64bit VS 32bit

[goldE]

hi
i have laptop DELL latitude D520, intel T7200 2.0GHz, 4G memory
and i work with Win-7 32bit.
if i install the 64, is my laptop will work faster ?
(i work on Visual-Studio, sql server, Oracle and internet)
is my laptop fits for Win-7 64bit ?

thank's in advance for any help

 

[whs]

64 bit will not really give you any advantage. The small gain in RAM usage will be offset by other disadvantages.

 

[Lemur]

First, you can see if your computer is ready for Windows 7:

Download details: Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor

Next, don't activate Windows 7 until you are satisfied with either operating system you choose.

Now... you should consider using the 64-bit OS. You can take advantage of memory above 4GB. 32-bit OS can't utilize the full 4GB.

If you have any older peripherals, you will want to check they will run with the 64-bit OS.

More and more software is being written for 64-bit.

Also, if you install 32-bit, then want to upgrade to 64-bit, you will have to do a clean install.

 

[youllbelost]

i have the same query. does 64 bit is more efficient(Whats the catch?)

I have a suspicion that 64-Bit is rather unstable than 32-bit OS..
or its the effect of the softwares?

 

[gregrocker]

I would not use 64 bit unless you plan a RAM upgrade from 4gb, which is max for 32 bit.

I don't like the extra troubles that come with 64 bit.

Your Visual Studio and other graphics programs might benefit from 64 bit, however.

Read more about it here: 64-bit: More than just the RAM | bit-tech.net

 

[J.R.]

I would not use 64 bit unless you plan a RAM upgrade from 4gb, which is max for 32 bit.

I don't like the extra troubles that come with 64 bit.

Ditto.

I have 32 and 64 W7 systems running side by side. I can see no real advantage using a 64bit OS unless you need more RAM and have applications that can use/need more than 4GB of RAM. The hassles (which are really minor) is not worth it to me. However, the majority of my applications are 32bit, and I find a 32bit OS W7 to boot up faster and I can tell no difference how applications are running between a 32 and 64bit W7.

Of course, if you are a Tim Allen personality, then more power is better.

 

[Keiichi25]

From a 64 bit user here...

64 bit is not "more efficient" than 32 bit.

Only time 64 bit is better than 64 bit is when you are using programs that use 64 bit number/memory crunching and have a system with more than 4 gigs of RAM. The 64 bit OS only helps when you know you will be running large memory using programs or 64 bit programs in general.

I run 64 bit only because I am running with 8 gigs of RAM and having the 64 bit addressing helps for the memory swapping issues with everything I run, less disk swapping going on.

 

[Lemur]

From a 64 bit user here...

64 bit is not "more efficient" than 32 bit.

Only time 64 bit is better than 64 bit is when you are using programs that use 64 bit number/memory crunching and have a system with more than 4 gigs of RAM. The 64 bit OS only helps when you know you will be running large memory using programs or 64 bit programs in general.

I run 64 bit only because I am running with 8 gigs of RAM and having the 64 bit addressing helps for the memory swapping issues with everything I run, less disk swapping going on.

Ditto to Keiichi. When compiling video with 64-bit programs, it really moves. I find both 32- and 64-bit on a par for my general uses. I do intentionally search out 64-bit programs when possible.

 

[unifex]

I am running Windows 7 x64 and I am not aware of any "hassles" supposedly associated with it. I am quite happy with my computer. However, you probably won't see any "advantage" or "gain" by simply installing the 64-bit OS, you have to use 64-bit applications as well. There are plenty, though. Otherwise, the 32-bit application will run more or less the same as on the 32-bit version of the OS.

 

[Layback Bear]

This might help some one to decide which would be better for there needs and wants.
32-bit and 64-bit Windows: frequently asked questions

 

[Lemur]

I would guess the majority of people is this thread use 64-bit OS.

Me, Layback Bear, unifex, Keiichi25, RA (side by side). WHS and Greg, what r u guys running?

**EDIT** and Deacon...

 

[DeaconFrost]

I would suggest going to x64 because you aren't able to use all of your 4 GB of memory right now. Some of the apps you mentioned would benefit from the system having access to the rest of the memory. I maintain several systems with both platforms, and Windows 7 x64 has no more or less hassles than x86. You just need to have the drivers ready for the platform you plan to install, and that's it.

 

[Keiichi25]

I use the x64 mostly to take advantage of the fact that I can use more than 4 gigs of RAM. When I was on XP, I would be running the following:

ESET Smart Security 4
Feedreader (RSS Feed Reading program)
Outlook 2003
SecureCRT
Logitech Software (G15 Keyboard drivers and software)
GoogleTalk
FireFox
Curse client (Basically for World of Warcraft)

Things start to slow down due to using higher mem programs like World of Warcraft or Planetside, which prompts more virtual memory swapping. Add to it the necessity to run Ventrilo or Teamspeak when playing those games with other people. Sometimes I want to run MediaMonkey (Media Player) to listen to music.

The consistent problem I have noticed is mostly with the larger mem using programs where there is significant transition times between switching or loading up. With larger memory pools, the virtual mem swapping isn't nearly as horrendous as before.

Now with regards to Deacon's statement, yes, you loose up to a gig worth of memory since the 32 bit architecture will not allow you to address the full 4 gigs, at the very most 3.5 gigs if you are lucky. But then again, if your memory demands aren't nearly as heavy, you don't really NEED to have x64.

And again, you can run most things in x64, but what I must disagree with Deacon is that if there are some x16 type programs you are trying to deal with, x64, from what I have read, will not let you run them. Although, technically, you shouldn't be running any x16 based programs anymore.

 

[DeaconFrost]

And again, you can run most things in x64, but what I must disagree with Deacon is that if there are some x16 type programs you are trying to deal with, x64, from what I have read, will not let you run them. Although, technically, you shouldn't be running any x16 based programs anymore.

That shouldn't be considered a hassle. By now, it goes without saying that a person should run the Advisor to check their x64 compatibility. Given the apps listed, the OP shouldn't have any problems, but that's just common sense to make sure your apps are compatible before making the switch.

If a person happens to be running any 16-bit apps, you can easily virtualize XP to continue to use those apps.

 

[sygnus21]

If you're using 4gig of RAM (or less) with a 32-bit OS that's fine, anymore and I would suggest going to a 64-bit OS. However, there are things to consider, and the major thing to consider is your video cards.

Consider this Scenario....

Now,

For anyone going with 4gig of RAM and 1gig of video card memory, whether a 1gig card or 2 x 515meg cards, you really ought to be looking at a 64bit OS.

In the above scenario the math equals 5 gig, but in reality you'd really only have 3gig (or less) of accessible memory + 1gig of video memory = equals 4gig total under a 32bit OS. As you can see, you lose 1gig to the video card(s)!

This is known as MMIO (Memory Mapped Input Output).

Corsair has a good analysis of that here: http://www.corsair.com/_appnotes/AN804_Gaming_Performance_Analysis.pdf. (do note that this is a .pdf file). Check out the "Office Block" illustrations on page 2-3.

Here's a quote from the article:

In simple terms MMIO is a process by which some devices in the PC exchange data with the CPU/memory. One such device is the graphics card, which requires an amount of address space equal to its frame buffer size (the amount of memory installed on the card) to be ‘reserved’ for such data exchanges. This reserved address space is therefore not available to Windows as accessible memory.

Now imagine a crossfire/SLI setup with two 1gig video cards on a 32-bit system :shock:

Anyways there is a sticky in this very forum on 32 vs 64-bit comparision here - http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/86886-32-bit-vs-64-bit-comparison.html

 

[murmatron]

Now with regards to Deacon's statement, yes, you loose up to a gig worth of memory since the 32 bit architecture will not allow you to address the full 4 gigs, at the very most 3.5 gigs if you are lucky.

The only reason to totally lose that RAM is to accept Windows' assertion that it is 'Hardware Reserved' and somehow inaccessible. We all know this is no more true now than it was when Microsoft deliberately disabled PAE with XP-SP2.

Of course there are various kernel patches around that may or may not coerce Windows7 into using PAE (or more likely cause your machine not to boot), but there also exists a very simple way to put the 'Hardware Reserved' RAM to good use.

Install Gavotte's RRamDisk 1.0.4096.5 (latest) Possible source

Run ramdisk.exe and create a 'Fixed Media' type RamDisk. The size doesn't much matter as far as I can see since the next step causes it to resize to fill the available 'unusable' RAM, but 768M is a good guess for a 4G system. Mine was sized at 768M, but in PAE mode it grew to 990MB.

Merge the included ram4g.reg to tell RRamDisk to use PAE. The .reg file contains nothing more than a setting for the RRamDisk driver that isn't on the GUI - it does not attempt to alter Windows behaviour in any way. Reboot.

Volume label of RamDisk should now be 'RamDisk-PAE'.

Create as large as possible permanent pagefile on the RAM Disk. (Don't change any other pagefile settings) Reboot.

Done - The start of Virtual Memory is now on a RAM Disk since Windows will automatically prefer this pagefile as the fastest, least trafficked volume. It isn't as fast as having the memory accessible in the conventional way, but it's orders of magnitude faster than disk based virtual memory.

Note that memory stats in Task Manager, Resource Monitor or whatever will be no different than before. Windows simply ignores that memory while RRamDisk does not.

Usage and preference of the RamDisk pagefile can easily be verified using SysInternals Process Monitor.

I've been running 7-x86 like this since forever. Totally stable.

Caveat: Hibernation will not work since a huge chunk of virtual memory has no power-off persistence. 'Sleep' is perfectly fine.

 

[whs]

I would guess the majority of people is this thread use 64-bit OS.

Me, Layback Bear, unifex, Keiichi25, RA (side by side). WHS and Greg, what r u guys running?

**EDIT** and Deacon...

Lemur, I have both. Two systems with 64bit and one with 32bit. I kind of like the 32bit better because i can run some of my pet programs that do not run on 64bit. But other than that I have no problems with 64bit.
Regarding performance advantages of 64bit I cannot provide conclusive opinions because my 3 systems are all different hardware. But they are all pretty fast - in part due to the SSDs.

 

[yowanvista]

Go with x64 as you won't have to install Windows 7 x64 later if you are planning to go beyond 4GB RAM

 

[gregrocker]

I like 32 bit better, but don't have any programs like video editing that benefit greatly from 64 bit.

Also have old hardware here which won't die and still runs fast so I stay loyal to it, and it likes 32 bit.

 

[idansk2]

No hassles here using 64bit windows 7 on my laptop and one of my desktops. My i7 920 is running win 7 pro with 12gb of ram, oc'd to 3.8ghz and no issues. I'm not going back to a 32bit OS anymore.