Windows 7 32 versus 64 bit for overclocking

[jbl91]

Hi all, I've read in a number of overclocking articles about the Phenom II 955 that higher overclocks can be achieved in 32 bit OSs than can be in 64 bit ones. So, if I'm only getting 4GB of RAM, and I'm going to be using the PC just for gaming, and I'm going to be trying a high overclock, would I be better off with 32 or 64 bit? Thank you very much!

 

[jbl91]

Thanks for the response. I haven't bought either yet, I'm going to get one through the student discount...

 

[jbl91]

Here's an article stating that 64 bit doesn't overclock as well...
http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/processors/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_965_7.html

And here's a performance chart comparing 64 and 32 bit without OC.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming/page7.asp

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I note that in the firingsquad article, if using Win7, 3 outta the 4 showed higher results for 64 bit in first graph and they split 2-2 in the 2nd.

 

[jbl91]

I looked at the test setup for the firingsquad article and noticed that they were using an i7 setup with 6GB RAM, so the fact that the 32 bit system (with only ~3.25GB) was very similar in performance surprised me. So if they perform about equally stock, and supposedly OC is better with 32 bit, would 64 bit be better? One thing I'm worried about is that future games may need more RAM than 32 bit can supply... Sorry I didn't make it clear earlier but I'm getting Windows 7.

 

[welshmousepk]

even if the OCing potential is slightly hugher in 32bit, it wont be by alot.

get 64 bit, 3.25gb RAM is quickly becoming a restrictive ammount. it owuld suck for you to have to buy a whole new OS just to use more ram down the line.

 

[jbl91]

GhislainG provided me with this article showing how more than 3GB RAM is completely unnecessary for gaming at this time, but I understand that this might change.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264-3.html

 

[welshmousepk]

jbl91, this is true. but to you really think thats goind to be that way for long?

id bet that this time next year, 4gb will be considered the minimum youd want in a system that ISNT gaming.

right now, if you have many background processes and run intensive games, you need 4gb. so limiting yourself to 3.25gb is a reaaallly bad idea.

 

[jbl91]

I see. So you would say having the extra RAM is worth sacrificing a little on the CPU overclock? Thank you for your answer.

 

[welshmousepk]

yes, because even though right now 3.25 gb of ram is a decent ammount, in a year or so it wont be.

and im not even convinced thast 32bit attaining a higher OC is true. my knowledge of software/hardware tells me it shouldnt make any difference. but since ive never tested those differences mysaelf i cant say.

but either way, 64bit is the future. im pretty sure that windows 8 won't even be available in 32bit version. 3.25gb of ram is just becoming very limiting.

 

[notty22]

Anand and others have reported that the phenom II 965 can obtain a slighlty higher o/c in 32bit OS than 64 bit. I've read this is a recreatable phenomenom. It probably has to do with disk and memory subsytems being slightly less taxed ? or utilized. Its about 200 mhz and is/was the difference between a cpu booting to windows and running a bech "stable". This is right around the 4000 mhz plateu. This is my view on the ops
question. I don't think that situation would be better for performance at all.