Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: 32 v. 64

23 May 2010   #11
ColdIce

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by ColdIce View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by unifex View Post
I would not agree with baccusboy here. I have no problem whatsoever with copying files on Windows 7 x64. I would suggest that memory might have something to do with it. If you have less than 2 GB of memory, then perhaps 64-bit is not for you. Memory is cheap on the other hand. If your motherboard allows it, add memory and you will see noticeable improvement in performance (i.e. how fast files are copied). Of course, the 32-bit version cannot use more than 3 GB or so, so if you plan to have more than that (i.e. 4, 6, 8 GB or more), then 64-bit is your only choice.
I have 4gb of ram, but windows says that 3.25gb is useable. So all my games that I play in 32, will not work in 64?

My board supports 8gb which is stupid, because the 770 chipset should support 16...anyway..when I insert more than 2x2 paired, it wont boot up. Even if I add 1gb RAM+the 2x2. It MUST be paired RAM, come in the same package! Fkn disgusting motherboard!

So I really don't need 64bit just because of more memory
Your computer only says 3.25 GB usable because that is all that x32bit can support. If you want to make use of all 4 gigs of RAM, you MUST use x64bit OS.

Most RAM is either dual or triple channel, which means that you must install 2 (or 3) sticks of RAM (generally of the same kind) for the motherboard to work. This is a consideration you should have looked at when you bought the computer if you later planned to upgrade.

No, you don't NEED x64 unless you want to use the 4 gigs. It does NOT cost more than the x32, and if you bought a x32 bit OS already, you should be able to get the x64 version for free, with the same product key.

~Lordbob
So the games I play now, should work in 64?


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
23 May 2010   #12
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by ColdIce View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by ColdIce View Post
I have 4gb of ram, but windows says that 3.25gb is useable. So all my games that I play in 32, will not work in 64?

My board supports 8gb which is stupid, because the 770 chipset should support 16...anyway..when I insert more than 2x2 paired, it wont boot up. Even if I add 1gb RAM+the 2x2. It MUST be paired RAM, come in the same package! Fkn disgusting motherboard!

So I really don't need 64bit just because of more memory
Your computer only says 3.25 GB usable because that is all that x32bit can support. If you want to make use of all 4 gigs of RAM, you MUST use x64bit OS.

Most RAM is either dual or triple channel, which means that you must install 2 (or 3) sticks of RAM (generally of the same kind) for the motherboard to work. This is a consideration you should have looked at when you bought the computer if you later planned to upgrade.

No, you don't NEED x64 unless you want to use the 4 gigs. It does NOT cost more than the x32, and if you bought a x32 bit OS already, you should be able to get the x64 version for free, with the same product key.

~Lordbob
So the games I play now, should work in 64?
Yes. Unless you are playing really old games back from windows 95 days, there should not be a problem. Even then, most of those should work just fine.

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
23 May 2010   #13
ColdIce

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Okay thanks for that. But will I get more performance from cpu?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

23 May 2010   #14
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by ColdIce View Post
Okay thanks for that. But will I get more performance from cpu?
I do not believe there is a difference running x32 windows vs x64 windows on a x64 processor. It should have the same performance levels. The difference lies with the RAM and certain x64 applications that can use more.

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
23 May 2010   #15
kucing13

 

32bit limited on 4gb ram and below
64bit can used 4gb ram and above

and ram does effect pc performance
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 May 2010   #16
baccusboy

Windows 7 64-bit Pro
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by unifex View Post
I would not agree with baccusboy here. I have no problem whatsoever with copying files on Windows 7 x64. I would suggest that memory might have something to do with it. If you have less than 2 GB of memory, then perhaps 64-bit is not for you. Memory is cheap on the other hand. If your motherboard allows it, add memory and you will see noticeable improvement in performance (i.e. how fast files are copied). Of course, the 32-bit version cannot use more than 3 GB or so, so if you plan to have more than that (i.e. 4, 6, 8 GB or more), then 64-bit is your only choice.
I respect your opinion on the issue. I am running 4gb (2x2) of G-skill with 7-7-7-21 timings, but unfortunately, I am not alone in my feelings about copying files (in my case, more than one file at once to an external HDD):

Slow usb 2.0 transfer rate - drivers - windows-7

Read down into the thread, and you'll see a variety of complaints about the retail version, as well. Seems to be a Win7 thing.


Incidentally, this page would be most useful for the OP, as times comparing a variety of operating systems completing a variety of tasks are noted and graphed. Sadly, XP is not on the list, but Vista, Win7 32-bit, and Win7 64 are. Unfortunately, these charts are pre-release of Win7, but they are still good to see, assuming you're just deciding between 32 or 64 bit:

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benc...a-vs-windows-7


I might also add that, as much as people have bashed Vista (and rightly so, early on, IMHO) I wouldn't feel bad at all about having it on a computer today. I've been having some freezing issues with Windows 7 in the past few months, and I have to admit, I sometimes wish my machine were as smooth as my wife's Vista 64 machine. All was awesome with Win7 for the first few months, but something happened to start causing me problems -- be it an update, driver problem, or whatever. That, however, is a whole nother thread.


And one note to Kucing's post above mine... 32-bit will allow 4gb to install, but can only address/use 3gb of that. So yeah, you're wasting a gig of Ram. If you're someone who just does basic web surfing/office tasks, then 2gb is really all you need, in my opinion. With my 64-bit Win7 machine, when I was testing ram sticks to determine what my freezing problem might be, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that 2gb of Ram was more than enough for the general tasks that I like to do. I watched, and was using around 54% of my Ram when I had 2gb installed. Now, if I were a gamer, or into photo editing, It'd have to be 4gb or above for sure.

Lastly, a note to the 2nd post in this thread, from Bare Foot Kid. An interesting link was provided that says something like "64-bit, more benefits than just Ram." That article would be correct, but keep in mind -- it's from 2007. Here we are at 2010, and people are still waiting to see much of a difference. I think that's pretty telling!

Mostly, it comes down to what you want to do with it. I'd go 64-bit, merely because it's more future-proof, but if your machine is older, or just a web surfer/office type, then do whatever you want.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 May 2010   #17
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by baccusboy View Post
Lastly, a note to the 2nd post in this thread, from Bare Foot Kid. An interesting link was provided that says something like "64-bit, more benefits than just Ram." That article would be correct, but keep in mind -- it's from 2007. Here we are at 2010, and people are still waiting to see much of a difference. I think that's pretty telling!

Mostly, it comes down to what you want to do with it. I'd go 64-bit, merely because it's more future-proof, but if your machine is older, or just a web surfer/office type, then do whatever you want.
Perhaps this will help you and the OP: https://www.sevenforums.com/general-d...omparison.html

I would agree. In the end, I almost ALWAYS recommend going 64 bit. There is really no good reason NOT to.

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 May 2010   #18
NoN

Windows 7 Professional SP1 - x64 [Non-UEFI Boot]
 
 

@baccusboy,

I have only 5400rpm on my machine and external Hdd now. I have never encountered major slow copying files since RTM and i'm able moving over 2 x 500mb at once without any real slow down. When i first backed up my file over 200GB at 7 RTM bought (i'm not talking about before then) it didn't takes as long as i thought syncronizing all at once. 7 did the job well (x64 + 2x4gigs ram).

Just, it does looking freezing at start, and the green bar looks not moving, but in a sudden it does move straight from one to another and vice versa... Maybe the files are temporized before the final writting that's why the bar stays stuck...

Well i can tell before with 4200rpm transfert was hell moving...on x32

As far as i can see on mine, RTM didn't slowed down since the first install...but encountered better WEI score on memory process and memory ram process after some regular and basics tuning, same for the drive but less visible.

7200rpm is the common now and thinking moving on the hardware...but it will not change the manner 7 will do the things...just a little more fast!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 May 2010   #19
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

I have never had slow coping on 64 bit or 32 bit.

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 May 2010   #20
DeaconFrost

Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1
 
 

I wonder if, after 4 years of consumer-ready x64 OSes, the answer two all these threads will be: "If you have to ask, then it doesn't matter which version you install because you won't notice the difference"?

Anyway, to the OP. You have 4 GB of system memory already, if your sig is right. Given that, why wouldn't you already be running an x64 OS? Sure, there are plenty of other reasons why 64 bit is better, some debatable, but why would you even consider an OS platform that let's a good portion of your memory go to waste?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 32 v. 64




Thread Tools



Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:35.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App