Why is 64 bit recommended for 4GB if effectively it is slower version?

Where did you get this info from because it's totally inaccurate.
A 64bit cpu and o/s handles ram much more effectively then a 32bit system.
It's wider and accesses the memory faster.
Traffic moves better on a 4 lane road then on a two lane road.
A 64bit cpu and o/s also fully supports 32bit applications.
Kind of a no brainer.

Well, actually I read that information in various sources while researching which version should I install.

From some reason I can't locate any of this sources, but here is an example link I just found:
http://www.sevenforums.com/installation-setup/137643-in...


Are you sure that 64 bit, takes exactly as much memory as the 32 bit version?
thx

I'm afraid that you have been misinformed. A 64-bit program may use at most 5% more memory than a 32-bit version (although, depending upon the program it may even use less memory). Counter that with the fact that it processes information far more efficiently and it's a no-brainer. I've been using 64-bit versions of Windows and Linux for 5 or more years and I have found them to be faster than the 32-bit versions with no appreciable difference in RAM usage.

There do seem to be a number of people who don't understand the difference between 32- and 64-bit processors. I'm afraid they write all sorts of rubbish. The best way to find the truth is to try it for yourself.

You're probably thinking of some PROGRAMS that can only use up to 2GB. That's true on 32-bit systems too. For those programs, 64-bit loses nothing. But you DO plan on running more than one program at a time, don't you?

If new system and it has 4 gigs installed or going to 4 gigs and need an operating system - the clear cut winner is 64 bit.

If going from 2 -> 4 gigs and have 32 bit operating system, then use it, don't need to join the herd and run out an spend 100 bucks to upgrade to 64 bit.

I find very little difference in performance between my 4 gig setups for 32 bit/64 bit.
The loss of 3/4 gigs available to operating system (32 bit) is not a real performance changer.

Thank you guys very much!
You have put my mind at ease and provided valuable information.
 

There are a lot of misconceptions about 32bit vs. 64bit. Simply put the 64bit OS uses larger memory addresses which allows it to address more memory. Larger memory addresses means it uses more memory to store these larger memory addresses, but there aren't that many absolute addresses stored in your program so the memory hit isn't all that big overall. The CPU can work more efficiently running 64bit programs because it apparently has more registors. The 4-lane highway vs. 8-lane highway is not an accurate representation though. Also I believe the 64bit OS runs 32bit programs just like the 32bit OS does, it just has more memory available. The advantage to the 64bit OS is when you run 64bit apps. The first big disadvantage to the 64bit OS is that it is harder to get good drivers for it. We have built machines for CAD using 64bit OS and we had problems getting good video card drivers, and this is for video cards intended for professional CAD use. The other disadvantage for us to 64bit OS is that it won't run 16bit apps. In large companies it is likely that there are older apps still in use that are 16bit apps. If the 16bit app runs and fills a need, it is wasteful of company resources to rewrite it as a 32bit app just to run in a 64bit OS. We installed virtual XP to run these apps but it put another drain on the boot SSD's in these machines.

So in the end, ignore the hype about the 64bit OS, it doesn't provide significant benefits for the average person. The people that benefit from a 64bit OS most likely already know who they are. I could use the advantages of a 64bit OS for some of my work but I have a lot of 16bit apps that I still need to run and I'm not going to put up with the negatives of running virtual XP.

I forgot to add this-
In another recent post on tomshardware forums, someone who did a lot of assembly language programming posted a good explanation of how the CPU works in 64bit mode vs 32bit mode.

Here's an analogy:

32-bit Windows is like a city that uses 3-digit street addresses. With a 3-digit address, you can only have 1000 buildings on each street numbered 000 to 999. As your city grows, before too long you've run out of addresses and you can't construct any new buildings.

64-bit Windows is like a city that uses 6-digit addresses. You might think that by doubling the address size you've doubled the number of buildings you have room for - but no! in fact you can now have up to 1,000,000 buildings numbered 000000 through 999999. In fact, doubling the address size has increased the number of possible buildings by a factor of 1,000 (in computer terms, 64-bit addressing provides 4 BILLION TIMES as much memory capacity as 32-bit addressing does).

Now lets look at a page from the classified section of the newspaper in our city with the shiny new 6-digit addresses. Are the ads any bigger? Yes, they're a little bit bigger because every ad that has an address takes 3 more digits than it did before. But as an overall percentage it's not all that big a deal. This is very roughly what the impact on program size is in a 64-bit OS.

But don't forget that it's only the 64-bit programs that are affected - a 64-bit OS can also run 32-bit programs, and the size of those programs DOESN'T CHANGE. In our city example, it's like the 32-bit programs the ads for the buildings in the city centre where the addresses are still less than 1,000, so they don't need to use 6-digit addresses.


So the moral is:

a) most programs don't change in size under a 64-bit OS, period. It's only the 64-bit programs that are a bit bigger, and there aren't that many of those around right now.

b) Even the 64-bit programs don't get very much bigger. In technical terms, it's pretty much only the stack that gets bigger, and it usually only accounts for about 1MB of the overall program size - a pittance for most programs.