Performance: Win7 32-bit vs 64-bit

[madcratebuilder]

Unless you still use 16-bit apps for some reason, there's pretty much no reason to not use 64-bit Windows 7 if your system can handle it.

+=1 You may need that extra memory in the future. I need it for Photoshop.

One performance gain you get with 64 bit + greater than 4GB of memory is that more of your programs and data can be cached in memory and hence start up basically instantaneously second+ time round (or you can keep them open).

Unless you have 16 bit apps there is no reason to live in the past

I wonder if superfetch takes into account the amount of RAM you have. Anyone know?

Like you, I have a Samsung 128GB 840 Pro SSD. I'm faster without superfetch, I do have 16gig though.

I would go with the 64bit ver and add ram. Just my .02 cents.

 

[whs]

Like you, I have a Samsung 128GB 840 Pro SSD. I'm faster without superfetch, I do have 16gig though

This is interesting but hard to believe. How did you measure that. Since RAM is still a lot faster than the fastest SSD, programs cached by Superfetch should react faster from RAM than from the SSD.

 

[madcratebuilder]

Like you, I have a Samsung 128GB 840 Pro SSD. I'm faster without superfetch, I do have 16gig though

This is interesting but hard to believe. How did you measure that. Since RAM is still a lot faster than the fastest SSD, programs cached by Superfetch should react faster from RAM than from the SSD.

"I'm faster without SF" was the wrong choice of words. I should have said "I'm as fast" I've timed bootup with and without, both are 47 seconds. Programs on the ssd open instantly to my eye. True that RAM is faster, but is it faster that you can see? SF "off" reduces writes on the ssd.

This link has some more info...it's on the internet, it has to be true

I know some leave SF enabled, some don't.

 

[cluberti]

Microsoft doesn't recommend SF be enabled in Win7 on SSD drives if they meet certain read and write speed criteria, which is tested for during a WinSAT pass on the drive. The service will still be enabled (as will defrag), but prefetching on that SSD will be disabled. I'm not sure I'd necessarily recommend disabling the service, but yes, some disable it, some don't.

 

[whs]

Like you, I have a Samsung 128GB 840 Pro SSD. I'm faster without superfetch, I do have 16gig though

This is interesting but hard to believe. How did you measure that. Since RAM is still a lot faster than the fastest SSD, programs cached by Superfetch should react faster from RAM than from the SSD.

"I'm faster without SF" was the wrong choice of words. I should have said "I'm as fast" I've timed bootup with and without, both are 47 seconds. Programs on the ssd open instantly to my eye. True that RAM is faster, but is it faster that you can see? SF "off" reduces writes on the ssd.

This link has some more info...it's on the internet, it has to be true

I know some leave SF enabled, some don't.

Wrong observation - at boot time, Superfetch has not even been active yet. So that is null. And writes to the SSD is a non-issue. That SSD will take more writes than you can ever produce in it's lifetime.

And if you listen to all the 'news' from the internet you are not well advised. Try to understand the functioning of things yourself and then draw your own conclusions.