drpcken

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2007
81
0
18,630
I just picked up a new AMD 64 Athlon X2 3800+. I know it handles the 64 bit architecture but I'm confused about it. FYI I'm installing it on my new ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe board this weekend.

Now do I HAVE to install XP Pro 64 bit? And if I do, does all my software have to be 64 bit (games, apps, etc...)? Or can I do the 32 bit version of XP? Is there a performance difference? Which would you guys recommend?

Sorry for the noobish questions, this is just my first dive into the 64 bit world :lol:

Thanks!!
 

heartview

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
258
0
18,780
I just picked up a new AMD 64 Athlon X2 3800+. I know it handles the 64 bit architecture but I'm confused about it. FYI I'm installing it on my new ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe board this weekend.

Now do I HAVE to install XP Pro 64 bit? And if I do, does all my software have to be 64 bit (games, apps, etc...)? Or can I do the 32 bit version of XP? Is there a performance difference? Which would you guys recommend?

Sorry for the noobish questions, this is just my first dive into the 64 bit world :lol:

Thanks!!

All of the current x86 chips that claim 64-bit processing are fully backward compatible with the 32-bit stuff. In fact, the 64-bit architecture is just an extension of the 32-bit architecture. So you can install a 32-bit OS and applications just fine on any AMD or Intel chip (except Itanium, of course).

Now, just in case it wasn't obvious, you can't install a 64-bit application on a 32-bit operating system even if you have a 64-bit CPU (except possibly through an emulator of some sort).
 

apt403

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2006
2,923
0
20,780
32 bit will work fine, fully backwards compatible with 64 bit chips. The only real reason to use a 64 bit OS right now is if theres a program that is only avalible in 64 bit form, the computer is devoted to complex calculations, or you have more then 4gb of memory.
 

drpcken

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2007
81
0
18,630
32 bit will work fine, fully backwards compatible with 64 bit chips. The only real reason to use a 64 bit OS right now is if theres a program that is only avalible in 64 bit form, the computer is devoted to complex calculations, or you have more then 4gb of memory.

I do have 4 gigs of DDR2 ram...
but there will no performance difference between the two?
 
Yes, 64-bit would be faster and could utilize all of the memory.
The problem is finding 64-bit drivers for hardware items.
You have less choices in programs also. 64-bit software is not all that popular at the moment.
 

LVDAX

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2007
2,156
0
19,780
32 bit will work fine, fully backwards compatible with 64 bit chips. The only real reason to use a 64 bit OS right now is if theres a program that is only avalible in 64 bit form, the computer is devoted to complex calculations, or you have more then 4gb of memory.

I do have 4 gigs of DDR2 ram...
but there will no performance difference between the two?

From my experience no... In fact the 64 bit ver is more of a PITA then it is worth. Stick with 32 unless you have software that requires 64.

Good Luck
 

heartview

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
258
0
18,780
I do have 4 gigs of DDR2 ram...
but there will no performance difference between the two?

There may be a very few things that might see a difference in performance (some better, some worse). But, for the most part, you won't see any difference using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit chip compared to the same 32-bit OS on a 32-bit chip.
 
I've been using WinXP Pro 64bit for the better part of a year. The biggest issue with using WinXp 64 used to be driver support, but that has come along way since 8it's release. Most hardware manufactururs offer at least a beta drive for a 64bit OS. Running 32bit applications is just like running on a 32bit OS. I would even go as far to say that the OS is snappier drive and file access. It's seems as though the more RAM the better with the 64bit OS. I've only got 2GB and it seems to be enough physical memory to even allow having minimal to no paging file. With 4GB of memory, you might even be able to disable the paging file altogether, depending on the type of file work you do, whether they're large file or not like video/audio editing. There is no difference in gaming between the 32 or 64bit OS, if you've got either an nVidia or ATI card, then video driver support is not an issue.

Good luck!
 

niz

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2003
903
0
18,980
Yes, 64-bit would be faster and could utilize all of the memory.
The problem is finding 64-bit drivers for hardware items.
You have less choices in programs also. 64-bit software is not all that popular at the moment.

>> You have less choices in programs also. 64-bit software is not all that popular at the moment.

BBzzzt. wrong.
Nearly all 32 bit apps work just fine under 64 bit XP. I know as I'm running it.
 

4745454b

Titan
Moderator
I was going to say the same thing. If you went out and bought 4GBs of memory, and you want to use all of them, then you should run the 64bit OS's. A 32bit OS won't let you use all four gigs. After a lot of monkeying, you might get a little over 3GBs to be seen and used. If you run a 64bit OS, then you won't have this issue.

I don't see performance increases however if you move to 64bit computing. At least for stuff I use... I would sell/return 2GBs of that ram and run a 32bit flavor of windows.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
32 bit will work fine, fully backwards compatible with 64 bit chips. The only real reason to use a 64 bit OS right now is if theres a program that is only avalible in 64 bit form, the computer is devoted to complex calculations, or you have more then 4gb of memory.

I do have 4 gigs of DDR2 ram...
but there will no performance difference between the two?

As one of the only people who have used X64 I can say that yes it is faster (in terms of responsiveness). 64bit sound is light years ahead. I had a SB Live! and it sounded 10X better on X64. It seemed to boot faster, IO is faster.

It's definitely where you should go. I am.
 

AdamBomb42

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2006
641
0
18,980
Today's "64bit" processors are really 32 bit with a 32 bit extension. So our so called 64 bit processors can run both 32 and 64 bit OS and apps. You can install XP 64, but you do not have to. Their is not much in the way of 64 bit apps out their as of now, but that will change. If you want to be set for 64 bit apps, then I would suggest you to get the Vista 64 bits flavor. From what I have read, it handles 64 bit instructions much better than XP 64.
 

belvdr

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
380
0
18,780
Why? don't you want to use all your memory or is it that you perfer a slower system?

Why does everyone automatically think that 64-bit is always faster than a 32-bit system? It could definitely be slower than a 32-bit system depending on the app.

Baron, as for the sound being better, I'm not sure I understand how that could be. Any hard proof that I/O is faster and sound is better? The thought that something "seems" faster doesn't always mean it is.
 

bydesign

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2006
724
0
18,980
XP64 is not faster in general and will not make your sound card perform better. Take off your shades. All 32bit apps will take a hit 2-5% at least. 64bit apps may perform about the same or significantly better.

Vista comes in both x86 (32bit) and 64bit versions. For the first year I wouldn't recommend the 64bit version unless you need it. I personally don't think that it will be mainstream any time soon.
 

drpcken

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2007
81
0
18,630
well i appreciate all the help you guys have given. I think I'm going to jump back to 2 or 3 gigs and stick with XP Media Center x86.

:) Thanks again!
 

heartview

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
258
0
18,780
I'm going to love watching this thread.

I agree. I'm still waiting for hard proof of 64-bit or 32-bit always being faster/slower than the other.

Because of the way 64-bit support is done on x86, I highly doubt that any performance gain or loss would be because of the CPU. Windows on the other hand... who knows?
 

darkz

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2007
28
0
18,530
well i appreciate all the help you guys have given. I think I'm going to jump back to 2 or 3 gigs and stick with XP Media Center x86.

:) Thanks again!

32bit XP can run fine with 4GB, a single app can never use more than 3GB (and even that requires a switch in boot.ini), but the whole 4GB will be used by the OS and apps that are running.