By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Vista 32 vs 64

ion-storm on 24 June 2008
Soleron said:
ion-storm said:
Soleron said:
ion-storm said:
Soleron said:

64-bit OSs:

- Allow you to fully use 4GB+ of memory

- Can only be run on AMD64 processors

- Use more memory in general

- 32-bit applications or unoptimised ones are generally slower

- Optimised 64-bit applications are generally faster

- Many driver incompatibilities at present: it can be difficult to make hardware work

 

I don't know where you got that from.

You might have heard of a small start up company called Intel? Any intel processor with EM64T extensions can run 64 bit  programs. Think core2 and even some of the cpus before that had it.

 

Yeah, Intel's Core 2 and later are AMD64 compatible. But AMD invented it and Intel cloned it.

 

Not like AMD never licensed intel technologies. Hello SSE!

 

Due to AMD and Intel's special situation (whereby AMD ought not to exist if it weren't for some questionable court cases) they have an agreement to freely use each others' technology after a set period of time. Both companies innovate, cross-license and then 'steal' (e.g. QPI = HyperTransport). I am choosing to call it AMD64, as many vendors call it x86-64, Intel 64 or EM64T:

"Since AMD64 and Intel 64 are substantially similar, many software and hardware products use one vendor-neutral term to indicate their support for both implementations. AMD's original designation for this processor architecture, "x86-64", is still sometimes used for this purpose, as is the variant "x86_64".[13] Other companies, such as Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, use "x64" (as a contraction of "x86-64") in marketing material.

Many operating systems and products, especially those that introduced x86-64 support prior to Intel's entry into the market, use the term "AMD64" or "amd64" to refer to support for both AMD64 and Intel 64.

  • BSD systems such as FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD support both AMD64 and Intel 64 under the architecture name "amd64".
  • Debian GNU/Linux, ubuntu, and Gentoo support both AMD64 and Intel 64 under the architecture name "amd64".
  • Java Development Kit (JDK): The name "amd64" is used in directory names containing x86-64 files.
  • Microsoft Windows: x64 versions of Windows use the AMD64 moniker to designate various components which use 64-bit technology for IA-32 processors. For example, the system folder on a Windows x64 Edition installation CD-ROM is named "AMD64", in contrast to "i386" in 32-bit versions.
  • Solaris: The isalist command in Sun's Solaris operating system identifies both AMD64- and Intel 64–based systems as "amd64"."

- Wikipedia

 

I still feel x86-64 or x64 is a much better term for it. It's also the terms I hear more often.  AMD64 adds too much AMD spin to the technology. Though I did misinterpret your original statement as saying you need an AMD 64 bit processor to run it. I apologise.

That said, you make it sound like a 64 bit operating system needs an x86-64 compatible processor to run. There are other 64bit technologies out there. Though it is unlikely any of us would be buying them :)

 



Yes

Around the Network
Soleron on 24 June 2008
ion-storm said:

I still feel x86-64 or x64 is a much better term for it. It's also the terms I hear more often.  AMD64 adds too much AMD spin to the technology. Though I did misinterpret your original statement as saying you need an AMD 64 bit processor to run it. I apologise.

That said, you make it sound like a 64 bit operating system needs an x86-64 compatible processor to run. There are other 64bit technologies out there. Though it is unlikely any of us would be buying them :)

 

I would love to run 64-bit Linux on POWER or SPARC hardware. It just doesn't exist at desktop prices (except consoles obviously)

You can run 64-bit Windows on IA-64 (Itanium) too, but again...

 



digitalcell on 24 June 2008
TheRealMafoo said:

Thanks. I seem to not have SP1 installed. Should I install it? I hear it fixes very little, and slows the OS down (sounds like Vista vs XP :p).

What do you guys think? :)

P.S. Thanks for the history lesson on AMD64. Very interesting.

I too heard of SP1 causing problems with some people. I haven't noticed anything odd at all. There's a huge list of improvements that you can check out here: http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/417467e7-7845-46d4-85f1-dd471fbc0de91033.mspx?mfr=true



Shinlock on 24 June 2008

64bit has been more stable for me then 32bit.

To be vista certified hardware makers do have to produce both 32bit and 64bit drivers. however the quality of some 64bit drivers are questionable.



 

WEWdeadeye on 24 June 2008

64 bit is the better version to get if you are going to be running Vista. Why would you want to get the BRAND NEW OS and run the outdated 32-bit version? I have never had a single crash or error running Vista64 Ultimate, the thing is rock hard stable, it is amazing. There is a real easy fix around the signed drivers too, that doesn't require any 3rd party programs, just a few tweaks in windows will take care of it (I haven't been asked about signed drivers since the 2nd day I had Vista installed).

Crysis uses a TON of memory if you have it, and you will notice an advantage in all aspects of windows vista64 with 4GB of ram or more, Vista runs faster than XP32 did for me, and games seem to run a lot smoother also. I can't hype Vista64 up enough, this OS has absolutely exceeded all my expectations (which were low at first after reading all the negative press). Most of the people you see bashing Vista on internet forums have never even used it! Everyone I have talked to on all my gaming/hardware/PC related forums love vista, and couldn't imagine going back to XP. I almost never hear people complain about Vista if they ACTUALLY have it installed on their computer, as opposed to those who just bash it using examples taken from other people in the forums or random articles around the web that reek of bias.

That is just my take on things. If you go Vista, there is no reason you shouldn't get the 64 bit version, and there is no reason you should get the 32bit version. If you are going to run 32-bit OS, stick with XP, and don't waste your money buying Vista.



Currently Playing:

PS4 - Killzone:SF and Assasins Creed 4

 

XBox One: BF4, CoD:Ghosts, Dead Rising 3, Forza 5

 

Changing channels with my voice: priceless!!!

Around the Network
PapaSmurf5721 on 28 June 2008

64 is best for gaming.



                                     

                             End of 2008 Sales:

               Wii- 39 Million 360- 25Million PS3- 22 Million

                          PSN: papasmurf5721

                  

 

         

 

                                                   

      

a12331 on 28 June 2008

I have 64 bit and is better than 32bit. it runs faster and it is harder to get a virus. But It is hard to find a good 64 bit antivirus, firewall, and antispyware.



Squilliam on 28 June 2008
a12331 said:
I have 64 bit and is better than 32bit. it runs faster and it is harder to get a virus. But It is hard to find a good 64 bit antivirus, firewall, and antispyware.

Except that you don't need it as much. The 64 bit kills compatibility for a lot of insecure 16bit code right out of the box.

 



Tease.

TheRealMafoo on 28 June 2008
WEWdeadeye said:
64 bit is the better version to get if you are going to be running Vista. Why would you want to get the BRAND NEW OS and run the outdated 32-bit version? I have never had a single crash or error running Vista64 Ultimate, the thing is rock hard stable, it is amazing. There is a real easy fix around the signed drivers too, that doesn't require any 3rd party programs, just a few tweaks in windows will take care of it (I haven't been asked about signed drivers since the 2nd day I had Vista installed).

Crysis uses a TON of memory if you have it, and you will notice an advantage in all aspects of windows vista64 with 4GB of ram or more, Vista runs faster than XP32 did for me, and games seem to run a lot smoother also. I can't hype Vista64 up enough, this OS has absolutely exceeded all my expectations (which were low at first after reading all the negative press). Most of the people you see bashing Vista on internet forums have never even used it! Everyone I have talked to on all my gaming/hardware/PC related forums love vista, and couldn't imagine going back to XP. I almost never hear people complain about Vista if they ACTUALLY have it installed on their computer, as opposed to those who just bash it using examples taken from other people in the forums or random articles around the web that reek of bias.

That is just my take on things. If you go Vista, there is no reason you shouldn't get the 64 bit version, and there is no reason you should get the 32bit version. If you are going to run 32-bit OS, stick with XP, and don't waste your money buying Vista.

 

I went 32 bit because I had the disk, and I knew it had an upgrade path (I will need to hunt down the 64 bit version). I was in the middle of a few games, and didn't want to blow it all away. I have an MSDN license, so it's free for me. (all MS Software is actually).

Can you upgrade from the 32bit to the 64 bit, or do you have to start over? (I have finished the games, so not that big of a deal if you have to start over).



Squilliam on 28 June 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
WEWdeadeye said:

 

I went 32 bit because I had the disk, and I knew it had an upgrade path (I will need to hunt down the 64 bit version). I was in the middle of a few games, and didn't want to blow it all away. I have an MSDN license, so it's free for me. (all MS Software is actually).

Can you upgrade from the 32bit to the 64 bit, or do you have to start over? (I have finished the games, so not that big of a deal if you have to start over).

 

 Start over... I don't think you can do an upgrade.



Tease.