32Bit VS 64Bit

[Kevorski]

I was just curious as to know what the difference, besides the numbers :P, was between operating systems. I really don't know but I would just like to know a little bit.

[YMAA]

64-bit kernels (the part of the OS that talks to the hardware) can address more physical memory than 32-bit kernels. 64-bit kernels also use more of the CPU's registers, which are small circuits inside the CPU that can store a value (about 1 bit in size). I learned this stuff in a Computer Organization class I took last semester, but can't quite remember all of it.

32-bit kernels have a limitation of about 3.75GB minus your video memory (correct me if I'm wrong somebody).

[Eurasianman]

Perhaps this might help: Differences and Advantages Between 32-bit (x86) VS 64-bit (x64) Windows Vista My Digital Life

Typically, 64-bit allows us to access more RAM. The downfall is legacy hardware doesn't quite have 64-bit drivers yet.

As far as 32-bit vs 64-bit for Vista... 64-bit Vista all the way!

[3lfk1ng]

You have a 64bit processor.
If your using a 32bit operating system, your theoretical bandwidth is cut in half.

Try to think of it like a highway. A highway with 2 lanes at rush hour traffic is not nearly as fast as it could be with 4 lanes.

Some games(GTA IV, Crysis) and programs (like CS4) are 64bit compatible and they will see framerate boosts or speed boosts if your using a 64bit processor on a 64bit operating system.

[Kevorski]

Perhaps this might help: Differences and Advantages Between 32-bit (x86) VS 64-bit (x64) Windows Vista My Digital Life

Typically, 64-bit allows us to access more RAM. The downfall is legacy hardware doesn't quite have 64-bit drivers yet.

As far as 32-bit vs 64-bit for Vista... 64-bit Vista all the way!

i had just read that article like 5 minutes ago

[Eurasianman]

So I take it it didn't help then? =/

Hopefully the other posts in this thread help shed some light

[MagicLess]

More memory, better performance for apps coded to run at 64-bit, legacy issues. That's what you're looking at in a sentence.

[exit2dos]

The maximum a 32-bit system can address 2^32 bytes of memory = 4,294,967,296 which is 4GB. The OS, drivers and hardware all require some address space, so the maximum amount of memory you can use is usually 3 to 3.5 GB, depending on your hardware.

A 64-bit system can address 2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes (18 Exabytes). Granted, nobody is going to make a motherboard with that many trace lines to support that much memory, but 64-bit Vista is designed to support configurations with 128GB of RAM.


As far as operations go, you won't see a difference between 64 and 32-bit. Mainstream software is designed and compiled for 32-bit so it will run on either system.

If you are going to Vista, I recommend 64-bit (Down the road, you'll probably have programs that need the extra RAM, plus 64-bit seems a little more stable for some reason).

If you do go with 64-bit, check to make sure all your hardware has 64-bit drivers available - most everything made in the past couple of years does, but I'd check all your manufacturer's websites first to be safe. With 32-bit Vista, you can usually use an old XP driver, but you can't with 64-bit.

Also, if you have any real old software from Win98 or older, you may want to use 32-bit Vista. Win95/98 were hybrid 16/32 bit, so some of the old programs use a 16-bit installer, which 32-bit Vista somewhat supports, but 64-bit Vista has no 16-bit support.

Finally, if you plan on learning or doing any Media Center development or plug-ins, stay with 32-bit. The 64-bit MCE front-end on Vista only runs in native 64-bit. Most projects utilize Flash, which doesn't have native 64-bit Window support.

[wuzy]

It's usually the peripheral devices from small companies you have to worry about, like the USB Bluetooth dongle I have here bought in the days of XP x86.
Luckily my scanner an Epson Photo V100 do have drivers for Vista x64, for capturing the virginity of the IHS.
Besides that almost every piece of internal hardware bought in the last few years (since Vista went RTM at end of 2006 Dec.) that need a driver are Vista x64 ready.

In general if memory usage is under the limit of 32-bit then a program coded in 64-bit vs. one coded in former, performance is almost the same (never less) and in same cases better due to the ability to take advantage of the extra registers.
AFAIK under 32-bit emulation condition of NT6.x x64 performance is basically the same except under extremely rare circumstances where the program is incompatible (usually poorly coded).

My and most people's experience with NT6.x x64 so far compared to x86 is that software compatibility-wise if it works in Vista x86 then it'll work in all variants of NT6.x x64. To me it's transparent. And as others have mentioned also, Vista x64 seems to be more stable for some reason, I personally believe that's due to enthusiast hardware drivers (what we run) more developed for x64.
Since almost all the computers we built nowadays have a minimum of 4GB anyway you're left with going x64. Even before I pair of 2x2GB and was running on 2x1GB for benching I still ran x64 because of better stability/speed drivers for modern hardware.

[Eurasianman]

To me it's transparent. And as others have mentioned also, Vista x64 seems to be more stable for some reason, I personally believe that's due to enthusiast hardware drivers (what we run) more developed for x64.

+5

For some odd reason, my old HP laptop would require a format about once a month, no joke, when running Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit. As soon as I finally had the time to load 64-bit Vista, didn't have a problem for the next 6 months (I sold it to someone and reloaded it to factory settings and let them deal with the problems. Besides, they were somewhat computer illiterate, I figured it'd be easier to just leave 32-bit Vista on there for whatever hardware crap they hook up to the laptop.

[wuzy]

Thinking back, how did the transition occur with 16-bit -> 32-bit?
We didn't have 16-bit and 32-bit Windows 95 back then, so what gives?

[Simul4ti0n]

Since they were hybrids nobody cared? Win95/98 ran both natively didn't they?

[exit2dos]

95/98 were hybrid to support older DOS applications. Many of the early Win95 programs were actually designed to run in 16-bit DOS under the Win95 shell. With Win98, most everything was 32-bit, which is what "broke" some programs - which is why a lot of people complained about 98 at first (even though it was much, much more stable than 95).

The big problem with 95/98 is that they both only supported a 16-bit GDI. This meant that things such as printer and scanner drivers could only be 16-bit, which is why many old printers and scanners wouldn't work with XP.

[Cain]

I dont think its been mentioned but with 32 bit theres 8 general purpose registers which are 32 bit wide and 8 SSE registers which are 128bit wide. Under 64bit the GPRs are extended to 64 bit width and the number of them is increased to 16 and the amount of SSE registers is increased to 16 as well.

So! potential speed up under certain circumstances.

[randomizer]

Right now I think only 48-bit address bus is used, but it's not like you can actually install enough RAM to use that up anyway

Also, pointers are doubled to 64 bits rather than 32 bits so memory usage is inherently a little higher, but you offset that buy increasing the address range and boosting the amount of memory you can actually use from pitiful to WTF.

[Violet_wind]

I can't wait for 256bit.

[JKflipflop]

I can't wait for 256bit.

Planning on getting one of those new Alienware's with 16 Exobytes of ram?

[randomizer]

Planning on getting one of those new Alienware's with 16 Exobytes of ram?

That would make a nice RAM disk.

[wuzy]

That would make a nice RAM disk.

Powercut, oh noes all QuadHD pr0n movies gone.