Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help with 32bit and 64bit?

Tags:
Last response: in Windows 7
Share
July 4, 2012 3:03:48 AM

Hey guys,

I'm building my own PC next month and I have gathered all the parts needed to assemble a gaming rig. I just need to know is it safe to use a 64bit system? In the articles I read, they still suggest a 32bit system, but I need at-least 16gigs of Ram for my Rig.

So If I'm going to assemble a 64bit system is there any special Hardware I need to buy? or Can I just Change my OS to a 64bit one? ( I have Win 7 Ultimate)

What are the Pros and Cons of having a 64it system?

More about : 32bit 64bit

Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
July 4, 2012 3:08:26 AM

just go 64 and don't make too much out of making the choice.
m
0
l
a c 395 $ Windows 7
July 4, 2012 3:12:10 AM

64 bit is the norm for a high end gaming system.
m
0
l
Related resources
July 4, 2012 3:21:02 AM

Okay, but what about getting the 64bit?

Just installing a 64bit OS right? without any special hardware?
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
July 4, 2012 3:23:38 AM

all hardware ( well really just the cpu needs to be ) now a days is 64 bit. since you are going to use 16 gig of RAM you need it. while installing the OS choose 64 and you're good to go.
m
0
l
July 4, 2012 3:33:19 AM

The CPU I selected Supports 64bit, that means I'm good to go right?

m
0
l
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
July 4, 2012 3:35:11 AM

yes
m
0
l
July 4, 2012 7:41:39 AM

coolermaster_72 said:
The CPU I selected Supports 64bit, that means I'm good to go right?

For quite some time, all CPUs support 64bit...

by the way, do you understand the difference between 32bit & 64bit (by this question I don't mean to offend or something like that)?
m
0
l
July 4, 2012 1:43:40 PM

xtreme5 said:
If you are still in doubt check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfCcvlLEwZo


That video is a 80% bullshit. I will comment on youtube when I get home. I barely got through the video without screaming.

1. RAM: 64-bit has NO RELATION TO RAM. This is done by countless misinformed people (including marketing) which rely on consumer Windows (not server). The 1st CPU that supported (implemented) up to 64GB was Pentium Pro back in 1995....there was no mention of 64-bit at that time. 32-bit applications are limited to 4GB addresses (note: not RAM). You can use a 32-bit OS (linux or Windows Server) with 64GB of RAM and actually using all of them by loading 10s of memory hungry applications (each with up to 2GB or 3GB actual usage...not 4GB). And this scenario is being used for over 10 years.

2. Speed: the video arguments the speed with previous point. While his arguments of swapping are valid, the reason is not 64-bit related. It's 32-bit Windows non-server related. But does not talk about quadrupling the register space, thus some application (like audio/video encoding) can use the additional registers for additional data and reduce memory access (even with cache, a memory access instruction is slower than a register-only instruction). For 32-bit games (current situation) a small speedup is expected because of 64-bit GPU drivers.

3. Compatibility: All 32-bit applications are compatible based on code. But some require drivers being installed, and those drivers need to be 64-bit. So applications which ship with only 32-bit drivers will never work. Also, 64-bit windows requires signed drivers, which prevents some "cheap" vendors releasing them for old HW or SW.

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension :
Microsoft Windows implements PAE if booted with the appropriate option, but current 32-bit desktop editions enforce the physical address space within 4GB even in PAE mode. According to Geoff Chappell, Microsoft limits 32-bit versions of Windows to 4GB as a matter of its licensing policy, and Microsoft Technical Fellow Mark Russinovich says that some drivers were found to be unstable when encountering physical addresses above 4GB. Unofficial kernel patches for Windows Vista and Windows 7 32-bit are available that break this enforced limitation, though the stability is not guaranteed.
m
0
l
a b $ Windows 7
July 4, 2012 1:47:26 PM

No reason not to run a 64bit OS anymore. All major hardware, like your motherboard and CPU have been 64bit capable for over 10 years now (server type equipment since the 90's) The main drawback for the consumer has been there was simply no 64 bit OS. There was a 64 bit version of XP, but at the time, 4 gig of memory was still plenty for most users, so there was no real push to make a move to it. Driver support was limited for many types of secondary add-on hardware. Not until the release of Vista was 64 bit becoming more of "need" than novelty for the consumer sector.

But since the release of Vista, running a 64 bit OS is the norm for today. There were some issues at first when Vista was released with lack of 64 bit drivers for some hardware like scanners, web cams.....mostly second party hardware that the designers had never written 64bit drivers for because there was basically no consumer 64 bit OS yet. By now though, unless you have some very old piece of hardware, you should be fine. Many people claim they have problems running some 32 bit programs under the 64 bit versions of Vista and Win 7, but in reality, the problem is usually with new version of the Windows kernel its self, and not that it is 64 bit. If you have problems running a program under Win7 64 bit, it is most likely you would still have the same problem if you were running Win7 32 bit.

All you need to do is install it, if your rig and everything you connect to it is fairly recent, not over 4 or 5 years old, you won't have any issues at all. The second problem might be an old program, but if all your programs work fine under the 32 bit version of Win7, you very likely won't have any issues there either.

And yeah^ that video I couldn't watch either, its full of inaccuracies and nonsense.
m
0
l
July 4, 2012 1:59:27 PM

jitpublisher said:
All major hardware, like your motherboard and CPU have been 64bit capable for over 10 years now (server type equipment since the 90's)


Not true....When the 1st 64-bit CPU was made (I don't even know if it was Intel's), it had to run an OS. If you are talking about 64-bit CPUs that also run 32-bit natively, then 10 years have not passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64#History_of_AMD64 :

AMD64 was created as an alternative to the radically different IA-64 architecture, which was designed by Intel and Hewlett Packard. Originally announced in 1999 with a full specification in August 2000, the AMD64 architecture was positioned by AMD from the beginning as an evolutionary way to add 64-bit computing capabilities to the existing x86 architecture, as opposed to Intel's approach of creating an entirely new 64-bit architecture with IA-64.

The first AMD64-based processor, the Opteron, was released in April 2003.
m
0
l
a b $ Windows 7
July 4, 2012 2:22:42 PM

mathew7 said:
Not true....When the 1st 64-bit CPU was made (I don't even know if it was Intel's), it had to run an OS. If you are talking about 64-bit CPUs that also run 32-bit natively, then 10 years have not passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64#History_of_AMD64 :

AMD64 was created as an alternative to the radically different IA-64 architecture, which was designed by Intel and Hewlett Packard. Originally announced in 1999 with a full specification in August 2000, the AMD64 architecture was positioned by AMD from the beginning as an evolutionary way to add 64-bit computing capabilities to the existing x86 architecture, as opposed to Intel's approach of creating an entirely new 64-bit architecture with IA-64.

The first AMD64-based processor, the Opteron, was released in April 2003.



AMD64 architecture and it being developed in 1999 or whatever you are blabbing on and on about, has nothing to do with my post. It is a simple fact that 64 bit capable CPU's have been around a LOT longer than 10 years, which I believe is exactly what I said. And to that end, sorry about the AMD64 thing (for why and what ever reason you felt you have to bring up AMD64), it has only been 9 years and 9 months, not quite 10 years, jeesh.
m
0
l
July 4, 2012 6:32:40 PM

mathew7 said:
That video is a 80% bullshit. I will comment on youtube when I get home. I barely got through the video without screaming.

1. RAM: 64-bit has NO RELATION TO RAM. This is done by countless misinformed people (including marketing) which rely on consumer Windows (not server). The 1st CPU that supported (implemented) up to 64GB was Pentium Pro back in 1995....there was no mention of 64-bit at that time. 32-bit applications are limited to 4GB addresses (note: not RAM). You can use a 32-bit OS (linux or Windows Server) with 64GB of RAM and actually using all of them by loading 10s of memory hungry applications (each with up to 2GB or 3GB actual usage...not 4GB). And this scenario is being used for over 10 years.

2. Speed: the video arguments the speed with previous point. While his arguments of swapping are valid, the reason is not 64-bit related. It's 32-bit Windows non-server related. But does not talk about quadrupling the register space, thus some application (like audio/video encoding) can use the additional registers for additional data and reduce memory access (even with cache, a memory access instruction is slower than a register-only instruction). For 32-bit games (current situation) a small speedup is expected because of 64-bit GPU drivers.

3. Compatibility: All 32-bit applications are compatible based on code. But some require drivers being installed, and those drivers need to be 64-bit. So applications which ship with only 32-bit drivers will never work. Also, 64-bit windows requires signed drivers, which prevents some "cheap" vendors releasing them for old HW or SW.

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension :
Microsoft Windows implements PAE if booted with the appropriate option, but current 32-bit desktop editions enforce the physical address space within 4GB even in PAE mode. According to Geoff Chappell, Microsoft limits 32-bit versions of Windows to 4GB as a matter of its licensing policy, and Microsoft Technical Fellow Mark Russinovich says that some drivers were found to be unstable when encountering physical addresses above 4GB. Unofficial kernel patches for Windows Vista and Windows 7 32-bit are available that break this enforced limitation, though the stability is not guaranteed.

HEHE, don't try to put too much just STRIKE your story. :na: 
m
0
l
July 4, 2012 6:36:31 PM

@mathew7, keep in mind the BIG difference between 32bit vs 64bit is RAM.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
July 4, 2012 6:48:07 PM

wow!
did we time warp back to 2006/7?
m
0
l
July 4, 2012 6:50:10 PM

lol ^
m
0
l
July 5, 2012 3:09:49 AM

lol :D  Thank you guys, I learnt a lot from this thread.
m
0
l
July 5, 2012 4:45:24 AM

xtreme5 said:
HEHE, don't try to put too much just STRIKE your story. :na: 


I have no idea what you are talking about.....but the guy with your link also released a 3rd revision of his video which is much more bearable.
m
0
l
!