32bit better then 64?

[theory18]

Hi i always used win7 (32bit) but had 4gig ram, so i deciced to upgrade it to 64bit.
Both where installed fine with basic windows drivers.

But with the 32bit version my Windows Performance Index was higher then 65bit.
On the 32bit my processor and RAM got an 5+ and now with 64bit they get a 4.5.

Aren't those supposed to be better since they go from 3.3useable ram to 4?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Dinesh]

I really dont bother about the WEI score. On Win7 32bit, my system rating was 3.7 and in 64bit, the rating dropped to 3.5. But I like 64 bit OS. Reason: Does any one still play the old 8bit games? No, right.

 

[Frostmourne]

The WEI matters, as Aero can be switched depending on the score. I would install the latest chipset drivers and reseat everything.

 

[Dinesh]

The WEI matters, as Aero can be switched depending on the score. I would install the latest chipset drivers and reseat everything.

As I said earlier, using 64bit, my scores dipped little bit, but no effect on performance and AERO.

 

[Frostmourne]

The WEI matters, as Aero can be switched depending on the score. I would install the latest chipset drivers and reseat everything.

As I said earlier, using 64bit, my scores dipped little bit, but no effect on performance and AERO.

The scores and shouldn't change on a fresh reformat of 7.

 

[Dinesh]

The WEI matters, as Aero can be switched depending on the score. I would install the latest chipset drivers and reseat everything.

As I said earlier, using 64bit, my scores dipped little bit, but no effect on performance and AERO.

The scores and shouldn't change on a fresh reformat of 7.

Yes it did. On my laptop and desktop.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

The WEI matters, as Aero can be switched depending on the score. I would install the latest chipset drivers and reseat everything.

As I said earlier, using 64bit, my scores dipped little bit, but no effect on performance and AERO.

The scores and shouldn't change on a fresh reformat of 7.

My scores are different in 32-bit then they are in 64-bit. Like Dinesh, I tend not to care much about my WEI.

 

[Frostmourne]

Hmmm, interesting. Hasn't happened here. I do run the WEI twice after drivers though. My 4890 increased from 6 or so to its normal 7.4 but only after running it twice and a reboot.

 

[helmutcheese]

WEI in real life mean jack.

Very inaccurate also.

 

[WowMike2002]

If you read the indexing score system in WEI - it states that the values for counting will be adjusted per different systems being used, and updated as new programs allow.

I would assume that the change is because 64bit requires steeper system hardware, so it grades more harshly to be able to run at premium performance. As the years go by, it will also start grading you lowe rand lower to make up for more enhanced programs and requirements on those programs.

 

[Konceptz804]

I can't remember where I read this, but WEI supposedly "adjusts" the windows install to your hardware. On every clean install I try to run it after I install chipset drivers, and degrag, afterwards I continue on installing my software. But unless some critical app you run or require doesn't work under 64bit, there is absolutely no reason other then personal preference to still be running a 32bit OS in this day and age.

 

[Product FRED]

IMO, Windows 7 is the start of 64-bit as a standard, whereas Windows XP x64 and Vista x64 were more proof-of-concept than polished and ready for consumer usage. Maybe it's just me, but at this point running Windows 7 x86 just seems unecessary. Besides, any 32-bit version of Windows (ie XP, Vista, 7) will only see up to about 3.5 GB of RAM, whereas for 64-bit versions of Windows 7, you can have up to:

• Starter: 8GB
• Home Basic: 8GB
• Home Premium: 16GB
• Professional: 192GB
• Enterprise: 192GB
• Ultimate: 192GB

 

[Thorsen]

I can't remember where I read this, but WEI supposedly "adjusts" the windows install to your hardware. On every clean install I try to run it after I install chipset drivers, and degrag, afterwards I continue on installing my software. But unless some critical app you run or require doesn't work under 64bit, there is absolutely no reason other then personal preference to still be running a 32bit OS in this day and age.

Actually there is a reason. If you have 4 or more gigs of RAM, you will not be able to use them with 32x....so while a mobo might support 16G of ram, you are still stuck at ~3.25G of ram. other than that, yes all programs still have 32x versions as it is still the most used, but if you go and buy a new computer, all you will see for win7 is 64x

Edit: yeah what Fred said

 

[Jonathan_King]

The truth is x64 uses more resources, and has a lot more problems, especially driver issues.

Unless I have 4GB or more of RAM, I install the 32-bit version. I don't see any sense risking BSODs, using more resources, and having the few incompatible programs when I only have 2GB.

 

[karlsnooks]

Jonathan,
Precisely, If i'm advising a non-techie, plain email, word, play dvd/cd user then I always recommend 32 bit. Someday 64 bit will be as solid as 32bit but that day is not here yet.

 

[Frostmourne]

Jonathan,
Precisely, If i'm advising a non-techie, plain email, word, play dvd/cd user then I always recommend 32 bit. Someday 64 bit will be as solid as 32bit but that day is not here yet.

When a BSOD happens on any system - x86 or x86-64 - its the users fault. 64-bit is stable and 32-bit is heading the way of the dodo.

 

[Jonathan_King]

Ken can back me up on this, the vast majority of BSODs are x64.

It is true 64-bit has less driver support, but it is not a big issue anymore. There are few programs and drivers not compatible with x64 at this point.

 

[zigzag3143]

The truth is x64 uses more resources, and has a lot more problems, especially driver issues.

Unless I have 4GB or more of RAM, I install the 32-bit version. I don't see any sense risking BSODs, using more resources, and having the few incompatible programs when I only have 2GB.

I agree and though 32 bit is on its way out, it still is more stable.

Jonathan,
Precisely, If i'm advising a non-techie, plain email, word, play dvd/cd user then I always recommend 32 bit. Someday 64 bit will be as solid as 32bit but that day is not here yet.

Absolutely. Unless the average user is going to be doing instense video editing, or something else like gaming they are never going to need more than the 3.25 Gigs In my humble opinion.

Jonathan,
Precisely, If i'm advising a non-techie, plain email, word, play dvd/cd user then I always recommend 32 bit. Someday 64 bit will be as solid as 32bit but that day is not here yet.

When a BSOD happens on any system - x86 or x86-64 - its the users fault. 64-bit is stable and 32-bit is heading the way of the dodo.

I beg to differ. As someone who has done thousands of BSOD's the majority of them 64 bit, I would have to agree with Johnathan_King and conclude that 64 bit does have more problems with drivers and memory.

The statement that BSOD's are the Users fault denies the obvious poorly written drivers, and many other factors.

Yes 32 Bit is headed the way of the Dodo, just not yet.

In short to answer the thread starters question, unless there is a pressing need for more processing power 32 bit will suffice.

 

[Frostmourne]

Ken can back me up on this, the vast majority of BSODs are x64.

It is true 64-bit has less driver support, but it is not a big issue anymore. There are few programs and drivers not compatible with x64 at this point.

BSOD's are caused by users - wrong software/outdated drivers. 7 is stable.

 

[zigzag3143]

Ken can back me up on this, the vast majority of BSODs are x64.

It is true 64-bit has less driver support, but it is not a big issue anymore. There are few programs and drivers not compatible with x64 at this point.

BSOD's are caused by users - wrong software/outdated drivers. 7 is stable.

Nope we must agree to dis-agree.