 4GByte of RAM, even though that only gives you around 3GByte of usable memory, this is because going to 64Bit may give you the full 4GByte of memory, but you lose the benefit of that extra 1Gig because programs use more memory running 64bit, including the OS. Factor in 32bit programs having to run in WoW and potential driver and compatibility issues with some applications, it just isn't worth it as you don't really benefit.

Performance: Because 64bit requires more memory your processor cache is effectively reduced in size as it can't cache as much as it can under 32bit, this can have a performance impact and may cancel out any other performance increases due to 64bit. In comparison tests between 64bit and 32bit using real world type tests, the performance is basically the same.

So to make the jump to 64bit you really need to have a reason to, and that reason is you have an application or real need to use more than 3GByte of RAM. There is no point upping your memory to 6GByte to justify a 64bit OS if you aren't going to use that memory, and few people have need for that much memory at the moment.

We are at a midway point for the transition from 32bit to 64bit. Microsoft and hardware manufacturers of course want us to go to 64bit as it drives sales, but the need to move to 64bit doesn't exist for most people.

If you need to ask the question "Do I go 64bit?" then you are probably a person that isn't going to benefit from it currently.

Regards

Phil

Edited by deleted (Sun 25-Oct-09 09:55:27)

Update.
Used 32 and it went well. My computer is 32/duel processor.

The one and probably only benefit with 64bit is it can access greater than 4 Gig of memory.

I'm afraid that's a very ignorant statement. Go and study the 64-bit programming model, the number of registers available, the more efficient instruction set, to get a better view of the advantages.

64bit programs and OS use more memory

Again, this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the processor architecture.

Yes, I was wrong about all dual core processors being 64-bit. Things certanly wouldn't have gone well if you'd tried to install the 64-bit version!

Hi

Please show me some real world benchmark tests that show Windows 7 64bit outperforms Windows 7 32bit by any significant margin? All the real world tests show benchmarks much the same between 32bit and 64bit and there is no performance increase in using 64bit.

The only way Windows 7 64bit will outperform 32bit is where more memory brings improvements.

I'm not worried about processor architecture, the same as 99.999% of people using Windows and asking about about 32bit versus 64bit.

Regards

Phil

Here's one for Vista chosen at random. Only an 11% difference, but significant.

I can't actually find any comparative benchmarks for Windows 7 as most people see only to be benchmarking the 64-bit version, but I see no reason why there should be an appreciable difference between Vista and 7. If anything I would expect 7 to be even more optimized for 64-bit hardware.

Benchmarks for 32- and 64-bit versions of Linux show similar performance differences - as one would expect. I can only talk from experience and say that I have found 64-bit versions of the same OS to be noticeably more responsive than 32-bit; but that is subjective - I haven't run any benchmarks.

Well opted for the 64 bit and fingers x all goes well. Had no problems with any hardware so far, made sure before install download all new drivers. All software i have tried run ok ,apart from mass effect which installs ok then refuses to run.

apart from mass effect which installs ok then refuses to run

Have you tried compatibility mode? I'd guess this is more likely to be a Windows 7 issue rather than a specific 64-bit one. Solutions normally surface fairly quickly for this sort of problem, but there are always going to be some programs that won't work on a newer OS.

Hi

Here's one for Vista chosen at random. Only an 11% difference, but significant.

Its a "Geekbench mark" and not a real world benchmark. The reason you have linked to that one is that is the only one you've found that shows a significant difference, a synthetic benchmark using low level tests that has no relation to the real use computers are put to.

Even Microsoft on their website don't say anything about a performance difference between 32bit and 64bit, just that 64bit allows more memory to be used in order to increase responsiveness when running lots of applications.

"Put simply, a 64-bit PC can handle larger amounts of information than a 32-bit system. Since it can use more RAM�4 GB and up�a 64-bit computer can be more responsive when you're running lots of programs at once." http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compa...

Benchmarks for 32- and 64-bit versions of Linux show similar performance differences - as one would expect. I can only talk from experience and say that I have found 64-bit versions of the same OS to be noticeably more responsive than 32-bit; but that is subjective - I haven't run any benchmarks.

Subjective and a case of believing what you want. There is no real world performance improvement just using 64bit in place of 32bit, not significant anyway.

The Wiki also confirms much of what I put in my first post, just read Pros and Cons from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

People shouldn't be taken in by the bigger number is better, it is the oldest marketing trick in the book!

Regards

Phil

Edited by deleted (Sun 25-Oct-09 16:07:02)

I've come to pretty much the same conclusion as you, but from a Linux perspective. The benchmarks I've seen (for Linux) show that some applications run faster, others slower. I have the impression you'd have to check on an application by application basis if speed were that important to you.

If I had to guess I'd say 64 bit only comes into its own for video intensive applications, and then only because of the amounts of memory used.

What I'd like to see contrasted is the performance improvements possible when using solid state disks.

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

Never mind. I'm quite happy for you to believe there are no significant advantages to 64-bit OSs. I have a 64-bit processor so I use a 64-bit OS. I certainly wouldn't recommend spending extra to buy a 64-bit processor if I had a 32-bit one.

In reply to a post by PhilipD:

Hi

64bit is the latest marketing to get people to upgrade to new hardware and computers, not everyone needs it.

No one said anything about people needing it, but if you got a 64bit machine and going to update then you may as well get a 64 bit OS.

If you buy a new computer it will be 64 bit, so why bother to put a 32 bit Os on it?

Pro:
The one and probably only benefit with 64bit is it can access greater than 4 Gig of memory.

Con:
64bit programs and OS use more memory, this means in order to benefit from 64bit support for memory at 4GByte or above you need more than 4GByte, say 6 or 8GByte. If you only have 4GByte of memory you are probably better off sticking with 32bit and and 4GByte of RAM, even though that only gives you around 3GByte of usable memory, this is because going to 64Bit may give you the full 4GByte of memory, but you lose the benefit of that extra 1Gig because programs use more memory running 64bit, including the OS. Factor in 32bit programs having to run in WoW and potential driver and compatibility issues with some applications, it just isn't worth it as you don't really benefit.

Performance: Because 64bit requires more memory your processor cache is effectively reduced in size as it can't cache as much as it can under 32bit, this can have a performance impact and may cancel out any other performance increases due to 64bit. In comparison tests between 64bit and 32bit using real world type tests, the performance is basically the same.

So to make the jump to 64bit you really need to have a reason to, and that reason is you have an application or real need to use more than 3GByte of RAM. There is no point upping your memory to 6GByte to justify a 64bit OS if you aren't going to use that memory, and few people have need for that much memory at the moment.

We are at a midway point for the transition from 32bit to 64bit. Microsoft and hardware manufacturers of course want us to go to 64bit as it drives sales, but the need to move to 64bit doesn't exist for most people.

If you need to ask the question "Do I go 64bit?" then you are probably a person that isn't going to benefit from it currently.

Regards

Phil

I better take this 64 bit version of windows 7 off my machine then, since it will be no good as I only got 2Gigs of ram. Maybe what you posted above may be true, I have not really gone into it that much at the moment, but my machine is runnig great with 2GB of ram and windows 7 64 bit.

Done a bit of video editing this afternoon with 64 bit editing software and it ran like a dream, sure more memory is always useful and at some point I may get some more. 32 bit software seems to run fine as well, got a old audio editing software called Cool edit 2, which is 32bit and that also runs like a dream and that is also using loads of effects.

In reply to a post by DavidFinbarr:

Did you try it in compatibility mode?

Tried that, but it is more of a driver problem than anything else and they have to be produced for 32 or 64 bit as far as I know.

Not too bothered, just a bit of a pain, I will get a new webcam at some point. The old webcam had a nice goose neck and some usb ports on which was useful, I expect newer webcams are better anyway.

Hi

I've edited the link, it was the full stop causing the invalid link, not hard to see and I'm sure you would have found the the article soon enough if it confirmed your thoughts

I'm quite happy for you to believe there are no significant advantages to 64-bit OSs. I have a 64-bit processor so I use a 64-bit OS. I certainly wouldn't recommend spending extra to buy a 64-bit processor if I had a 32-bit one.

Thank you, I'm quite happy for you to believe there is lol.

Regards

Phil

Hi

I better take this 64 bit version of windows 7 off my machine then, since it will be no good as I only got 2Gigs of ram.

You have just fallen for myth and marketing I'm afarid. If you only have 2GByte of RAM there is no advantage and only negatives to using a 64bit OS, for a start you will have less available memory as the 64bit OS and programs use more memory by the fact they are 64bit, see the Pros and Cons of the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

Still you can upgrade your memory to 4GByte or preferably greater to get a real benefit without re-installing and video editing will be much improved but as it stands 64bit and 2GByte of RAM is not ideal.

Regards

Phil

Edited by deleted (Sun 25-Oct-09 16:15:12)

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

The one and probably only benefit with 64bit is it can access greater than 4 Gig of memory.

I'm afraid that's a very ignorant statement. Go and study the 64-bit programming model, the number of registers available, the more efficient instruction set, to get a better view of the advantages.

64bit programs and OS use more memory

Again, this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the processor architecture.

I thought we had the conversation a few months ago .. with Philip saying the same old stuff....... If your a gamer and have a 1gb or more gfx card and have 2gb of memory in your system it is very wise to move over to x64 ..

Hi

I thought we had the conversation a few months ago .. with Philip saying the same old stuff.......

Or you arguing the same old stuff maybe?

If you have 1GByte of graphics and 2GByte of RAM there is no benefit moving to 64bit. 64bit will see the OS and programs using more memory and the processors cache is less effective as it now appears smaller, all things that will reduce performance.

If you don't understand that, fine, but at least try and be open minded and do a bit of research.

Regards

Phil

Having looked at your link I would say that you have overlooked the part where it mentions the chief advantage - one of the ones that I mentioned:

The main advantage to 64-bit versions of such applications is the ability to access more registers in the x86-64 architecture.

This is one of the main reasons for improved performance in 64-bit apps and, to a lesser extent, the OS itself. Having an extras 8 registers to play with allows applications to make far less memory accesses. This is where the main performance boost comes from. The enhanced instruction set also helps, but probably to a lesser extent. Once applications start accessing the multi-media registers the difference is even more marked. Multi-media is one of the more important application areas nowadays.

The memory usage is - apparently - a fair point. But it fails to take into account the fact that with all the extra registers far less RAM is needed for temporary storage. Certainly I notice no greater memory usage by 64-bit Windows (not that it matters - memory is dirt cheap nowadays). In particular, the cache will be freed up so there is probably more cache available in 64-bit mode than 32-bit.

These arguments would not hold sway if we were considering processors that differed only in the width of their registers; but with the x86_64 processors this is not the case.

Right got mass effect working, right click icon in games menu and run as administrator, now works fine.

Hi

This is one of the main reasons for improved performance in 64-bit apps and, to a lesser extent, the OS itself. Having an extras 8 registers to play with allows applications to make far less memory accesses

In which case please point us to a realworld benchmark that shows 64bit out performs 32bit just because it is 64bit?

Multi-media is one of the more important application areas nowadays.

Multi-media to most people is a few YouTube clips or downloading compressed MP3's, are you telling me YouTube is better running 64bit?

Unless you have huge datasets that would benefit from greater than 4GByte of memory currently there is no performance benefit with 64bit extensions to the x86 architecture. It's not as though these 64bit Intel/AMD processors are really 64bit CPUs is it, it's just an extension to the instruction with one main goal in mind, to enable greater than 4GByte of memory.

Regards

Phil

Hi

The memory usage is - apparently - a fair point. But it fails to take into account the fact that with all the extra registers far less RAM is needed for temporary storage. Certainly I notice no greater memory usage by 64-bit Windows (not that it matters - memory is dirt cheap nowadays). In particular, the cache will be freed up so there is probably more cache available in 64-bit mode than 32-bit.

These arguments would not hold sway if we were considering processors that differed only in the width of their registers; but with the x86_64 processors this is not the case.

So after all the arguing you are starting to agree with what I say.

As for cache freed up comment due to the extra registers, yea okay, if you say so

Regards

Phil

So after all the arguing you are starting to agree with what I say.

You must have missed the word "apparently".

In practice, the extra registers balance, or even outweigh, the wider memory path. There also seems to be an inherent assumption that in 64-bit mode the x86_64 can only deal with 64-bit operands. It can, in fact, deal with 8-, 16-, 32-, or 64-bit operands; it is only the pointers that are fixed at 64 bits; in most programs these do not make up the bulk of variables stored in RAM. An 8-bit variable needs only one byte of RAM in 32-bit or 64-bit mode - just the same as it needed on a Z80.

The memory usage argument is - on an x86_64 - a fallacy. Believe me; I have studied assembly language programming on the x86_64 chips quite extensively.

It's not as though these 64bit Intel/AMD processors are really 64bit CPUs is it, it's just an extension to the instruction with one main goal in mind, to enable greater than 4GByte of memory.

Absoultely incorrect. May I enquire what experience you have of programming x86_64 chips at assembler level?

Should have thought of that suggestion; a few programs do need to be run as Administrator. It would be the same with 32-bit Windows 7.

not to mention about him going on about upgrading a pc.

just about all current processors are 64bit and 64bit processors have been on the market for over 5 years now.

In reply to a post by workie_ticket:

Hi people got win 7 on thurs and now am thinking of installing today.The thing that i am unsure of is wether to go 64 or 32bit.Could anyone tell me of the benefits of the 64 over 32, apart from extra memory over 4gb being seen, and also of any major drawbacks of the 64 flavour.My pc is pretty modern, Q6600 chip,Asus pk5-c mb,4870 video card so surely no problems hardware wise,please correct me if i,m wrong.Look foward to any advice.Oh forgot to say it,s win 7 home premium retail version.

64 bit processor = might as well use 64bit OS

In reply to a post by PhilipD:

You have just fallen for myth and marketing I'm afarid. If you only have 2GByte of RAM there is no advantage and only negatives to using a 64bit OS, for a start you will have less available memory as the 64bit OS and programs use more memory by the fact they are 64bit, see the Pros and Cons of the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

Still you can upgrade your memory to 4GByte or preferably greater to get a real benefit without re-installing and video editing will be much improved but as it stands 64bit and 2GByte of RAM is not ideal.

Regards

Phil

I was being sarcastic, or at least trying, something I am not very good at The fact is even if you are correct and more memory is needed with 64bit windows, my machine with 2GB is flying, I don't think sticking another 2GB of ram on the machine will make a huge difference.

I may get some more latter on, but it means getting rid of the stuff I already got, but it won't be for a while, DDR2 prices seems to be rising, no doubt an other way to get people to update to another motherboard.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

In reply to a post by PhilipD:

You have just fallen for myth and marketing I'm afarid. If you only have 2GByte of RAM there is no advantage and only negatives to using a 64bit OS, for a start you will have less available memory as the 64bit OS and programs use more memory by the fact they are 64bit, see the Pros and Cons of the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

Still you can upgrade your memory to 4GByte or preferably greater to get a real benefit without re-installing and video editing will be much improved but as it stands 64bit and 2GByte of RAM is not ideal.

Regards

Phil

I was being sarcastic, or at least trying, something I am not very good at The fact is even if you are correct and more memory is needed with 64bit windows, my machine with 2GB is flying, I don't think sticking another 2GB of ram on the machine will make a huge difference.

I may get some more latter on, but it means getting rid of the stuff I already got, but it won't be for a while, DDR2 prices seems to be rising, no doubt an other way to get people to update to another motherboard.

64bit computing on the windows platform is slowly coming around. Adobe is partly pushing that (even though ps cs4 64bit has a nice bug in it and crashes).. but untill adobe does a 64bit flash player we wont see a 64 bit version of ff and opera (yes i know there is a 64bit build of FF around).

Plus office 2010 will have 64bit versions

I wouldn't install 32-bit Windows 7 just because there in no native 64-bit Flash support (some might even say "Good" to this!). There's absolutely no problem running the 32-bit version of IE on 64-bit Windows. The fact that I can use all of the 4GB that I have paid for (let alone what I see to be other performance benefits) far outweighs this minor inconvenience.

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

I wouldn't install 32-bit Windows 7 just because there in no native 64-bit Flash support (some might even say "Good" to this!). There's absolutely no problem running the 32-bit version of IE on 64-bit Windows. The fact that I can use all of the 4GB that I have paid for (let alone what I see to be other performance benefits) far outweighs this minor inconvenience.

there is lots more to having 64bit processing and a 64bit os than just more than 4gb of ram

There is indeed, which is the point that I have made several times in this thread. Were it only the ability to use more than 3GB of RAM that would be enough to swing the choice for me, but it is far, far more than that.

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

There is indeed, which is the point that I have made several times in this thread. Were it only the ability to use more than 3GB of RAM that would be enough to swing the choice for me, but it is far, far more than that.

Well we had this conversation back in august (or around win 7 rc) .. So it is slightly annoying to have had repeat everything. Remember somebody bringing out a link stating that 64bit programs take up 2x memory ..

Considering the next move will be 128bit and we are likely to see the bulldozer core (k11) chips having this ability .. saying to people not move to a 64bit os after 5 years of chips being available is ermm insane!


I doubt we will see anything beyond 128bit for a while (probably 2020) ...

[edit] also add in the increasing use of the gpu for more than graphics having anything beyond 128bit would be a waste. and one could argue that for 128bit.

Edited by Taras (Tue 27-Oct-09 16:00:36)

I think we're both arguing from the same side here. I've been pointing out the fallacy of that memory argument. In fact I'm confident that a well-written and compiled program will use less memory because it has all those extra registers to store variables in.

Anyway, it's all been said and done. Look at my web site if you doubt my commitment to 64-bit OSs!

In reply to a post by PhilipD:

Hi

64bit is the latest marketing to get people to upgrade to new hardware and computers, not everyone needs it.

Pro:
The one and probably only benefit with 64bit is it can access greater than 4 Gig of memory.

Con:
64bit programs and OS use more memory, this means in order to benefit from 64bit support for memory at 4GByte or above you need more than 4GByte, say 6 or 8GByte. If you only have 4GByte of memory you are probably better off sticking with 32bit and and 4GByte of RAM, even though that only gives you around 3GByte of usable memory, this is because going to 64Bit may give you the full 4GByte of memory, but you lose the benefit of that extra 1Gig because programs use more memory running 64bit, including the OS. Factor in 32bit programs having to run in WoW and potential driver and compatibility issues with some applications, it just isn't worth it as you don't really benefit.

Regards

Phil

Oh btw you completely forgot about any graphics card .. Given that most are now 512mb in size and high end ones hit 2gb your nice little con goes out of the window.

Oh and programs,may use floats which may be 64 or 128bit(double or quad precision - aep can write this better as i've not been in direct programming for a few years now) in length, move that on to the a 64bit processor you get a nice speed boost .