32 bit vs 64 bit Comparison

[chadh89]

This is a very useful post. I would also like to add that it's usually reasonable to use 64 bit on desktops and 32 bit on laptops. The reason I say this is because it's generally cheaper to get RAM for a desktop (and also less of a hassle to install). Furthermore, I find that average use on a laptop does not require more than 4GB of RAM. At that point you are spending extra money to increase laptop performance that would be much cheaper to do on a desktop, that would have a faster processor (assuming they are equivalent). The last thing is that if you are only running 32 bit on a desktop, then you are simply not utilizing its full potential. With faster processors and the ability to get RAM cheap, it makes no sense not to use 64 bit. This is of course my opinion, but something that I strongly support.

 

[Britton30]

DIMM and SODIMM RAM modules are very close in price although the SODIMM is slightly more costly. A laptop can benefit from having 64 bit just as well as a desktop can. I have experience with only one Dell lappy and it had a panel with one screw to access the RAM compartment, piece of cake. Netbooks and Ultra Books may pose more hassle.

 

[indianacarnie]

Greetings from across the river chadh89, Jeffersonville here !

I don't know...... my lappy is 64 and I wouldn't have it any other way. In January I think...... late January, I got 8 gigs for around $40.00 for my machine. It was on sale, and I did save a few extra bucks because I bought an SSD with it. But hey, 40 bucks for 8 gigs ain't bad. I remember paying more than that for a 512mb stick for my first desktop. lol..... guess I'm showing my age now huh?

 

[chadh89]

Greetings indianacarnie
I really can't argue with you on that, it sounds like you got a really good deal on your laptop. I suppose that since I have a one year old desktop vs a six year old laptop, it has jaded my opinion slightly towards laptops. I've done everything but throw my laptop away only because it still works when I need something to travel lol. I just find that having the faster processor and typically more RAM and HDD space takes the cake for me. But then again, that is only my preference of course. If I could get the equivalent processor speed, RAM and HDD space I would take the laptop in a heart beat.

 

[Britton30]

A friend of my nephew has an Alienware lappy that can run rings around any desktop I've seen. I don't know his specs, but new it was around $7000. :shock: He does play a lot of games on it.

 

[Layback Bear]

If one has more money than brains. I hope it comes with bodyguards when travailing.

Laptop Blog: Most expensive laptop you can buy

 

[indianacarnie]

Greetings indianacarnie
I really can't argue with you on that, it sounds like you got a really good deal on your laptop. I suppose that since I have a one year old desktop vs a six year old laptop, it has jaded my opinion slightly towards laptops. I've done everything but throw my laptop away only because it still works when I need something to travel lol. I just find that having the faster processor and typically more RAM and HDD space takes the cake for me. But then again, that is only my preference of course. If I could get the equivalent processor speed, RAM and HDD space I would take the laptop in a heart beat.

Take a peek at my system spec.'s if you haven't already. Not too bad for a lappy , of course I PAID for that i7 and have put a SSD in to replace one of my internal drives, but got it all for under $1500.00.Still have 2 memory slots open just begging to be filled . I do travel most of the year though so need a laptop much more than the average person. But you'd have to pry this machine from my dead hands before I'd give it up.

 

[chadh89]

I see your dilemma there. If you are required to travel, then I must admit that I would be doing the same exact thing as you have. For a laptop that nice, $1500 is not a bad deal at all, especially with the SSD. I'm typically near or around my house, so I enjoy the cheaper processor (in terms of getting a faster desktop processor for less than an equivalent laptop processor). I'm actually sitting with a i5 sandy bridge, 2.9 GHz that only cost me about $175 a year ago. I'm not certain off the top of my head, but I'm sure a 2.9 GHz laptop processor would cost close to double that (not to mention be torture installing in a laptop :shock.

 

[Strontium]

Just to add some clarification from the OP, one should look at both HW and SW limitations regarding memory.

A lot of the latest Intel CPU's are limited to 64GB of RAM while the hardware may limit that further. For instance running a 64-bit capable CPU with a 945 chipset will have a HW limit of 4GB, this means using a 64-bit OS on this will result in having less than 4GB usable, limitation would be similar to using 32-bit.

A lot of HW can use a lot more than 4GB RAM using 32-bit protected mode but the Windows OS may be capped to use less than 4GB, similar to the way some 64-bit Windows versions are limited to 8GB of RAM.

A 32-bit program that is flagged large address aware can use almost up to 4GB on a 64-bit OS albeit in 2x ~2GB chunks.

 

[LMiller7]

There is one thing that was not made clear in the original post although it may have been addressed in a later post. I didn't read the entire thread.

By default a 32 bit OS has a private virtual address space of 2 GB. There are 2 really important things to understand about this:

1. This is a private virtual address space. Each process has it's own 2 GB address space that is completely independent of all others. There is provision for sharing a portion of this address space.

2. The size of this virtual address space is completely independent of RAM size. Windows 95 had a minimum ram requirement of 4 MB RAM, yet the private address space was also 2 GB. In theory ALL of this address space could be used. Performance would have been poor but that doesn't invalidate the principle. And it wouldn't even need a large pagefile.

It really isn't about how much RAM can be used by an application but how much space there is for code and data.

I won't try to explain how this is accomplished. It is far from simple.

When the Win 32 platform was first designed a 2 GB address space was enormous. But for many modern applications it is a tight squeeze.

That is why 64 bit systems were designed in the first place.

64 bit native applications have a 8 TB (8192 GB) private address space. Again this is a private address space and is independent of RAM size. This allows developers to design applications in a more natural way without the constraints of a limited address space. This means more rapid development time and better application capability and performance. For some types of application this is an enormous advantage.

In a 32 bit OS the 2 GB address space was more or less fixed by the architecture. It could be increased to as much as 3 GB but this had such negative implications that it was not suitable for general use. But the current 8 TB address space is not a firm limit but one imposed because of practical considerations. Later 64 bit operating system could increase this by orders of magnitude.

Much more could be said but this post is long enough.

 

[ascomputers]

interesting post... good info

thanks

 

[hazel123]

Have just read this to help me decide which version of Windows 7 to install on a Vista laptop. Hmm. Seems like my laptop is borderline! I have just bought a used Sony Vaio VGN-CR31S/L. It has a core 2 duo processor and takes a maximum of 4gb ram. So ram wise I'm on the max for 32 bit and quite low on 64 bit I guess. I am tempted to go with 64 bit, but on the Sony support webside, all the original Vista drivers are only available for 32 bit. They do have windows 7 drivers in either 32 or 64 bit. I believe Windows 7 installs most of the drivers automatically, but this model laptop has some specific function keys, that I would need to download the software for. I have read the other post on here about how to make Sony function keys work after upgrading to Windows 7. But am not sure whether that now limits me to 32 bit or not. It would be nice to be able to use all my 4gb of ram in 64 bit. On the other hand, I guess 32 bit would be fine. But I quite like the idea of being on 64 bit as I am wondering how long it will be before 32 bit becomes extinct! What does anyone think?

 

[hazel123]

It's ok - I think I need to stick with 32 bit as the additional sony drivers required after clean install, are only in 32 bit (from the post about extra sony drivers needed to make function keys work).

 

[HoneycombAG]

How much maximum RAM does Windows 8 x64 access?

 

[ICIT2LOL]

How much maximum RAM does Windows 8 x64 access?

Have a look here mate I think maybe some of th business stuff may support more bit I think I ma right in saying 32GB max Windows 8 CP RAM max limits (32bit vs 64bit)

 

[LMiller7]

According to this article the maximum RAM for Windows 8 is 128 GB and 512 GB for Professional and Enterprise editions.
Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)

But in the real world the limit will usually be that imposed by the hardware.

 

[JamesAS]

*86

Why is 64 bit *64 but 32 bit *86 ? :huh:

 

[LMiller7]

The reason is historical.
x86 refers to the series of Intel processors beginning with the 8086 and continuing to the modern, even they no longer use that numbering sequence. These were the the processors in use when the first 32 operating systems were introduced. 64 bit systems do not have this long history and are simply referred to as x64.

 

[JamesAS]

Interesting
Thanks

 

[ICIT2LOL]

The reason is historical.
x86 refers to the series of Intel processors beginning with the 8086 and continuing to the modern, even they no longer use that numbering sequence. These were the the processors in use when the first 32 operating systems were introduced. 64 bit systems do not have this long history and are simply referred to as x64.

Good explanation LM