Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I7 & 32-bit windows

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 26, 2009 2:37:37 AM

Hi,

Im building a PC with these specs:

i7 920
Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD3R
4GB RAM DDR3
GTX 260/275 (Havent decided yet)

I decided to go with 32 bit windows for peace of mind and most importantly compatibility with games, even if it means wasting some RAM out of the 4 GB limit, but Im not sure if it can run a 32 bit windows.

another question is will Antec 650W PSU be up to the job of running this PC? cause I already have that.

thanks.

More about : bit windows

a b à CPUs
August 26, 2009 3:18:57 AM

You can, but 64 bit really is the way to go now. There aren't compatibility issues unless you are running ancient games, and you should really go with tri channel RAM as well (3GB or 6GB).
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2009 4:06:04 AM

It can run 32-bit Windows, but I agree with cjl that you should go with 64-bit if possible. You may not need it right now, but you'll probably want to add memory well before that system is obsolete.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2009 12:20:49 PM

Most of the issues with games not running is due to DRM and copy protection drivers that are out of date; most games run fine. (The best example is Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, which works if you download it from Ubisoft, but doesn't work retail due to incombatable copy protection drivers).

Worst case, just keep a backup XP32 (or ME) partition for legacy use.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 2:58:35 AM

go x64, x86 is dead
August 27, 2009 3:04:28 AM

Well the oldest game I can think of is bf1942 which I still play, does that run?

I probably will go 64-bit,since I dont have any other hardware I should worry about other than a HP printer

By try-channel RAM you mean a 3 GB stick instead of a 2 GB? does it make a difference?

Any advice on the power supply?
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 3:25:50 AM

bf1942 will run fine. In fact, the only game I have that will not run on Vista 64 is Road Rash (which is 16 bit from the late 1990s).
August 27, 2009 3:31:24 AM

Yea, ive read that 16 bit games are a no no, and most 32 bit games will run with 32-bit emulation which reduces fps a little since some of it goes to emulation... well cant have every thing :p 
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 3:33:06 AM

hatemf90 said:
By try-channel RAM you mean a 3 GB stick instead of a 2 GB? does it make a difference?
Tri-channel means that for best performance you add three sticks of RAM at a time. It doesn't matter if you add three 1GB sticks or three 2GB sticks, but you'll get better performance than if you have 1, 2, or 4 sticks of RAM. So choose the size that best fits your needs as long as it comes on three sticks.

But in truth, you probably wouldn't notice the difference in performance between one, two or three sticks of memory unless using only 1 or 2 sticks shorted you enough on memory that it increased swapping pages of memory out to the pagefile.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 12:11:20 PM

Really, all 64x windows does is changes a 32-bit address to 64-bits, and sends that address out to the CPU in 64-bit mode for execution. There is very little (<2FPS) loss in FPS these days. Say what you will about M$, their 32->64 bit thunking method works extraordinarilly well in almost every 32-bit application.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 7:59:43 PM

Ha, buying a 32bit OS for a 64bit processor is the same thing as a huge airplane with super powerful engines but with no wings...(i am sure somebody can make a better analogy but oh well). If you by a 32bit OS then
-It is much slower then 64-bit
-You will only be able to have like 3.5gb of ram so your processor will be bottlenecked since it needs triple channeled.
-You wasted a lot of money
-Only games from the stone age have issues with 64bit, I really dont know 1 modern application that is not supported by 64bit os.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 8:35:06 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
-It is much slower then 64-bit
I'm as much of a 64-bit OS booster as anyone, but I think this is wrong. For programs that fit into 2GB of memory, a 32-bit OS isn't any slower than a 64-bit OS, other things being equal. You really only get a speed advantage when you get to programs that can take advantage of more than 2GB of memory in order to reduce paging or disk I/O, or when you get so many programs running that they collectively need more RAM than a 32 OS can handle.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 11:09:32 PM

I meant a 64-bit os is more snappy, more responsive, and if programs take advantage of it then thats also a plus. I have a compared a 64-bit os and 32-bit os on two computers freshly installed. The 64-bit responded to commands faster like opening an application and simple things like that. Maybe i exagerated by saying "much slower" i should have said a "little bit slower".
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 1:55:31 AM

cjl said:
bf1942 will run fine. In fact, the only game I have that will not run on Vista 64 is Road Rash (which is 16 bit from the late 1990s).

For me BF1942 will randomly CTD. :??: 

blackhawk1928 said:
I meant a 64-bit os is more snappy, more responsive, and if programs take advantage of it then thats also a plus. I have a compared a 64-bit os and 32-bit os on two computers freshly installed. The 64-bit responded to commands faster like opening an application and simple things like that. Maybe i exagerated by saying "much slower" i should have said a "little bit slower".


When comparing Vista x86 and x64 the only difference I could tell was that one was reported as a 64-bit Operating System in System Information.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 2:16:18 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
I meant a 64-bit os is more snappy, more responsive, and if programs take advantage of it then thats also a plus. I have a compared a 64-bit os and 32-bit os on two computers freshly installed. The 64-bit responded to commands faster like opening an application and simple things like that. Maybe i exagerated by saying "much slower" i should have said a "little bit slower".



As much as people like to berate Microsoft for... well... basically everything under the Sun, plus a few things that aren't...

They've done an excellent job making WOW64 ("Windows on Windows") efficient and transparent to the end user. 32 bit apps run in their native modes, 32 bit binaries run natively on the processor, and the necessary traffic redirection is handled in the background quite nicely. As pointed out above, most users can't tell the difference between 32 and 64 bit operation, unless they look at their system properties or notice they have two Internet Explorer icons instead of just one.

On a slightly deeper level, though - Absolute performance levels are going to be highly dependent on the nature and (especially!!) quality of the software running on the OS. Should be pretty obvious that taking any old garbage and dumping it into a 64 bit compiler won't magically make it any better or faster, (*cough*...Creative...), and may even make it worse (*cough* Creative... *spit*).

For the moment and from what I've seen: On the desktop it's pretty much a wash, with the advantage going 64 bit because it grants the ability to utilize more resource should it be available. Over time, I would expect 64 bit's advantage to expand as programmers learn to optimize the code they write.

August 28, 2009 10:31:39 PM

bro you serious? :o 

Go with 32 bit to take advantage of the fastest cpu on the planet (or close anyways0 and if you have game problems, run them in compatability mode. Not to mention your ram.
!