Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E6700 is 64-bit right.. which OS pro 32-bit or pro 64-bit?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 13, 2007 9:39:45 AM

Most of the articles on TH.com show test machines running winxp pro 32-bit as their test setup. Why is that given that this is a 64-bit chip? Does the 64-bit version of xp pro suck or something?
February 13, 2007 9:52:55 AM

Most people won't bother investing in x64 Windows, so Toms' shouldn't write reviews based on a version of Windows most people won't use.
February 13, 2007 10:28:02 AM

Is there really any overriding reason to use XP64 if not to access more RAM? That's the only reason I'll be loading it onto my next build.
Related resources
February 13, 2007 10:39:01 AM

In a related question... how does XP 64 compare to Vista 64?
February 13, 2007 10:45:34 AM

Quote:
Is there really any overriding reason to use XP64 if not to access more RAM? That's the only reason I'll be loading it onto my next build.


I thought it uses 64-bit drivers/extensions etc. which are some how better than 32-bit ones... I honestly don't know ... someone in here does though.
February 13, 2007 10:56:35 AM

Quote:
Is there really any overriding reason to use XP64 if not to access more RAM? That's the only reason I'll be loading it onto my next build.


I thought it uses 64-bit drivers/extensions etc. which are some how better than 32-bit ones... I honestly don't know ... someone in here does though.

The "advantage" of 64-bit computing over 32-bit computing is that, in theory, the processor can move twice as much information over a given time frame. However, that does not translate into reality most of the time, since not every value used in programming will fit comfortably in a 64-bit variable.

Also consider that a 32-bit program recompiled on a 64-bit platform will be larger and require considerably more memory if data structures were aligned to 64-bit boundaries (usually done for performance reasons). In short, some of your gain from moving 64-bits at a time will be lost because you will have to move more memory around (and use more memory to represent the same information).

This is all terribly complicated, but the simple answer is that just because the number 64 is higher than the number 32, it doesn't mean 64 is always better. ;) 
February 13, 2007 11:02:02 AM

Well XP-64 does not "Suck", but a number of things will not run under XP-64 unless specfically recompiled for it. This is mostly true for drivers and some different services.

XP-64 was basically killed by Vista. Since everyone knew that Vista was coming and that the development work for XP-64 was not going to translate to Vista, developers and companies just ignored XP-64 and focused on Vista.

Whatever little support you see now for XP-64 will dry up.
Damn shame in my opinion.
February 13, 2007 11:05:33 AM

Quote:
Most of the articles on TH.com show test machines running winxp pro 32-bit as their test setup. Why is that given that this is a 64-bit chip? Does the 64-bit version of xp pro suck or something?


The reason for that is most likely due to the fact that XP is stable. Resonably. Also, there is an extensive driver base for XP 32-bit. That is probably another reason.
February 13, 2007 11:17:21 AM

OK... what was said here makes sense. Here is an article which more or less sums up the points various people have already made.
February 13, 2007 12:05:08 PM

If you have a printer, then you need to make sure the manufacturer has a 64-bit version of their driver before using XP 64-bit
February 13, 2007 1:14:14 PM

the only real reason for running 64bit is in server situations.

however i have played the 64bit version of far cry and it did run quicker despite haveing more detail than the 32bit version.

i forsee a lot more usage on 64bit in the near future but wouldnt use xp64 i would wait for vista 64 to become more widely used.
February 13, 2007 1:28:20 PM

Everyone has made excellent points, however, I'm still :? about one thing.

Photoshop is a 32bit app. In a system that has more than enough RAM (8GB) what is the maximum I could allocate to that in

XP Pro
XP 64
Vista
Vista 64

Some people I talk to say it's 4GB across the board, others say it's different according to OS.

Any assistance would be profoundly appreciated and rewarded with a free 24 hour loan of any of my chicks. 8)
February 13, 2007 1:49:01 PM

Quote:
Everyone has made excellent points, however, I'm still :? about one thing.

Photoshop is a 32bit app. In a system that has more than enough RAM (8GB) what is the maximum I could allocate to that in

XP Pro
XP 64
Vista
Vista 64

Some people I talk to say it's 4GB across the board, others say it's different according to OS.

Any assistance would be profoundly appreciated and rewarded with a free 24 hour loan of any of my chicks. 8)


The way 32-bit Windows works, it will ONLY allow at most 2 GB of memory for any single process. Basically, Windows cuts the address space into two halves (0 to 2 GB and 2 GB to 4 GB). The OS takes the upper half and maps each application into the lower half. So on a 32-bit XP box with 4 GB of RAM, applications will still only be able to access 2 GB of memory and the OS will use the other 2 GB. The limitation here is not physical memory, it is ADDRESS SPACE.

On a 64-bit Windows platform, they (presumably) use the same, or similar, trick and split the address space in half (greatly simplifies things, really). But the address space for the two halves is currently WAY BIGGER than available physical RAM so your system will make much better use of the memory on the application side and on the OS side.

Virtual memory addresses can be mapped to any physical memory address, which is how virtual memory works and how the OS can have 50 applications all executing instructions at the same "address" as far as they are concerned without things blowing up. All 50 applications may think they are running in the same physical memory space and it won't matter, since the OS puts them in different physical memory locations (or into the swap file, as the case may be, if you run out of physical memory).

I hope that makes sense.
February 13, 2007 2:03:54 PM

Quote:
Everyone has made excellent points, however, I'm still :? about one thing.

Photoshop is a 32bit app. In a system that has more than enough RAM (8GB) what is the maximum I could allocate to that in

XP Pro
XP 64
Vista
Vista 64

Some people I talk to say it's 4GB across the board, others say it's different according to OS.

Any assistance would be profoundly appreciated and rewarded with a free 24 hour loan of any of my chicks. 8)


The way 32-bit Windows works, it will ONLY allow at most 2 GB of memory for any single process. Basically, Windows cuts the address space into two halves (0 to 2 GB and 2 GB to 4 GB). The OS takes the upper half and maps each application into the lower half. So on a 32-bit XP box with 4 GB of RAM, applications will still only be able to access 2 GB of memory and the OS will use the other 2 GB. The limitation here is not physical memory, it is ADDRESS SPACE.

On a 64-bit Windows platform, they (presumably) use the same, or similar, trick and split the address space in half (greatly simplifies things, really). But the address space for the two halves is currently WAY BIGGER than available physical RAM so your system will make much better use of the memory on the application side and on the OS side.

Virtual memory addresses can be mapped to any physical memory address, which is how virtual memory works and how the OS can have 50 applications all executing instructions at the same "address" as far as they are concerned without things blowing up. All 50 applications may think they are running in the same physical memory space and it won't matter, since the OS puts them in different physical memory locations (or into the swap file, as the case may be, if you run out of physical memory).

I hope that makes sense.

Makes perfect sense. Thanks. Now I also understand that the maximum address space for any 32bit app running in 64bit OS is 4GB. Therefore it would be impossible for Photoshop to access more than 4GB no matter how much physical RAM it had available to it. What I wanna do is set up 8GB physical RAM, give Photoshop its max and run everything else in the other 4GB. Looks as if I build my system with an eye to drivers, etc. then 64bit is the way to go. I'll be starting from scratch and buying all new peripherals so I would expect that if I do my homework, I shouldn't run into any problems with drivers.

The only other software I use is a bunch of run of the mill XP 32bit stuff, so I don't expect to run into any problems either with XP64 or Vista64.

OK then, since you have conclusively answered the question, which chick do you want?



:lol: 
February 13, 2007 3:28:01 PM

Quote:
OK then, since you have conclusively answered the question, which chick do you want?



:lol: 


Whichever one doesn't want me to fertilize her eggs. :p 
February 13, 2007 3:32:37 PM

Quote:
Whichever one doesn't want me to fertilize her eggs. :p 


Good one! :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
February 13, 2007 3:44:11 PM

They just extended XP support to 2011 or 2014.Service Pack 3 will be out by summertime hopfully.
February 13, 2007 4:06:32 PM

Yeah, with the number of corporate users, they have to support it well into the next decade I would think. Hell, it'll take that long for all the security holes and bugs to get fixed/squashed in Vista! I'm thinking wait until at least SP1 gets released before I even look at it given m$'s history with NT/2000 and XP.
February 13, 2007 4:11:49 PM

Quote:
Yeah, with the number of corporate users, they have to support it well into the next decade I would think. Hell, it'll take that long for all the security holes and bugs to get fixed/squashed in Vista! I'm thinking wait until at least SP1 gets released before I even look at it given m$'s history with NT/2000 and XP.


I think the biggest stupidity of Microsoft is thinking that corporations are more than willing to throw out their old hardware and upgrade to new computers just to take advantage of a few features in Vista. And since Microsoft threw out 16-bit support in 64-bit Vista, guess what corporations will be upgrading to if they need legacy support?

If they focused on OS upgrades that did not require new hardware (for the corporate world, that is) then they might find businesses a lot more willing to upgrade. Of course, then they'd have to fight with the PC makers...
February 13, 2007 4:19:37 PM

Quote:
Well XP-64 does not "Suck", but a number of things will not run under XP-64 unless specfically recompiled for it. This is mostly true for drivers and some different services.

XP-64 was basically killed by Vista. Since everyone knew that Vista was coming and that the development work for XP-64 was not going to translate to Vista, developers and companies just ignored XP-64 and focused on Vista.

Whatever little support you see now for XP-64 will dry up.
Damn shame in my opinion.


Actually, I think it was more that Microsoft tried to kill off XP64. They simply didn't want to have it in competition for their next OS, Vista. I don't think it was the outside developers and such ignoring XP64, but they didn't want to write code for an OS for which Microsoft had already pulled the plug and that people in general didn't use.

As to drivers, that issue will get much better, as most of the drivers will work equally well for either Vista or XP64. I'm taking a guess that much of the anti-Vista backlash will cause useage of XP64 to grow. Part of the XP64 hindrance was lack of 64 bit drivers. Now that 64 bit drivers are coming available from all companies, that issue will cease to be a problem.

The only remaining issue with XP64 that I see is the lack of DX10 support. It presently only supports DX9. If someone figures out a way for XP64 to support DX10, then I personally don't see any real reason that I would get Vista at all. Of course, the future might be that software will be written so it only supports Vista and will not run on XP64 at all. If such is the case, I'll be forced to have a computer running Vista.
February 13, 2007 4:20:27 PM

Quote:
They just extended XP support to 2011 or 2014.Service Pack 3 will be out by summertime hopfully.


Thank you. There is a God!

Quote:
Yeah, with the number of corporate users, they have to support it well into the next decade I would think. Hell, it'll take that long for all the security holes and bugs to get fixed/squashed in Vista! I'm thinking wait until at least SP1 gets released before I even look at it given m$'s history with NT/2000 and XP.


They're gonna have to keep up the support for a good long time. And I'm glad to hear that they aren't trying to skewer XP to push people into Vista. And besides, it's never a good idea to jump before SP1.

Quote:


I think the biggest stupidity of Microsoft is thinking that corporations are more than willing to throw out their old hardware and upgrade to new computers just to take advantage of a few features in Vista. And since Microsoft threw out 16-bit support in 64-bit Vista, guess what corporations will be upgrading to if they need legacy support?

If they focused on OS upgrades that did not require new hardware (for the corporate world, that is) then they might find businesses a lot more willing to upgrade. Of course, then they'd have to fight with the PC makers...


The bottom line for me at least is that I refuse to put up with the EULA/DRM/Naziware aspect of Vista. I will not agree to expose myself or my data to an OS that can choose to delete or disable any non-OS aspect whenever it feels like it. For corporations it's a different analysis. What does Vista really bring that corporations need? Don't you think that the corporate world can continue turning without the invaluable aid of Aero? Or DX10? And especially given that Office 2007 is a hideous monster from hell, I think you'll find many IT managers sighing in relief that they can keep their current configurations as they are well into the next decade.
February 13, 2007 4:23:37 PM

Quote:


Actually, I think it was more that Microsoft tried to kill off XP64. They simply didn't want to have it in competition for their next OS, Vista. I don't think it was the outside developers and such ignoring XP64, but they didn't want to write code for an OS for which Microsoft had already pulled the plug and that people in general didn't use.

As to drivers, that issue will get much better, as most of the drivers will work equally well for either Vista or XP64. I'm taking a guess that much of the anti-Vista backlash will cause useage of XP64 to grow. Part of the XP64 hindrance was lack of 64 bit drivers. Now that 64 bit drivers are coming available from all companies, that issue will cease to be a problem.

The only remaining issue with XP64 that I see is the lack of DX10 support. It presently only supports DX9. If someone figures out a way for XP64 to support DX10, then I personally don't see any real reason that I would get Vista at all. Of course, the future might be that software will be written so it only supports Vista and will not run on XP64 at all. If such is the case, I'll be forced to have a computer running Vista.


From what I understand reverse engineering DX10 to another OS is damn near impossible. I've pretty well 99.9% committed to putting my next build on XP64 as that's going to give me the possiblity to assign 4GB physical RAM to my hungriest app and I'm gonna get all new peripherals anyway, so I'll make sure that they have 64 bit drivers. Other than that, I'm a happy dude! XP64 Forever. Death to Vista! :lol: 
February 13, 2007 4:45:36 PM

Quote:


Actually, I think it was more that Microsoft tried to kill off XP64. They simply didn't want to have it in competition for their next OS, Vista. I don't think it was the outside developers and such ignoring XP64, but they didn't want to write code for an OS for which Microsoft had already pulled the plug and that people in general didn't use.

As to drivers, that issue will get much better, as most of the drivers will work equally well for either Vista or XP64. I'm taking a guess that much of the anti-Vista backlash will cause useage of XP64 to grow. Part of the XP64 hindrance was lack of 64 bit drivers. Now that 64 bit drivers are coming available from all companies, that issue will cease to be a problem.

The only remaining issue with XP64 that I see is the lack of DX10 support. It presently only supports DX9. If someone figures out a way for XP64 to support DX10, then I personally don't see any real reason that I would get Vista at all. Of course, the future might be that software will be written so it only supports Vista and will not run on XP64 at all. If such is the case, I'll be forced to have a computer running Vista.


From what I understand reverse engineering DX10 to another OS is damn near impossible. I've pretty well 99.9% committed to putting my next build on XP64 as that's going to give me the possiblity to assign 4GB physical RAM to my hungriest app and I'm gonna get all new peripherals anyway, so I'll make sure that they have 64 bit drivers. Other than that, I'm a happy dude! XP64 Forever. Death to Vista! :lol: 

Yeah, I know that reverse engineering DX10 is stated to be imposssible. I just try not to underestimate what hackers and others in the third party industry might come up with. I can see it now, some geek thinking, "If I take this, and do that, apply this other thing, then I can sneak DX10 into somewhere that it wasn't meant to be."

I saw on Newegg that I can get XP64 with an upgrade coupon to Vista, so that's what I'm ordering today. If things work out well enough with XP64, then I don't see any reason whatsoever to go to Vista. If not, I'll have the option to upgrade one computer and still have a different one with 32 bit XP on it.
February 13, 2007 4:51:07 PM

Quote:
Everyone has made excellent points, however, I'm still :? about one thing.

Photoshop is a 32bit app. In a system that has more than enough RAM (8GB) what is the maximum I could allocate to that in

XP Pro
XP 64
Vista
Vista 64

Some people I talk to say it's 4GB across the board, others say it's different according to OS.

Any assistance would be profoundly appreciated and rewarded with a free 24 hour loan of any of my chicks. 8)


The way 32-bit Windows works, it will ONLY allow at most 2 GB of memory for any single process. Basically, Windows cuts the address space into two halves (0 to 2 GB and 2 GB to 4 GB). The OS takes the upper half and maps each application into the lower half. So on a 32-bit XP box with 4 GB of RAM, applications will still only be able to access 2 GB of memory and the OS will use the other 2 GB. The limitation here is not physical memory, it is ADDRESS SPACE.

On a 64-bit Windows platform, they (presumably) use the same, or similar, trick and split the address space in half (greatly simplifies things, really). But the address space for the two halves is currently WAY BIGGER than available physical RAM so your system will make much better use of the memory on the application side and on the OS side.

Virtual memory addresses can be mapped to any physical memory address, which is how virtual memory works and how the OS can have 50 applications all executing instructions at the same "address" as far as they are concerned without things blowing up. All 50 applications may think they are running in the same physical memory space and it won't matter, since the OS puts them in different physical memory locations (or into the swap file, as the case may be, if you run out of physical memory).

I hope that makes sense.

Makes perfect sense. Thanks. Now I also understand that the maximum address space for any 32bit app running in 64bit OS is 4GB. Therefore it would be impossible for Photoshop to access more than 4GB no matter how much physical RAM it had available to it. What I wanna do is set up 8GB physical RAM, give Photoshop its max and run everything else in the other 4GB. Looks as if I build my system with an eye to drivers, etc. then 64bit is the way to go. I'll be starting from scratch and buying all new peripherals so I would expect that if I do my homework, I shouldn't run into any problems with drivers.

The only other software I use is a bunch of run of the mill XP 32bit stuff, so I don't expect to run into any problems either with XP64 or Vista64.

OK then, since you have conclusively answered the question, which chick do you want?



:lol: 

Sounds like the "sweat spot" is at least 6GB RAM for CS3. With the new Mac OS going 64bit... sure CS3 will only be 32 bit... but it's reasonable to assume CS4 will be 64 bit.

Read this blog by the developer of CS3 regarding 64 bit... read all the comments below it... very useful.

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/12/64_bitswhen.html
February 13, 2007 4:51:48 PM

Quote:

Yeah, I know that reverse engineering DX10 is stated to be imposssible. I just try not to underestimate what hackers and others in the third party industry might come up with. I can see it now, some geek thinking, "If I take this, and do that, apply this other thing, then I can sneak DX10 into somewhere that it wasn't meant to be."

I saw on Newegg that I can get XP64 with an upgrade coupon to Vista, so that's what I'm ordering today. If things work out well enough with XP64, then I don't see any reason whatsoever to go to Vista. If not, I'll have the option to upgrade one computer and still have a different one with 32 bit XP on it.


That was my viewpoint too and then it was discussed in a thread about a month back and it seemed everyone pooh poohed the possibility of hacking DX10 into XP. Since it seems that it takes "the community" all of a few days to destroy damn near every new "unbreakable" feature, I wouldn't be surprised if a DX10-XP hack shows up sometime! Wouldn't that be nice? :wink:

I've got a nice, legal XP64 sitting in my desk. Never opened. I'm saving it for my new build. I sure hope things work out ok with it as I'm hoping to config my next build to last at least 3 years, effectively untouched in OS or hw upgrades. Although I would certainly jump at any new XP SPs as long as they didn't take you down the Vista road!
February 13, 2007 4:57:30 PM

Quote:
Everyone has made excellent points, however, I'm still :? about one thing.

Photoshop is a 32bit app. In a system that has more than enough RAM (8GB) what is the maximum I could allocate to that in

XP Pro
XP 64
Vista
Vista 64

Some people I talk to say it's 4GB across the board, others say it's different according to OS.

Any assistance would be profoundly appreciated and rewarded with a free 24 hour loan of any of my chicks. 8)


From everything I read, the only limitation (with 64bit chips/64bit OSs) I saw was 40-48 bits addressing. Even if the limitation is "only" 40 bits, that is still like 1099 Gigs of space! The only real limitation is the motherboard, such as my p965 with a 8 gig limit. With a 32bit cpu OR 32bit OS, the limitation useable RAM is still ~2+ gigs.
February 13, 2007 6:26:57 PM

Quote:
The way 32-bit Windows works, it will ONLY allow at most 2 GB of memory for any single process.

Well...that's true enough if you're running a default configuration, but then there's this: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms791558.aspx

Which, I'll bet, most of us do run the default configuration. I would also bet that very few users feel comfortable editing their BOOT.INI files (for those that even know what it is). ;) 
February 13, 2007 8:09:17 PM

That /3GB information is really interesting. As is the fact that when they are reviewing the memory limits of the various OSs, they never mention XP64 or Vista64. However, that 4GB max limit still applies to the total memory access between apps and OS. This statement worries me a bit too:

On Windows XP, some drivers, especially video adapter drivers with onboard RAM, cannot run with the /3GB parameter because they require more address space than the 1 GB kernel address space permits.

Again, it's all very interesting and I had no idea that this existed but for my own personal needs, it looks like I have to stick to XP64 so that I can feed my ravenous Photoshop all the RAM it's hungering for and still leave 4GB for the balance of apps and OS.
!