64bit?

[PP Mguire]

Is it really worth it to switch over to 64bit? Im jw cause i dont want to format for nothing really.

[Xantor]

Not that worth it, unless you need more than 4GB of ram

[PP Mguire]

When i get a new board ill be using 4gig of ram. But i have no idea when ill be able to get that DFI. Its kinda pricey.

[werty316]

Unless you are using 4GB of ram, not really.

['Amp!']

4GB is the major reason for it. Well greater than 2.5 GB to be more precise.


The other reason is virus' or the lack of them. 64-bit is more secure.

There’s more good news: the current rootkits that have been written for 32 bit systems, including the infamous Sony music CD rootkit, don’t work in the 64 bit OS. That’s because when updating the kernel code for the 64 bit version, Microsoft programmers took the opportunity to include a “patch guard” – code that is part of the kernel makes it impossible to install a patch in a running kernel (which kernel mode rootkits do on 32 bit systems).

Likewise, processor vendors had an opportunity, in making the new 64 bit processors, to include security mechanisms. Both AMD and Intel include code in their 64 bit products to prevent the exploitation of buffer overflow and buffer underrun conditions.

Source: http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/64-Bit-Windows-More-Secure.html

[PP Mguire]

I guess ill just hold out till i have 4gig then.

[Goliath182]

It depends on what your going to do to. If you just game then you wont really notice much but if you do other things you will notice a difference. But overall the 4+ gigs of ram is the best aspect of it.

[PP Mguire]

I game browse and fold bout it.

[Miker]

It seems XP64 and Vista64 have lots of problems...

[Xcess]

I decided to take the plunge in to 64 Bit XP with this new computer im making. So far so good.

[PP Mguire]

x64 Vista is basicaly that same as x86. x64 XP on the other hand is buggy as crap. Makes Vista look good.

[tomato]

Stick with XP for now ;) You'll be very thankful for it.

[PP Mguire]

I was but switched to Vista for a friend to prove a point. Im proving yet another point and took the dive bomb and went x64 last night. Dont see much of a difference like i expected.

[Ranzear]

Seriously, this is two threads of the same crap now.

If you run a 64bit OS, 64bit Drivers, and 64bit Program, on 64bit hardware, you will see a performance increase. Its not '****** 60fps in Crysis', but its there. Also good mention of better security above.

We have the OS, Vista, in all its questionable glory. We have the drivers, 64 bit options are standard with NVidia, Creative, Microsoft, and every other major manufacturer. We have the programs, Firefox Crysis CoD4, the list goes on, but you still say 'everyday programs' aren't compiled 64bit :roll:. And most easily of all we have the hardware, you can't get a mainstream non-64bit processor in any acceptable specifications anymore. Lack of 32bit support killed the Itanium, and thats what started this crap about incompatibilites and lack of programming and yet here we are years later and its still being strewn about like 5:00 news.

[PP Mguire]

Dude seriously stfu man. Obviously you posted in the other thread before this one. IM RUNNING 64BIT EVERYTHING. 64bit OS, 64bit drivers, and CoD4 didnt incresae at all. I was STARING at the FPS counter for a long time. Firefox dosent load my internet any faster. Wonder why? OH my bad, is it cause my internet isnt 64bit? Like i said before, get your damn head outa your ass. 64bit still isnt the standard and it dosent give you any kinda gain. Least not for the "normal" things people do.

[Xero (1)ne]

Well, it looks like the 64-bit-ness allows it to calculate double the amount of integers and whatnot. But without having the software take advantage of this there's going to be no boost in performance.

We all have seen benchmarks of Windows OS's in 32 vs 64 but I'm curious as to the *nix OS'es as well. Wikipedia says that 64-bit procs have been in supercomputers since the 1960's and I'm sure there was a reason for it.

If there's no point in having 64 bits over 32, then why did we jump from 16 to 32?

The problem that we face right now is that there's nothing that currently takes advantage of it and desktop computers probably don't NEED to because 32 bit procs and software can do it just fine. We will probably have to wait longer before 32-bit procs can't calculate enough integer registers to have our 5 billion particle explosions processed.

The development companies for software are still developing in 32bit code so that it won't use all of the other registers that are available even if the OS is 64bit and drivers etc.

Now, if we actually program some damn good progs designed to use the extra integer headroom, I still don't believe that it will double performance. Sure it could hold more integers, but can it CALCULATE them any faster? This is where instruction sets and all that other junk comes in.

I think this technology might be ahead of its time for desktops. Super-computers might be another story since they are going to be doing things more relative to big math problems.

I'm going to bed :lol:

[zachig]

First of all, CONGRATS on your move to Vista x64. :grin:

Honestly, I don't see a huge performance increase when moving from Vista 32-bit to Vista 64-bit. The differences are VERY MINOR.

But, like said before, if one is planning on upgrading to 4GB (or more) of RAM soon, then it'll be smart step to move to 64-bit OS.

I personally think that if someone is currently using a 32-bit OS and he is satisifed with it, I see no reason moving to 64-bit, as I personally don't like formatting and reinstalling everthing...:lol:

But, if one is planning on upgrading to 4GB of RAM or is starting to have some problems with his OS and thinks about formatting, then if he's really going to format, it's a good opportunity to also move to 64-bit, he one is planning on formatting anyway...;-)

[PP Mguire]

Yea i went ahead and moved over like i said in the other thread to prove a point to a friend. There really is no reason to unless like you said your going to use anything over 3gig.

[zachig]

Yea i went ahead and moved over like i said in the other thread to prove a point to a friend. There really is no reason to unless like you said your going to use anything over 3gig.
Yeah, I got your point. But like I said in the other thread, at least you did your "move" already so whenever you'll be interested in upgrading to 4GB of RAM or when more applications that will fully take advantage of the 64-bit OS, you'll be already prepared...;-)

[PP Mguire]

Thats the whole idea. Exactly why im not going back cause XP 64bit is teh sux04 compared to Vista.

[Ranzear]

You seem to be taking this quite personally PP, I suggest you take another pill.

CoD4 was actually reported by Activision as 'Not compatible with 64bit operating systems' for some reason or another, despite running fine. It might not be 64bit after all. Crysis, however, has two different executables for 32 and 64 bit; the performance difference lies almost entirely in the physics system as when I was hitching whenever I blew up all five barrels inside the buildings on the demo level in 32bit but later in the full game could do the same without a hiccup in 64bit, though that could also be refined code in the retail release.

Programs don't have to be 'written' in 64bit, just compiled with 64bit instructions. The capability of the compiler is another factor in the effectiveness of the transition, certainly if its just for compatibility instead of utilizing the wider instruction set.

****ing excuse me for calling out your smear campaign.

[Pablo 54]

I have been using Home Premium 64bit since October with only a few minor annoyances. At some point though, we need to move forward.
Hope that does not sound too “Jim Jonesy”. :jawdrop:

[werty316]

I have been using Home Premium 64bit since October with only a few minor annoyances. At some point though, we need to move forward.
That is quite true buts it hard to do so when support isn't there.

[Sadasius]

I cannot wait for the 128bit OS to come out. I will not bother with this small jump when I can make a major leap.

[PP Mguire]

I didnt have a smear campaign. I was merely just stating that its not worth it and there really sitn much of an increase to justify moving to a 64bit os. YOU where the one going all off making me retaliate.

[Sadasius]

I didnt have a smear campaign. I was merely just stating that its not worth it and there really sitn much of an increase to justify moving to a 64bit os. YOU where the one going all off making me retaliate.

No worries PP. I think you are pretty much justified in having your own opinion as well as others. I too do not think it is justifiable just yet but then again we going around the corner for the next gen hardware that just may utilize it much more and make that much more of an impact. Heck it's why I am moving to a bigger bus speed/width with the PCIe 2.0 and compatible cards. There are many things that are just not utilizing the bandwidth at the moment but that can all change very shortly. I don't think the 10% improvement difference is a big jump just yet. I am looking out for the 50% to a 100% difference. That's when I would be saying..."Holy crap I am switching over now!".

***EDIT*** Never let anyone MAKE you retaliate. It gives others more control over what you do not.

[PP Mguire]

Well i have my opinion against it becasue im using it and can sit here and tell you its not worth the hassel unless your building a new machine with 4gig of ram and need a clean install in the first place. That was the whole point.

[Ranzear]

You need to chill out when you catch a little flak PP. The only reason I hound you is your repeating arguments of:

"SLI only nets you a performance gain at resolutions I can't achieve! Its crap!

64bit is in its formative phase and there isn't enough uptake for more than marginal gains! Its crap!

My (CPU-bound) framerate doesn't appear to increase when I do this, which means it doesn't work at all! Its crap!

Don't buy these! They're new and expensive and that makes any new piece of hardware not worth it! Its crap!"

Not verbatim of course.

[PP Mguire]

When your poor (like most of us) you tend to stay on the logical side of things. See if you can figure that one out.

[Ranzear]

You have to go to the bottom of the barrel, Sempron, to not get 64bit processor. 64bit Vista is the same price as 32bit. Software is 50/50 on support, and again no price or even box difference. Drivers are free. You're lacking a proper argument again.

You have to go out of your way to stay 32bit now. You're worse than those who still cling to Win98.

Why still make such a big deal about it being 'not worth it' or 'too much trouble'?

[Sadasius]

You have to go out of your way to stay 32bit now. You're worse than those who still cling to Win98.



People still use Win98?!? Also I don't have to go out of my way. In fact I would be going out of my way to go 64bit at this point in time. It's kind of a moot point at this time really. Your going to have advocates who stick with either one and have their own opinion.

[PP Mguire]

Ranzear, your obviously to stupid to realize what i was talking about. Give it up already.

[Ranzear]

Childish.

[Pablo 54]

I had a similar heated argument with a friend of mine in the early 80’s over which OS delivery syetem was better: A 320 KB, 5 ¼ floppy or cassette tape.;-)

[PP Mguire]

Ha so random.

[Exilon]

I'm running Vista 64bit and haven't encountered any major problems so far. But then again, I haven't tried putting in any "legacy" hardware in this computer. I suggest switching over if the hardware is relatively new and need a good reason to reformat.

Or like me, you're just bored and need something to fill up a 300GB hard drive.

As stated before, the software costs are the same so there won't be much reason to cling to 32bit really.