Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

32bit or 64bit windows XP?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
April 6, 2005 4:07:30 AM

I currently have the 32bit Windows XP pro, but I was wondering if anyone in here would be able to tell me if the 64 bit will have any performance boost? I am thinking about trying out the RC2 that I downloaded. Does the RC2 have a lot of bugs? Should I just wait for the final product to come out and then try it? Thanks in advance

My rig:
A64 3000+
DFI NF4 Ultra-D
Patriot 1GB 3200LLK
Sapphire x850xt
Lite-On SOHW 832S

More about : 32bit 64bit windows

April 6, 2005 12:39:42 PM

Drivers are an issue, not all hardware is supported, and 32-bit apps run slower in 64-bit, and there are not that many non-business apps in 64-bit.
As a development / learning tool, it is great, as far as gaming and home use, not practical yet.

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
April 6, 2005 5:41:16 PM

I agree with Rich. It will probably be another year before XP 64-bit can actually prove itself on the 64-bit platform. It will take time for the apps to support 64 bit. If you were running unix/linux/bsd then its a different story. Everything is going to be 64 in the near future.
Related resources
April 7, 2005 2:17:48 AM

thanks for the help guys. I will hold off for a while until I see more 64-bit compatability. Thanks again.
April 8, 2005 7:19:43 PM

The hardware had to come out before the software could come out.. Probably won't see any benefit to going to 64bit for a while.. business servers will probably switch over before you should even consider it at home..
I just laugh at the home users who are buying the 64bit cpus.. i mean, its cool they're supporting it but I don't buy stuff that I don't use.. by the time that software comes around, they'll be wanting to upgrade or something is going to change in the 64bit hardware anyway...

Don't necessarily have to buy the latest and greatest.. I still wonder why all these people are buying the latest video cards and are raving about how great they are.. they're just as great as the last 3-4-5 releases before hand.. the programmers are falling behind in keeping up with the hardware advancements.. keep that in mind..
If you notice, hardware, aside from GPUs (video cards) have basically been slowing their advancements down because the software isn't really using it.. and the video cards are just coming out for wars.. I haven't seen any difference in performance in the last few models released by nvidia and ati.

Riser
April 9, 2005 12:54:11 AM

What the [-peep-] are you talking about? Go look at the benchmarks buddy.

*shakes head*

<pre><font color=red>A64 3200+ Winchester
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
1GB Corsair 4400C25PT
WD740GD, WD2000JB, WD1200JB
ATI X800XL
Dell 2405FPW</pre><p>
April 9, 2005 8:04:19 PM

Video cards? At what point is enough enough? Is it going to be that much better to upgrade to the next video card? I still run my ti4200 and really haven't seen much of an improvement over the latest and greatest. Granted it'll be smooth.. but that next video card that comes out.. the BENCHMARKS will say it's great, but are you going to notice that difference in a game? Simply put, No. Maybe in a game that comes out in a year, yeah.

Riser
April 9, 2005 10:08:32 PM

Honestly, I think the ti4200 sucks. I simply didn't notice much of anything different between it and a ti4600 and gf2 pro that I overclocked. I'm sure I got a few more fps but I wasn't impressed and returned it as well as the ti4600. The only thing I liked about it was the way it rendered some textures that dx7 cards couldn't.

However the new cards have dx9 and enough power for some really nice looking graphics. I have a 24" monitor and my x800xl barely pulls off enough fps at full resolution. Remember that some people want high resolution, high anti aliasing, with Anisotropic Filtering, and each new videocard improves upon all of these things. If I was to use your ti4200 on my system (which I can't since I have a pci-e system) I would not even be able to play games on my monitor. Even if I could, it would look like complete crap.

I used to say the same thing that you did until I saw a new system. You don't know the difference until you see it and then you get the upgrade itch.

<pre><font color=red>A64 3200+ Winchester
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
1GB Corsair 4400C25PT
WD740GD, WD2000JB, WD1200JB
ATI X800XL
Dell 2405FPW</pre><p>
April 11, 2005 2:15:35 AM

Quote:

I just laugh at the home users who are buying the 64bit cpus.. i mean, its cool they're supporting it but I don't buy stuff that I don't use.. by the time that software comes around, they'll be wanting to upgrade or something is going to change in the 64bit hardware anyway...

If you notice, hardware, aside from GPUs (video cards) have basically been slowing their advancements down because the software isn't really using it.. and the video cards are just coming out for wars.. I haven't seen any difference in performance in the last few models released by nvidia and ati.

hey!! Wake up...I did not get an A64 because of the 64 bits!! It is a very powerfull CPU in 32 bits. It runs cool too. It is way more efficient than the old Athlon XP line and the new Prescott. So, even if I dont use the 64 bits instruction set, I dont care, because it is priced lower than, let say, Intel CPU that perform about the same, but dont have the 64 bits instructions. So I take them as free gift. So I laugh at those that just miss good hardware because they think that way...

I dont think I got screwed because I have an A64 and I dont use the 64 bits.. I can say that this CPU run waaaaaaaaaaaaay faster than my old setup with an Athlon XP OCed @ 2.4 Ghz. On my nforce2 mobo. And what about the noise... My computer is quiet... and performing!! Yes, that is possible.. and that is nice. Some years ago, better performance was meaning higher fan noise.. but not now... And you are missing all that!!

But that is your problem.. not mine!


I just got a X600XT.. not the greatest, but good enough for me. My cousin, an x800xl.. so what, he likes when game looks good and still play fast. Just like why people would buy expensive sound system when cheapers one sound good too? well if you like listen to music at low volume, the cheap system should be fine. But crank the volume and you'll see why!

I dont care if a gamer get the best gaming gear.. I'm happy for him. I dont care if a music fan get a nice sound system..I'm happy for him.

You say you didnt see the difference?? Or maybe you dont want to see it! Hey,cranks your game to 1280X1024 with full detail and admire the beauty of the game.. then play. Try the difference between your ti4200 and an x800.. play with the x800 for some time.. then go back to your old ti... you'll understand.



<font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>
April 11, 2005 3:07:21 AM

amen brother!
April 11, 2005 2:50:18 PM

Maybe I'm out of it.. I can't justify the cost right now.. but then again I'm not all about shelling out money for something that really hasn't come full circle..
I mean, I'm addicted to playing X-Com from the late 80s, early 90s. Graphics suck, but I'm more into playing a good game than looking at good graphics..
If you can or want to shell out the money to move up to all that.. that's fine.. I prefer to wait until hardware has been decided before jumping into the new technology.
Everyone remembers Rambus and Intel.. Not that it's going to happen with the 64bit, I'm just seeing 64bit geared more towards Business needs than towards home users.

AMD +1800
1.5GB DDR333
KT4 Ultra (I think that's what I have right now, been a while)
Nvidia GeForce ti4200 128MB 8x AGP

I can play WoW, Warcraft 3, Half Life 2, and !!X-Com!! with highest video settings, at 1280x1024 (ok, x-com is 600x800 i think) and suffer absolutely no lag.
I play america's army with full resolution.. I get FPS on average of 40-45 FPS.. I rarely go below 35.. I don't reall see a different between 50fps and 60 fps, nor 60 to 70 fps.. why? The human eye only sees at like 33-36 fps.
Yeah, you can do better with the system, but at what point is it really benefitting you?

I guess I personally don't see the results to justify the cost.. when is it at the point where it doesn't really give you the benefit?
Going from a low end video card to a high end, I can see. going from a high end card to the latest model of the high end card.. I can't really see the major benefit in that..


Riser
April 11, 2005 4:59:30 PM

Quote:
I can play WoW, Warcraft 3, Half Life 2, and !!X-Com!! with highest video settings, at 1280x1024 (ok, x-com is 600x800 i think) and suffer absolutely no lag.
I play america's army with full resolution.. I get FPS on average of 40-45 FPS.. I rarely go below 35.. I don't reall see a different between 50fps and 60 fps, nor 60 to 70 fps.. why? The human eye only sees at like 33-36 fps.
Yeah, you can do better with the system, but at what point is it really benefitting you?


It is not only resolution.. it is detail. Take HF2, put detail to the max, with AA and all the goodies. And let your resolution to 1280x1024 and tell me that it dont lag..

I remember Farcry. If I was playing at default setting, that game was ok on graphics side. But putting more detail reveal grass instead of green cell texture, leaves were more detailed and the water was more real. So, what's the point?

Like you said, you dont want to pay for something that you wont use. HL2 has some of the nicest graphics in a game... (if) you have paid for those graphics..why not see them in their full glory???

<font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>
April 12, 2005 12:35:48 AM

I'm not recommending this, since if you do it you'll want to upgrade, but go check out a game like HL2 at 1600x1200 (or 1920x1200 like me) with max settings 4x AA, 8x AF, and a partridge in a pear tree.

There are reviews out there that show the difference. It's profound. You simply aren't seeing everything. The water alone is worth the upgrade.

As far as 64bit processors, they run better than the 32 bit processors with 32 bit software so it's not that hard to justify the upgrade. The 64bit capability is just a bonus.

You're happy with your system since you haven't seen a new system most likely.

40-45 fps makes me dizzy and nautious. Below 35 is unplayable. That's way too slow. You idealy want to be above 60 fps for smooth game play. It is personal preference, but odds are you have just acclimated to poor performance.

<pre><font color=red>A64 3200+ Winchester
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
1GB Corsair 4400C25PT
WD740GD, WD2000JB, WD1200JB
ATI X800XL
Dell 2405FPW</pre><p>
April 12, 2005 12:42:15 AM

Farcry is a good example since if you play at basic settings it looks ok, but if you up the settings suddenly the water looks amazing, there are fish, the brush is realistic, etc etc

<pre><font color=red>A64 3200+ Winchester
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
1GB Corsair 4400C25PT
WD740GD, WD2000JB, WD1200JB
ATI X800XL
Dell 2405FPW</pre><p>
April 12, 2005 3:49:56 PM

That's what I've discovered when I cranked up the detail after having played a default setting for a while. The game was lagging a bit on heavy action scene, but otherwise was quite playable. I had an AIW9600xt at the time.



<font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>
April 12, 2005 5:52:34 PM

Ya don't need the latest and greatest to play games.. But if ya look at prices for the A64s these days, they're not that much worse than the stuff that's much slower.. Even the crappiest A64 is much faster than the fastest older athlons and pentiums, even in 32 bit software. So to people who have an extra couple hundred bucks to spend, they're worth getting.
February 2, 2013 7:58:45 PM

RichPLS said:
Drivers are an issue, not all hardware is supported, and 32-bit apps run slower in 64-bit, and there are not that many non-business apps in 64-bit.
As a development / learning tool, it is great, as far as gaming and home use, not practical yet.

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

February 2, 2013 8:00:03 PM

Robc1880 said:
I currently have the 32bit Windows XP pro, but I was wondering if anyone in here would be able to tell me if the 64 bit will have any performance boost? I am thinking about trying out the RC2 that I downloaded. Does the RC2 have a lot of bugs? Should I just wait for the final product to come out and then try it? Thanks in advance

My rig:
A64 3000+
DFI NF4 Ultra-D
Patriot 1GB 3200LLK
Sapphire x850xt
Lite-On SOHW 832S

!