Win7 64bit vs 32bit?

Is there a discussion on WIn7 64bit vs Win7 32bit?

I am curious. All the while I have insisted on 32bits. But Now that I have crossed the 4GB RAM I am forced to use 64bit and find several applications/services in 64 and 32 bit running same time.

I should would like to read your experience on this subject matter. A link to that discussion, if any, would be most welcomed!

Thanks!

 

The entirety of the discussion can be summed up in one sentence: Use 64-bit architecture unless you have some really old 16-bit programs or are using an old computer without 64-bit drivers.

 

Exactly which is why I use 32 bit over 64. I have some games that go back to 1995.

 

or, do some experimenting to see if your older apps/games can be run in a VM such as the Win7 XP Virtual Machine or a third party product like VMWare or Virtual Box

 

Well I guess there is now.

Why??

So?

My experience is that I run 32- and 64-bit apps at the same time, all the time, it works well, and I never have to think about it, which is exactly how 64-bit Windows was designed to work -- so it just works fine and you don't have to think or worry about it. So... why are you?

 

Not really a good reason. 64bit CPU's can still run 32bit games and apps at full speed, and given how fast recent processors are (and how many cores they have) programs like DOSBox are great, as well as virtual machines. Running a 32bit OS (especially if you have 4GB or more RAM) is simply putting water into your machine's gas tank.

 

On my old Compaq T2400 1GB 5400RPM 32bit WInXP machine I get to see less than 20 processes running and this keeps my machine really optimized and responsive.

Whereas on my current Qosmio Q850 and Alienware M15x with all those top of the line CPUs and 6GB RAM, I see 50~70 processes running amok and finds it "just as responsive" as my old machine.

Now that bothers me: If that is the result of 64bit, why in hell did I even bothers spending $5K for these two machines just to get "at par" performance as my 4-year-old Compaq?

Today, I will try to reinstall Win7 on the M15x and see if I can get it optimized with better performance. Once I've done that, perhaps I could compare better.

 

What do you mean "just as responsive"? If you mean application startup time, you'd better spend some cash on dual intel SSD.

 

if I need to spend more cash for SSDs just to get better performance, then I would rather go back to 32bit XP

 

None of that is related to 32 vs. 64-bit. Try the same OS (Win 7 for example) on the same hardware in both 32- and 64-bit flavors, with the same stuff installed... and I don't think you'll find that 64-bit is a performance drag at all.

Now if you think XP performs better than a more recent OS... well, I can believe that.

 

Regardless of whether or not there's a speed difference between 64bit vs 32bit, the 64bit version of Windows is a far more capable OS than the 32bit version. Also the speed point is pretty much an arguable point unless you have an app specifically built and optimized for 64-bit multi-core processors. And like others have said, the 64bit OS's such as Win7 64bit run older programs just fine. The incompatibilities most people USED to have were in the hardware drivers, and not so much the programs. XP might seem snappier, but Win7 is much better. It's more stable in that it has a hardware abstraction layer, unified driver architectures, things like that. XP is yesteryear's OS just like 98 was when XP came out. Right now I'm running 96 processes and I have no performance hiccups at all.. I can watch a YouTube HD vid at 1080p and have 15 other tabs open in Chrome, while concurrently playing a blu-ray in the ArcSoft suite... no prob. That is what 64-bit is made for. It's made for greater computational abilities, and less hardware restrictions on memory.

 

not another 32 vs 64Bit thread ....

Honestly, search the forum an you'll find at least 10+ different threads asking the same all over again... possibly 20+

 

I've always run 32bit Windows on my home and work computers. My current computer has an overclocked quadcore processor running Win7. We run CAD at work and some of our new projects have trouble with 4GB so I built a couple of computers with 8GB of ram and Win7 64bit. We have had problems with video card drivers, and we had to load WinXP in a virtual machine to run some of our older 16bit apps. OTOH the machines run our new models very well.

Running ordinary stuff I couldn't tell any difference in responsiveness between the new machines and my home machine. They boot to Windows in about the same time too.

 

well, 3 1/2 years ago when i bought my previous laptop, i chose 64bit AMD processor so that when 64bit os and progs are out it will run 2x faster (64 is double 32 so that makes sense) and will extend its life. i had 64 vista on there and it run like a 3 legged dinosaur (ONLY 1gb ram) so dual booted with xp (for when i wanted speed and not bling). tried win 7 64 bit and was a bit better. now it has win 7 32bit and runs good again, in fact better than ever as ALL drivers work (some parts never got 64bit drivers). why bother with 64bit if I only have only 1gb of ram?

 

64Bit will NOT !! be twice as fast as 32Bit - ever.

 

Unless you are using 64 bit specific software like photoshop or smth, or unless u got >4 Gb ram, stick with 32 bit.
Switch to 64 bit in a few years when next windows OS will come up.

 

The number of running processes has no direct bearing on a machine's performance. You can't compare it like that. Especially not when you're comparing a nine-year-old OS with a modern one that was released last year.

 

you can easily reduce the number of processes to around 40 (even less if you turn of stuff you don't use at all like spooling if you have no printer,etc..) on win 7 X64 (or Vista for that matter)

Also if you have only 1 gb of Ram i would not advice you to install Vista or Win7, actually i would advice you to get another 1GB since its almost cheaper than bread

 

Don't go switching off stuff - LEAVE IT ALONE!
People like you end up on forums afterwards and complain that their computer doesn't work.
And if you have an idling service - so what?

1GB of RAM - well, I have that on my old laptop with Win7 - it mainly runs as a server, but when I did access the internet with it it worked fine.
Yes, 1GB is definitely less than ideal - but Win7 works fine on 1GB of RAM.

And what you really loose on Vista or Win7 is space for superfetch.

 

I really can't wait for msft to start invalidating 5 and 10 year old MCSE certificates. People who make 'recommendations' for Win7 and Server 2008 based on hearsay and their own outdated experience with Server 2000 and XP shouldn't be, well, you know............

 

Actually, certain processes (depending on what they are) inside Windows Vista or 7 can slow the computer down.
Boot times are especially affected as is system performance.

Processes are an indication of an application working in the background.
However, the types of applications that slow the system down come pre-installed with the OS (manufacturer type programs - aka bloatware).

Native Vista/7 processes are fine running as they are, it's the whole bunch of extra software that starts up with Windows that's the issue or background apps that you have no use for which will slow virtually any system down to a crawl.

My amount of processes in Win 7 x64 is at around 45 at startup.
That's with only Microsoft Security Essentialls, touchpad and SATA drivers starting up.

Make sure to prevent resource hogging applications from starting up with Windows or running in the background unless you actually need them.

And regarding the whole x64 vs x86 debate ...
If you have x64 type of application and hardware that is x64 compatible, you might notice that programs are running in a more efficient capacity.
For some though, speed may also increase, although by how much varies from application to application.

I've been running x64 7 for months now without issues.
Most of the games for DOS I have I run via Dosbox.
There are some lingering issues even with DosBox ... but they are manageable.

 

64 bits means that you have 64 addressable bits rather than 32. this doesn't mean double the speed.

0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 - that is a 32 bit representation of a number

0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 - that is a 64 bit representation of the same number.

as you can see, the reason why it's very intuitive and natural for 64 bit systems to be able to do all 32 bit tasks because any addressing will just result in 32 0's in anything higher than the 31st bit for 32 bit tasks.

in CS, it seems when you run out of head room you double the size of what you have. 4 bits to 8 bits to 16 bits to 32 bits to 64 bits and so forth.

many data structures work the same way (doubling size when out of room).

your reasons for your poor performance aren't 32/64 bit related - they're hardware and software related. Vista had many many many bugs and performance issues when it debuted.

the reason why 64 bit systems are valuable is because of the memory addressing like other members have said. however, if you have less than 4Gb of memory you're still able to benefit from a 64 bit machine. memory mapping is much easier and efficient on 64-bit systems versus 32-bit systems.

i installed a 32 bit OS on my netbook because i use that laptop for note taking, homework, and traveling. sometimes i have to program 16 bit code which is unable to run on 64 bit systems without some tweaking as 16 bit coding is not supported on the 64 bit windows OS

 

i should have put a sarcastic smiley on the 'double speed' bit.
it was what some of the chain store sales type people were using at the time.
having said that, some of the more reputable advisers were also saying that if you have 2x the data width, with 64bit os and 64bit program, then you can push the data through 2x faster. so it does make sense
(i remembered this time)

 

Well, theoretically, if you're running a program and all it does is a basic x86 instruction over and over again, like add or mov, then x64 can operate at twice the speed of x86. However, your program would most likely be useless, so the point is moot.

 

But... you could count to MAX_INTEGER twice as fast!

 

Someone at Adobe wrote this (emphasis added):

Source: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html

So... basically, this means that for typical apps, you can expect a modest but measurable performance improvement when using a 64-bit app on a 64-bit OS. For apps and data sets that really make use of 4 gb or more of RAM (if you have it installed), the improvement may be greater.

 

Half the processes on the m15x that you are seeing have to do with alienware software, like the command center etc. As people have stated earlier a 64 bit processor doesn't require more processes to run/maintain, it has to do with your operating system and your configuration.

 

Hello jsteng,

Just a bit of FYI to understand the issues with 32-bit and 64-bit OS upgrades and later options that may or may not be available to you later:
When upgrading from Windows Vista to Windows 7 you must upgrade the version currently installed within Windows Vista to the corresponding version in Windows 7. I.E. Windows Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home Premium; Windows Vista Business to Windows 7 Professional; and Windows Vista Ultimate to Windows 7 Ultimate. You also cannot upgrade a 32-bit operating system to 64-bit -- to migrate from 32-bit to 64-bit will require a custom install.

Additionally, you will not be able to "upgrade" from a 32-bit version of Windows 7 to 64-bit -- the architecture between the two is too drastically different to allow such a change. To learn more about the differences between a 32-bit operating system and 64-bit please go to the following link: http://bit.ly/2aT3xP

I hope that helps you out!

You can also find lots of information on Windows 7 here in our Springboard website:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/default.aspx

Thanks again,
John M.
Microsoft Windows Client Support

 

I run 7 pro 64 on my desktop, which was built in late 2004 as a high end but not top of the line gaming machine. I only have an Athlon 64 3200+ (2 Ghz) Winchester/939 and 1gb (2x512) of Patriot DDR400 @ 2-2-2-5 and I do feel the memory crunch when I have lots of things open at once... but aside from that 7 runs everything I throw at it quite snappy. It has all the drivers it needs, and even though this machine is a dinosaur in the gaming scene, it still serves me well as a main machine for everything else.

It is long in the tooth and it's time to build another one, but my point is that Windows 7 64bit runs just as good if not better than XP on my ancient machine and it definitely boots faster.

 

I reinstalled Windows 7 32-bit. With 2GB of RAM, 64-bit version was more sluggish: using more RAM and longer shutdowns that made me sometimes rage. I'll go 64-bit when I actually have 4GB or more.

 

I switched from 64 to 32 as well on my desktop gaming rig. All of my games are basically x86 so there was no speed improvements using 64 bit. All the games were installed to Program Filesx86 so really there was no need to bother with 64 bit.

The basic operation and speed of both 32 and 64 bit was about the same as well.

 

Retro can be good with styles, not so good with computing. Go forward, not backwards.

 

64Bit isn't always a benefit - and considering that 2GB is the "lower minimum" per Microsoft Specification for a 64Bit OS, the change to 32Bit was possibly a good idea.

Most users also won't benefit from 64Bit (most being the Word, Internet Browsing, Youtube crowd) who never use a dedicated 64Bit Application and never have anything that requires pushing around and working with large amounts of data as for example photoshop.

 

I'll need to change my position on 64bit. I installed W7 64bit and not only did my CPU score rise from 6.1 to 6.2 but overall the OS feels snappier, console manager and other programs open quicker.

So I stand corrected that if your system can run 64bit it's worth a look and only IF your processor can be utilized such as a dual core with VT and at least 4GB of system ram.

 

The simple fact that you BUY a 64-bit CPU and decide to lock it down to 32-bit is a complete waist of money.

That is like buying a professional grade PVA or IPS panel LCD monito, and put 256 colors on. Or you buy a McIntosh 30k$ amplifiers and decide to listen mono midi with it, with 1$ dollar shop speakers.

If you are NOT going to use it, then don't buy a 64-bit CPU in the first place.

As mentioned countless of times, just the fact of having 64-bit OS benefits 32-bit applications, as the CPU can handle such large OS with a little more ease.

Yes, 64-bit OS (all of them), requires a little more RAM.. but RAM is ridiculously cheap today, easy to upgrade. And, if you already have enough RAM on your system, than all I can say is that RAM is designed to be used. That is why we have RAM, else we would just use the HDD instead, and we all know what will be the results of doing that, and how RAM is critical for a computer.

The simple fact that the OS is in 64-bit, 32-bit application benefit from it, as the OS is lighter on the CPU to manage it. And as Rocknee notices, an Operating System does many things on the back that is simply not viewed by the user, it's key features are functionality, management, and efficiency. It manages your devices, files, memory, processes (running programs), creates and maintain abstract machines for every process (creates a virtual environment for a process so that it sees itself alone onto the system, providing security, and simplifying a lot of things), system calls from process, just to name a FEW things it handles. Having the O.S in 64-bit, makes it easier for the CPU to execute all the O.S needed instructions, basically making the OS look lighter than what it actually is, which provide a system boost in performance. This results in even having 32-bit a small performance boost.. not much but anything help and is greatly welcomes.. unless you find your computer too fast for you, that is.

 

Here we go again...

And on a side note:
You don't really have a choice if you buy a 64Bit CPU or a 32Bit CPU - and if 32Bit is faster - dubious - as far as I am aware there is no proof in that direction - or am I missing something?

I could benefit from 64Bit on Photoshop - do I use it - no, because ITS NOT WORTH THE BOTHER - yes, Photoshop will run quicker on 64Bit, but it wouldn't change the world.

Unless I get a new computer with a 64Bit OS by default I will not bother going through the hassle myself.
(And hassle: 1) I don't have a 64Bit disc - and I can't get a German one, only an English one via MSDN-AA 2) Sony has some special drivers for Fn keys... I'd miss those - and can't be bothered to figure out how to make it work even though there are guides on here)

 

True, but consumers vote with their wallets.
AMD was selling the first 64-bit x86 (x64-x86, or if you prefer AMD64) architecture to the consumer level, it was very expensive and was equally powerful than the latest Intel Pentium 4. Intel ended up in deep trouble, as everyone was going with AMD's 64-bit CPU, to a point that many OEM's was starting to use AMD CPU's in their systems. Until, that is, Intel released their first gen Intel Core 2 duo (a 64-bit dual core CPU), competing with AMD first true dual core (on one die) and first 64-bit dual core CPU product for consumers, the AMD Athlon X2 under Socket 939. Which at this point AMD lost and we come to what we have now.

Now, about your win7 not in German. Look at your MSDNAA again, you have language pack for Windows 7 which give you all the languages that Windows has, so that you can switch to the language of your choice in Windows 7 (so you can pick German).

Also, the topic of conversation is Win7 64-bit vs 32-bit, and not... well... your lack of time to perform the switch.

Well get a Pentium M, you can find them really cheap now.. yes, it is slower.. but it wouldn't change the world. At least you won't limit your 4GB of RAM down to 3'ish GB as you'll have less memory on that system (assuming that you have 4GB of RAM on your current system, else ignore the statement just mentioned about memory limit), and use more of the system power for the money you spent. See it works both ways And whatever reason you apply linked to loss of speed, it can be applied for the loss of speed by not going to 64-bit.

 

Well, I can't use Win7 because I use that as a server on an old laptop at home - and I need a "normal OS" to share a printer.
Apart from that the taskbar of Win7 is ugly and its too much trouble to install.

I like Vista and Win7 has NO benefits at all for me.
If I buy a new computer I'll use it, else I won't bother.

RAM - 4GB or 3GB - does it really matter? Panoramas can max it out, but that's pretty much it - it doesn't matter - and there is always the temp file and page file.

64Bit is now "magic weapon" to gain performance - as I said earlier, Photoshop can benefit from 64Bit - its a dedicated 64Bit programme but it will not change the world.

In fact, I can tell you I will most likely not change to 64Bit until I buy a new computer which might be in 2-3 years time which may mean that I'll skip Windows7.

And Pentium M - I did have that in my old laptop - it was fast enough for me - only with time was it feeling slow - my SZ was originally overkill, only photo editing really maxes out the CPU, if at all - a Pentium M would have been slower.
(And then mainly on HDRs and Panoramas which I don't shoot daily anyway)

 

ok...simple then...

64 bit means less chance of getting a virus in comparison eheh. Enjoyed watching the back and forth on this though. It brings me back two years when myself and another were the only ones pushing 64bit, or so it seemed. Back then many had it written off as software manufacturers would never support it.

Myself, I find it much more stable..

 

64bit till today is less compatible with hw outside of the main consumer environment (and even there, developing in 64bit is newer, leading to more bugs). not by much anymore, but i only recently got 64bit versions of my music hw drivers.

64bit is not more save than 32bit except for one little feature.

and i don't know, but much more stable than 100% stable is hard to get which 32bit is for me

*ducks*

 

Viruses... well, I don't think you can say that as a blanket statement.

Yes, security is enhanced because anything with access to the Kernel needs to be digitally signed or something similar - but its not fail proof.

 

actually it was failproof till the virusscanner softwares started to complain that they can't get into the kernel to protect it from getting into the kernel the funny moment, where the ones who try to protect you actually make you vulnerable

no, the difference is the random adress mapping of the kernel in 64bit. nothing to do with signing. but the kernel-data is all every reboot at different places in memory, so you can't use any hard memory adresses to target something in kernel directly.

and while this truly is enhanced savety, kernel attacks are the vast minority of problems we have nowadays on clients. so there, the gain is about 0 if you go 64bit. this is different for servers, where it is a big issue, as attacking the kernel and taking over the system that way is a preferred way to do so.
on the client, there are much simpler ways to access user data, and take over the system. social engineering mostly.

 

Yes, if you never drive on the highway, you probably don't need a high performance car. Similarly, if economy is paramount to your needs, a four cylinder car is probably better than an 8 cylinder one.

Therefore, if your computing needs are analogous to this car scenario, then you most likely would not benefit from upgrading to a 64 bit system.

 

You guys realize that what you're arguing over has been answered on the first page right?

Unless there's a reason you need to stick with 32-bit, there's no reason why not to go to 64-bit. The End.

 

unsless there's a gain from going 64bit (more ram is the only real one), there's no reason to not stick with 32bit..

the end

 

Wait! I'm not done yet:

In that case, an abacus should be more than able to take care of all your mathematical computations, so who really needs a computer?

Absolutely! Ram is the simplest and least expensive way to improve you system's performance.

Change it no; affect it? It continues to do that every day.

Unlikely. I'd guess closer to five.

 

lol I love the backwards logics that collide haha

This reminds of the whole "guilty until proven innocent" vs "innocent until proven guilty"

Only in this case it's "move to 64bit unless proven otherwise" vs "stay with 32bit until proven otherwise" hihi ^_^

I'm more of the idea of catering to your uses and needs. If those include either 64bit softwares or 32bit(or 16bit) stuff, then you have a reason for doing one over the other. Otherwise, just take whatever version your manufacturer gave you. Chances are that if you're asking already, it probably won't make much a difference to you.

 

indeed. funnily, i'm normally one of those always jumping onto the hip new stuff bandwagon. so i was "moving to 64bit unless proven otherwise". problem is, i got proven otherwise. i got shown quite some drivers that exist on 64bit, but are not yet as high quality as their 32bit equivalent. same for software that just didn't work as stable on 64bit.

and this is when i realised, well, forget it. as long as i don't have more than 4gb ram, there is no real gain from going to 64bit, but there are some issues that i still have to wait till they get fixed. staying on what i know that it works was beneficial for me in the end.

so as long as i don't have a need for 64bit (some app that requires me to have more than 4gb ram for some benefit, or win8 being 64bit only), i have no gain in switching. so why should i touch perfectly working systems? exactly.. why..

 

I've tried both 32 and 64bit W7. I personally prefer 32bit for gaming. Most of my racing sims run buttery smooth i.e. 60FPS + whereas when I use W7 64bit some of those same games have a slight stutter to them. Could be vid drivers but I guess the whole point to gaming is getting solid performance while in the game.

W7 32bit does that for me.

 

If you have more than 3GB ram or intend not to upgrade to more than that in the future 32 Bit is where you should stay. This unless you aer looking at a 64 bit optimized software.

If you have 4 GB or over ram then 64 Bit is the right choice. Other than ram address space or code optimization there is little need for 64 Bit. In time this will change as programs start to actually use 64 bit code. Most program structures don't require this type of code or memory address space for thier respective functions so expect this to be a slow addaptation..........