64 bit, or 32 bit, that is the question...

[Noles]

Since my computer supposedly can run with a 64 bit OS, I was thinking about reinstalling Windows 7, this time with the 64 bit version.

Now, I know the main reasons for wanting to have a 64 over a 32, but the main thing I am not sure about is if from a 7 standpoint, is it worth it? Everything basically works flawlessly for me now, and I just want that continue - hopefully even better than before. Anyone have personal experience with a 64 bit, and how it could potentially be worse than 32 (driver problems?). I've read a lot of good and a lot of bad out of the two, and just wanted to get some of your opinions as well.

I've linked my system specifications, so be sure to look at those too and tell me if it's even worth it for a spec standpoint. Thanks.

 

[clone11]

I'm running W7 x64 right now, I haven't ran into any problems and i'm playing all my games perfectly fine Half life 2-Mods and guild wars. I don't have any driver problems with nvidias drivers i'm not sure about ATI's drivers though.

 

[Cr00zng]

If the "main reason" is being able to utilize the 4 GBs of memory, then that's the only reason I see in your case. I've been using Vista and now Windows 7 64-bit edition for the same reason and just because I can.

Performance wise, there isn't really a performance increase with the 64-bit OS. Most if not all programs are still 32-bit; I did come across couple of 32-bit programs that would not run on 32-bit. The majority of them had been system utilities and little programs downloaded from the web.

It really depends on what you're doing with your computer and how much more memory you can add or need. Some of the graphic and other memory intensive 64-bit applications would be much faster with the added memory. The 64-bit version of MS Office does not have the 64K row limitation in excel spreadsheet, but other people with 32-bit version will not be able to see your document. Well, nothing beyond the 65K rows that is.

For desktops, it is still too early for the 64-bit OS in my opinion. The chances are that you'd better of staying with the 32-bit OS.

Cr00zng

 

[zrtom]

Hey Noles,
I have W7 x64 on both of my XPS 420's. No issues whatsoever with the RC (nor on several pre- and post-beta builds). Everything I can imagine installing has worked. From Acronis True Image to Acronis Disk Director to Adobe Photoshop and Premiere Elements to Office 2007 Ultimate to Roxio Creator Premiere, Sling Player, Firefox, you name it....as well as many off-the-wall programs all work great.

I've used Vista x64 on my M1330's for some time for the speed and stability. But last year when Dell was doling out the Vista x64 disks for the asking I installed Vista x64 on one of my XPS 420s (no real reason; Vista x86 was working fine) and immediately saw quite an improvement. Comparing fresh installs of Vista x86 with x64 on the same machine, the difference seemed to be like night and day. From those experiments last summer I knew I would NEVER go back to x86.

THEN Windows 7 appears and based on rather rigorous experiments (or, you might call it hacking) last year, installing W7 x86 never even crossed my mind.

My take on the x86 vs. x64 is this. Some programs and devices come with 64-bit versions or drivers and run fine. Some 32-bit programs need to run under Windows on Windows and usually quite well. But the MAIN thing that is running all of the time is the Operating System. THAT is running much faster and more efficiently as 64-bit.

My experience with Vista x64 showed it was not only faster, it was rock solid stable. Nothing ever "went wrong." Well, Windows 7 x64 is even better.

So there you have it. Just a humble opinion but at least one using the same computer you have.
Tom

 

[Noles]

So assuming I don't upgrade at all (staying with 4GB), you think I'll be able to benefit? I heard that you had to have at least 4GB to even notice the changes or the two.

As for programs running better, basically it's just going to be the 64 bit programs that will work better? Will the older games/applications still probably work, but just not have much if any increase in performance with x64?

 

[Flukester]

4GB is a minimum for any gaming enthusiast. Ram is cheap. I'm throwing in an extra 4GB to total 8GB myself. I am operating with 4GB now and playing games without a problem but I imagine it will be even smoother and solid with 8GB. I'm told though 6GB is a sweet spot for Windows 7. 64bit is not huge right now but I like to experiment and stuff. All I can say is try it, if you don't like it put on 32bit. Keep XP installed, throw Windows 7 on another partition.

 

[pominator]

People tend to forget that 64 bits code is 30% bigger than 32 bits. You won't get 1 extra gigabyte with 4gb or memory when upgrading to 64 bits, more like ~300mb. The extra memory is almost entirely taken by the bigger code size. I don't think that their is any noticable difference with 4gb. With less than 4gb it is better to stay with 32bits, even if you processor support 64bits.

 

[fakeasdf]

Read my signature... Second, less than 4gb it isn't better to go with 32 bits, 64 bit offers more than just the ability to address a memory set bigger than 2^32, it offers more hardware security features. It also offers a bigger and more advanced instruction set, that when taken advantage of can offer performance gains. And with 64 bit you can run new software that does take advantage of 64 bit technology or 32 bit software which doesn't take advantage of this technology without a performance hit. Go 64 and get the best of both worlds. Unless your hardware manufacturer is a DB and doesn't have drivers, which is so 2007... More than likely not an issue. 64 bit is definitely recommended.

 

[zrtom]

fakeasdf,
Your sig says it all. I like it.
Tom

 

[pominator]

Point me to some benchmark showing that 64 bits is really faster than 32 bits? If my memory if good, it is 3 to 4% faster or slower with 64 bits. With 3Gb or less it is a bad move in my opinion. The additional ram will give much more benefit than the mostly placebo benefit of 64 bits.

Read my signature... Second, less than 4gb it isn't better to go with 32 bits, 64 bit offers more than just the ability to address a memory set bigger than 2^32, it offers more hardware security features. It also offers a bigger and more advanced instruction set, that when taken advantage of can offer performance gains. And with 64 bit you can run new software that does take advantage of 64 bit technology or 32 bit software which doesn't take advantage of this technology without a performance hit. Go 64 and get the best of both worlds. Unless your hardware manufacturer is a DB and doesn't have drivers, which is so 2007... More than likely not an issue. 64 bit is definitely recommended.

 

[pominator]

Performance Shootout--Microsoft Vista 32-bit versus Vista 64-bit - OS, Software & Networking by ExtremeTech

"In general, though, the situation with 64-bit applications and 32-bit applications on Vista 64 isn't mature yet. While a user running large data sets will almost certainly see improved performance, users with less demanding needs may actually see reduced performance."

 

[fakeasdf]

Valid concern, and I've run plenty of performance tests myself with very few cases in which 64 bit didn't outperform 32 bit, especially when there was a 64 bit version of the software. But that's an unfair thing for me to state. I'll do a slew of tests tomorrow with x64 and x86 and post all of my findings. I can't promise totally beautiful graphs, but I'll try my best.

 

[zrtom]

Performance Shootout--Microsoft Vista 32-bit versus Vista 64-bit - OS, Software & Networking by ExtremeTech

"In general, though, the situation with 64-bit applications and 32-bit applications on Vista 64 isn't mature yet. While a user running large data sets will almost certainly see improved performance, users with less demanding needs may actually see reduced performance."

The ExtremeTech article (concerning Vista, not Windows 7) is over a year old. In light of the very last paragraph of the article (the one after the one you quoted), maybe things have improved since then:

"The bottom line: 64-bit Vista is certainly viable from a performance perspective, but still has a ways to go. Now if we can get all the apps developers to think in 64-bit mode, maybe we'll get better performance all around. But don't forget to stock up on memory."

 

[Noles]

I've got 4 GB as of now, but I guess the next thing to do would be to start adding more memory manually... now that's scary.

 

[Captain Zero]

Didn't we already cover this?

 

[fakeasdf]

Yeah, but we need pictures and #'s to make the argument stick into peoples heads

 

[pominator]

Yes, good benchmark would be very good news indeed. I don't want to stay with 32 bits forever. Most people don't take into account the 64 bits code lenght though. It sound logical in my mind that a system with 3 gb or less of memory will run smoother with a 32 bits os as the benchmark I saw don't give any significant advantage to the 64 bits. I will take an attentive look at the fakeasdf benchmark for sure.

 

[Zagadka]

I don't think we'll be pointing at 64-bit systems and saying "look how great they are!" for general use, but switching to 64-bit is an improvement that will eventually be made by everyone. If you're making a system for the future, make it 64-bit for maximum lifespan...

The thing is that right now, most things are coded in 32-bit. That has inertia - notably, standing still. Pushing that to 64-bit will take its own inertia, but like DDR RAM and all the other stuff, it'll go. More programs are being written in 64-bit versions now, in a few years the main version will be a 64-bit and 32-bit will be a compatibility mode. You (almost) always want to be on the top of the tech tree.

 

[Orbital Shark]

This discussion was first devised here - http://www.sevenforums.com/installation-setup/9402-32bit-vs-64bit-install.html - saves using multiple threads

 

[Jon55]

64-bit, welcome to 2007