64- or 32- bit with 4gb RAM on CoreI5?

[gregrocker]

As a rule of thumb I normally install 32-bit on 4gb of RAM or less since some is apportioned to hardware anyway - check how much on Memory tab in Resource Monitor.

I've seen others say to go with 64-bit on 4gb or even 2gb RAM since it's capable, but am curious how that would perform. All I've compared is the bloated factory preinstall of 64-bit just before I reinstall 32-bit on 4gb RAM.

For normal usage with web browsing, Quickbooks, Office spreadsheets, ITunes, etc. is installing 32 bit on 4gb RAM cheating user of any performance advantage? Isn't 64-bit really only needed for some video editors or PhotoShop-type uses?

Thanks for the feedback on this to build a consensus.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Greg:

I used 32-bit with 4 GB of RAM for a while because one of my apps would not install with 64-bit.

I later replaced the app with a version that is 64-bit compatible and switched to 64-bit Windows shortly thereafter.

It was mostly a case of "why not"---I don't notice any performance differences and very rarely use more than 3 GB of RAM.

I'd certainly have stayed with 32-bit without a doubt if I had any particular reason to do so--such as application incompatibility.

But I don't see any over-riding reason to go with 32-bit just because you have 4 GB of RAM.

 

[seavixen32]

There's no real reason why you shouldn't use a 64-bit system, but having used both (32-bit & 64-bit) I haven't noticed any discernible difference in performance between them.

My main reason for choosing a 64-bit operating system is that I use Adobe Design Premium CS5, which has both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Photoshop CS5 Extended. Photoshop's performance is definitely better using the 64-bit system.

Other than that, I'd agree with gregrocker's premise that a 32-bit system with 4Gb of RAM is just fine for everyday use.

 

[TVeblen]

My understanding is that 64 bit refers to the data path (bus), particularly between RAM and the processor. Put simply, a 64 bit system will use whatever amount of RAM is installed 'faster' than a 32 bit system and with (theoretically) fewer bottlenecks.

The deciding factor for me is whether or not the rig has a 64 bit processor or not. Not the amount of RAM.

 

[DavidE]

I've got a PC with 4 GB Ram and Win 7 32-bit & 64-bit installed.

The 64-bit OS uses 1 MB Ram for Hardware Reserved
The 32-bit OS uses 513 MB Ram for Hardware Reserved

I lose .5 GB using 32-bit Windows.

 

[LittleJay]

I have run both 32 bit and 64 bit on my HP laptop with 4 GBs of RAM and the only difference I have noticed is that the 32 bit version is about 8 GBs smaller in size on the HDD.

 

[Stratos]

At 4GB total system RAM, there's no reason not to use the 64 bit OS. If you had only 2GB then my reply would be different.

 

[DocBlase]

Maybe I'm comparing apples and strawberries, since I am not running an identical machine to the spec in the poll. I bought this Acer about a year ago with the understanding that it was shipping with both 32 and 64 bit versions of Win 7.
Well it wasn't shipping with both (surprising mis-info from NewEgg). It was 32 bits with 4Gb DDR3, period; and I used the machine that way until last month when a trojan downloaded with a Mozilla You Tube downloader "Add-On" and pretty soon the system software was wrecked.

A restore from the rescue partition got things runing again, but since the malware had de-validated my Photoshop license and the restore had wiped all my installed apps, I decided to upgrade to x64 and see what it'd be like to use all the ram.

Now... whether the stock Acer Win 7 was loaded with system-draining bloatware and that's why a clean install of x64 has been a dramatic improvement, or whether the 64 bit OS just worked better with the machine's archetecture, I have no way of knowing.

There is no comparison though, between the performance I'm getting with the x64 now and the x32 then. And since I do use the machine for video editing and photo processing, I added 4 more Gigs of (really inexpensive now) RAM, and wish I had done this on day one.

This is an Acer Veriton business machine, Intel i3 running at 3.07 GHz, with a dual-head EVGA video card 1Gb video RAM @ DDR3.

DocB

 

[kado897]

The real question you should be asking is this. Will I need to increase my RAM in the future? If the answer is yes then go 64bit otherwise 32bit.

 

[Dwarf]

I've added the option and voted for both, since I have 4GB and I have both 32-bit and 64-bit OSes installed.

 

[Hopalong X]

I used the 64bit for about 6 months with 4GB of ram with no issues. Very seldom came close to using all 4GB.

Ram prices dropped last year to less than half what I paid for the original 4GB. I added 4GB more of matching for total of 8GB.
Even though RAM was not an issue I figured why not while matching RAM was available.
Future proof it for $50.
I have never been able to tell the difference.

Memsat scores went up some but not a lot.
I have tried maxing it out with apps running. If memory serves I did manage to get between 4-5GB actually in use.

So 4GB was sufficient for my system. Occasionally the 8GB might be an advantage.

The SSD was the real giant killer.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I use 4 GB as my line. 2 or 3 GB gets x86. 4 GB and above gets x64.

 

[alphanumeric]

To me there is more to it than just the amount of RAM installed. If you have a video card with its own dedicated onboard RAM and 4 gigs of system RAM, I'd want to go 64 bit to make the most use out of it. I went 64 bit on all my systems. The only one I consider questionable is my laptop that only has 3 gigs or RAM and an onboard video that uses some of that. I've been using it for a while, and I am tempted to go 32 bit on it when it needs a reinstall, just to see it there is any noticeable difference in performance. I was going to bump the RAM up to its 4 gig max but haven't gotten a round toit.

 

[rraod]

I have used both 32 bit and 64 bit windows and both were equally good at 4GB RAM. Opting for 64 bit is to make the system future proof as any new applications which might be only 64 bit will run on 64 bit but not on 32 bit OS. And any 32 bit application can be mostly run on 32 bit and 64 bit systems. The future is for the 64 bit applications and slowly the 32 bit applications disappear from market like the 16 bit apps.

The second reason is that the RAM prices are decreasing compared to earlier and with a 64 bit OS, I can add more RAM (upto the maximum that the hardware allows me). With 32 bit OS there is no point in increasing RAM beyond 4 GB.

 

[TVeblen]

I finally found this article in the depths of my bookmarks. It explains the benefit of 64 bit architecture beyond the RAM consideration:
64-bit: More than just the RAM | bit-tech.net

The article is old, but still relevant.

 

[alphanumeric]

It may be a bit old but it was still a good read. I'll bookmark that for sure.

 

[unifex]

I use the 64-bit everything. Basically, I figure that since my processor is 64 bit - as are most of the recently produced Intel chips - why limit myself with the 32-bit OS?

I agree, that for the proverbial "average everyday use" there is no difference at all between 64-bit and 32-bit Windows, as long as the hardware supports both. So, with 4 GB RAM you could use either and if your computing needs comprise email, internet, occasional Word document, some movies, and maybe a simple game or two, then you could go either way. I would even say that for these purposes you don't need to upgrade neither software nor hardware (in fact, I still own a Pentium III system running Windows 2000 which is perfectly capable of the above tasks).

Now, if your needs are "above average", then your needs will dictate the choice of your system (or systems) and the original question becomes basically moot. Do you perform memory-intensive calculations? Do you use Photoshop? Do you deal with massive Excel worksheets? The list of tasks where 64-bit computing provide clear advantage is rather large. What matters is what your particular needs are.

On the other hand, given that both 32-bit and 64-bit platforms are available, both are compatible with modern hardware, both can run almost any existing software, and there is no difference in costs, I really see no reason to stick with the 32-bit systems, unless you have to run some old 16-bit code, which will not run at all on the 64-bit Windows. But this is again the same point - your choice of the system is determined by your needs. The PC is a tool, not a fashion statement.

 

[gregrocker]

I went 64-bit on my latest 4gb Core I5 install and see some hang in Quickbooks loading. I edited the Visual Effects of animation, sliding, fading, dragging intact which always seems to help a tad in low-ram situations.

The solution is likely a RAM upgrade to keep pace with the processor - which is the nagging suspicion about all of these 4gb 64 bit factory preinstalls.

Thanks, all. Keep the feedback coming for google.

 

[TVeblen]

Don't discount the possibility that the lag is due to just poorly written software by Intuit.

I run Quickbooks Pro 2007 on 3 machines: A P4 on XP w/1GB, a P4 on W7 32 bit w/2GB, and an i7 on W7 64 bit w/6GB and it loads slow on all 3 machines. Damned if I can notice much of a difference. It just takes it's own sweet time.