32,64 bit & dual, quad CPU?

I have the 32 bit Windows 7 on my computer because it seems to work better than the 64 bit. However like any computer geek I want the 64 bit and with a removable Hard Drive I can put the 64 bit on the other Hard Drive. Once I get tired of my 32 bit I'm sure I'll build the 64 bit but once I do this I don't think Microsoft is going to like it if I plug in my 32 bit once I register the 64 bit? What do you think?
Now I want to build a new computer but what good is the quad? Does any software run on it using all 4 CPU's?

64-bit works better. If you have another licence go ahead. For quad, you need apps that support it, but it is good for futureproofing. Get an AMD Phenom x4 955. It runs at 3.2GHz and is equal to an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 for dual core games.

The benefits are most apparent when you have a large amount of ram installed on your computer typically 4 GB of RAM or more. Because a 64-bit operating system can handle large amounts of memory more efficiently than a 32-bit operating system can The 64-bit version of Windows handles large amounts of ram more effectively than a 32-bit system, a 64-bit system can be more responsive when running several programs at the same time and switching between them frequently. 64-bit is good if your a gamer and can use the extra ram.

Quad cores are good for having a number of apps running at the same time among other benefits.

Ordered a new system for my mom the day Dell started selling Win 7 systems. I went with a quad core, 8 GB RAM, 64-Bit Premium, and a beefed up Video card. She'd moved up from a 5 year old Inspiron 9400. Needless to say she's very impressed with the system and Windows 7. The 24" HD monitor is very nice :)

Quad core's are not recognized by most games.

Frostmourne said:

Quad core's are not recognized by most games.

Games and apps don't "recognise" processors at all, nor do they need to.

It's a common misconception that all processor cores are somehow monopolised and reserved for use by only one game/app/process at a time. The fallacious logic then goes on to conclude that having a quad or dual core (say) is completely pointless if your most important game or app is not multi-threaded.

It doesn't work that way. The boundary and unit of processor scheduling is the thread, and not the process. If YourFavGame can't spin off 4 concurrent number-crunching threads, the cores not dealing with the game will instead be assigned to other threads from different processes.

There's a lot more complexity, of course, but the short version is that there is absolutely no need to limit your processor purchase to a small number of cores, just because YourFavGame is not very multi-threaded. Get a system with the greatest number of cores you can reasonably afford. Right now, for most people that means a single quad core processor.

H2SO4 said:

Frostmourne said:

Quad core's are not recognized by most games.

Games and apps don't "recognise" processors at all, nor do they need to.

It's a common misconception that all processor cores are somehow monopolised and reserved for use by only one game/app/process at a time. The fallacious logic then goes on to conclude that having a quad or dual core (say) is completely pointless if your most important game or app is not multi-threaded.

It doesn't work that way. The boundary and unit of processor scheduling is the thread, and not the process. If YourFavGame can't spin off 4 concurrent number-crunching threads, the cores not dealing with the game will instead be assigned to other threads from different processes.

There's a lot more complexity, of course, but the short version is that there is absolutely no need to limit your processor purchase to a small number of cores, just because YourFavGame is not very multi-threaded. Get a system with the greatest number of cores you can reasonably afford. Right now, for most people that means a single quad core processor.

Same as I was saying.

Frostmourne said:

Same as I was saying.

Oh, OK, it was a misunderstanding then.

No problem.