64 bit or 32

A

agrindinger

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
150
I am having a debate over getting 64 bit or 32 bit Windows Vista. I am an avid gamer and want to know if there will be any use in doing this upgrade.

System Specs
680i EVGA Motherboard
Quad core 2.66 Intel Processor
4 Gbs Ram
2x 8800 GTX
3.5 Tbs HDD space
1000 W PSU

Thanks for the advice.

-Would you Kindly?
 
There are a bunch of threads already about this, a search can locate most of them, or you can just go back through the past few weeks of threads (anything with the same basic title that yours has).

You'll get a variety of answers:

"you won't see any performance benefit" = rumor, and completely untrue. You will see a benefit with 64 bit over 32 bit, even when running 32 bit code. It won't be twice as fast just because it's twice as many bits processed per tick but, even so, it's there.

"nothing uses 64 bit" = rumor, and completely untrue. More and more code is being offered in 32 bit and 64 bit form each day, and running the same code in 64 bit form most definitely offers a performance benefit; again, it's not perfectly twice as fast, but it's noticeably faster, even without needing a benchmark to give you specific numbers.

"driver problems" = rumor, and completely untrue. As long as you're not using the cheapest bargain basement hardware ($5 soundcards, $20 video cards, etc) you'll find a 64 bit driver for the stuff you've got. There's probably a 98% chance that - if you install the Windows 7 RC x64 - it'll have a driver for everything in your machine, and if not, if you can hit Windows Update you'll most likely find a driver there. Driver support is simply a non-issue in this day and age.

"only reason is to use more than 4GB of RAM" = not the only reason to run a 64 bit OS, although some people will shove it down your throat as the end-all-be-all reason. 64 bit OSes have better performance as noted, and other aspects that make it a more reliable choice for your OS. One of those reasons being driver enforcement which ensures a more solid OS as well; 32 bit versions don't have this. And there are others but, you'll figure it out.

The simple answer is: with that hardware, there's absolutely no reason at all - no logical ones, but I'm sure you'll get a lot of irrational ones - not to go 64 bit at this point and from now on.

Simple.
 
Vista 64-bit is more stable and can use all of your RAM.

I had Vista 32-bit, made the switch to Vista 64-bit and noticed a slight but noticeable performance difference in both games and apps. I wouldn't recommend Vista 64-bit if you have any hardware that has limited or no 64-bit support or run any old 16-bit apps (they won't install).
 
Thank you all so much. Your a great help. I am running Windows 7 on my lappy and LOVE IT. I like to think of it as what Windows Vista should have been. I noticed that some of you had mentioned the new 7 version that was out that I should use.
 
I'm using Win7 pretty much full-time and haven't had any issues so far. They basically stripped out what people hated about Vista and improved the memory performance. There's also many tweaks to the UI and it just feels less cluttered now.

I'd use it over Vista 64-bit. It's that good.
 
On 32 bit you'll only get to use about 2.5 GB of your ram which is probably around the top end for any game needs, nothing would likely benefit for more. As for the system as a whole standpoint, it's nice to have 4GB of ram.

I'd say start with 64 bit and if you don't run into any issues with applications or peripherals, which for the most part you shouldn't, then you can stick with it. If you do then you can just reinstall 32 bit and use the same cd key. I'm happily using a x64 OS.
 
Joe Average said:
There are a bunch of threads already about this, a search can locate most of them, or you can just go back through the past few weeks of threads (anything with the same basic title that yours has).

You'll get a variety of answers:

"you won't see any performance benefit" = rumor, and completely untrue. You will see a benefit with 64 bit over 32 bit, even when running 32 bit code. It won't be twice as fast just because it's twice as many bits processed per tick but, even so, it's there.

"nothing uses 64 bit" = rumor, and completely untrue. More and more code is being offered in 32 bit and 64 bit form each day, and running the same code in 64 bit form most definitely offers a performance benefit; again, it's not perfectly twice as fast, but it's noticeably faster, even without needing a benchmark to give you specific numbers.

"driver problems" = rumor, and completely untrue. As long as you're not using the cheapest bargain basement hardware ($5 soundcards, $20 video cards, etc) you'll find a 64 bit driver for the stuff you've got. There's probably a 98% chance that - if you install the Windows 7 RC x64 - it'll have a driver for everything in your machine, and if not, if you can hit Windows Update you'll most likely find a driver there. Driver support is simply a non-issue in this day and age.

"only reason is to use more than 4GB of RAM" = not the only reason to run a 64 bit OS, although some people will shove it down your throat as the end-all-be-all reason. 64 bit OSes have better performance as noted, and other aspects that make it a more reliable choice for your OS. One of those reasons being driver enforcement which ensures a more solid OS as well; 32 bit versions don't have this. And there are others but, you'll figure it out.

The simple answer is: with that hardware, there's absolutely no reason at all - no logical ones, but I'm sure you'll get a lot of irrational ones - not to go 64 bit at this point and from now on.

Simple.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of it except the drivers (kind of).

For the most part anything that has drivers for vista 64 should work on Win7 or at least give basic functionality. The 98% is highly optimistic. Recent hardware (vista era) is no problem, but there are hundreds of devices that just won't have 64bit drivers. Simply because drivers must be signed and signing costs money. Older hardware like printers, scanners, cell-phones, video capture devices and even some webcams just won't work in 64bit windows, being it XP x64, vista or win7.
 
If the hardware comes with a "Vista compatible" logo or sticker on the packaging, then it must have 32 bit and 64 bit drivers, that's a requirement and it started with Vista. Not even during XP Pro x64's heyday was their such a requirement so that's a big plus for Vista. So, again, I go back to my statement about brand name and not cheap shit hardware: brand name stuff is decent, and comes from (fairly) reputable manufacturers and has that logo/sticker certification so you're going to find drivers somewhere.

Hell, I use Windows XP 32 bit drivers for Windows 7 for an old GeForce video card and they work fine, same thing for an old Intel "Extreme Graphics" video chip on an old Dell Dimension system. It does work, even though the drivers are nearly 6 years old now, and they work in Windows 7 to provide far superior performance as well as all the resolutions and color depth I expect to have.

So, yeah, the drivers will always be a sticking point for some hardware... just don't waste money on cheap shit hardware and then it'll never be an issue. :) As I've said over the years, I've never encountered a piece of hardware that wasn't some cheap piece of shit and from a name brand company that I couldn't locate a 64 bit driver for, and that was with XP Pro x64 right in the middle of the nearly infinite wall of resistance where people complained about - go figure - not finding drivers.

Besides, as anyone would probably agree with: even though Windows 7 runs far better on older hardware than Vista does (made a booboo, see the Edit info), it's not necessarily a better choice on that hardware. Just because I can run Windows 7 on an old P3 1.13 GHz ThinkPad with 1GB of PC133 RAM in it doesn't mean I should for regular usage, nor will I. It's just too old (even though the hardware is fully supported, go figure...)
 
Last edited:
Joe Average said:
Hell, I use Windows XP 32 bit drivers for Windows 7 for an old GeForce video card and they work fine, same thing for an old Intel "Extreme Graphics" video chip on an old Dell Dimension system. It does work, even though the drivers are nearly 6 years old now, and they work in Windows 7 to provide far superior performance as well as all the resolutions and color depth I expect to have.
Click to expand...

And how exactly did you manage to install 32bit drivers on Win7? We are talking 64bit drivers here, your comment is irrelevant.

I've never encountered a piece of hardware that wasn't some cheap piece of shit and from a name brand company that I couldn't locate a 64 bit driver for, and that was with XP Pro x64 right in the middle of the nearly infinite wall of resistance where people complained about - go figure - not finding drivers.
Click to expand...

Well, the main reason (if not only) I moved from x64 was driver support. I guess I had access to more peripherals than you (I do service and repair). I'll grant the fact that many of them were cheap piece of shit, but not all.

Besides, as anyone would probably agree with: even though Windows 7 runs far better on older hardware than XP does, it's not necessarily a better choice on that hardware. Just because I can run Windows 7 on an old P3 1.13 GHz ThinkPad with 1GB of PC133 RAM in it doesn't mean I should for regular usage, nor will I. It's just too old (even though the hardware is fully supported, go figure...)
Click to expand...

You mean Vista not XP right?
Anyway, I beg to differ. I've just finished installing Win7 RC 32bit on a centrino hp laptop with only 512mb of ram, and it runs surprisingly well.

BTW an old P3 1.13 thinkpad should be faster than any Atom based netbook, so...
 
Yah, I meant Vista there, my mistake.

And yes I know about the drivers and we're discussing x64 primarily, but I was just tossing that out there as another situation (that XP drivers work in Windows 7 depending on the hardware - and yes I've used XP Pro x64 drivers for Windows 7 x64 several times without issues instead of Vista ones).

And I've been doing service and repair for decades, but I guess I tend to make that point all too often. :) Been there, done that...

A Pentium 3 1.13 outperforming an Atom? Hmmm... that seems a bit off but, as I've never owned a Netbook personally I can't offer up my own benchmark results that might confirm that. Would be interesting to run some Geekbench 32 bit tests on each platform however (an older version of Geekbench that I still use, not the newer one which is kinda useless to me).
 
Is it still common for people to use old computers/peripherals? I'd think most people have upgraded past that by now.
 
The kicker there is "most people" because "most people" with Windows on their computer probably are running XP (as it's been shown to still hold roughly 60-65% market share in a recent comparison) and purchased the computer between 2000 and 2004, so "most people" are most definitely still using older hardware.

Even with Vista's 20-25% market share, which is almost all because it came on new machines, you're still looking at a freakin' huge amount of hardware with XP on it, and a lot of those are probably still running the original factory installation, go figure. :)

Now with Windows 7 coming on strong, we're looking at the same 20-25% market share if Vista users "jump ship" but then there could be a lot of actual upgraders that make that huge leap from XP directly to Windows 7.

If there's one thing that killed Vista, it's word of mouth more than anything else, period.

Let's make sure people know that Windows 7 kicks ass, because it does. If that means Vista "dies" a very quick death, so be it. Let it go, and move on I say, don't dwell on it.

When Windows 7 comes out, and OEM boxen are ready to roll, we'll see a shitload of people buying it and new computers in the process, that much I truly believe will happen. The PC industry will see a huge upswing this holiday season... and so will Microsoft, much to the chagrin of Apple.
 
MightyDiomed said:
64-bit, no reason not to.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of reasons not to although if possible I'd say go to 64 bit at this point.

Driver issues still exist although most new hardware shouldn't have issues with this. In my case my color network laser printer does not work in vista 64. I don't print that often so this doesn't bother me.

Big issue I know of right now with vista 64 is internet browsing and video playback. I've seen a few instances where this has caused issues. Flash is not yet ported to windows 64. This means for any site that uses flash(a lot of them) you need to run a 32bit browser. Their are issues with flash running well in this setup(java does have a 64 bit build). Some systems this seems to effect and some it doesn't. I have been going back and forth with firefox and chrome on my system depending on how flash runs.

One client had it on a 64 bit vista install without issues. Another we ended up taking back to vista 32 because of it and video playback.

Video playback is another area where issues pop up as a lot of the video players are not 64 bit yet. This is getting better. Once again it seems to caused issues at random.
 
What kind of videos are you watching where 64-bit causes issues?
 
Azureth said:
What kind of videos are you watching where 64-bit causes issues?
Click to expand...

Its more with codecs. A lot of people I know just use VLC for everything. It doesn't have a 64 bit built in part because of all of the 32 bit lib's that are 3rd party. A lot of other media players are the same way. Get a lot of video issues(video freezes etc) even with updated drivers and programs. Once again some 64bit installs don't seem to have issues. Never really found good information on why some do and some don't.

Xvid added 64 bit support a while ago. This will play divix files so most people should be set.

Another issue with with media center if you use it. I've read of issues using it in vista 64 due to third party plugins not working in the 64 bit program. I run vista business so I can't comment on this.

In my case 1 day firefox will run fine with flash, the next day it runs like ass and I have to run chrome. Also every firefox update seems to screw it up more. I have to uninstall flash and reload it. Haven't tried ie8 yet but 7 had the same issues. It was weird as flash ran on it without issue for months.

Big thing now is that more and more software is being written with 64 bit in mind so they issues are being fixed. Big holdout now is adobe with flash. That will fix a lot of peoples issues.
 
For video stuff, Windows 7 rules nowadays because the "plays anything" concept, and it nearly does. If you use MPC-HC (Media Player Classic - Home Cinema, a customized version), and you match the version (x86 or x64) with the version of Windows 7 you're using (again, x86 or x64), that'll play pretty much anything floating around out there except RealMedia content. It'll cover DivX, Xvid, h/x264, MPEG1/2/4, etc etc and of course QuickTime content too.

With Vista, FFDShow x86 or x64 coupled with MPC-HC x86 or x64 seems to be the single solution for the most playback possibilities, in my experience.
 
swatbat said:
Its more with codecs. A lot of people I know just use VLC for everything. It doesn't have a 64 bit built in part because of all of the 32 bit lib's that are 3rd party. A lot of other media players are the same way. Get a lot of video issues(video freezes etc) even with updated drivers and programs. Once again some 64bit installs don't seem to have issues. Never really found good information on why some do and some don't.

Xvid added 64 bit support a while ago. This will play divix files so most people should be set.

Another issue with with media center if you use it. I've read of issues using it in vista 64 due to third party plugins not working in the 64 bit program. I run vista business so I can't comment on this.

In my case 1 day firefox will run fine with flash, the next day it runs like ass and I have to run chrome. Also every firefox update seems to screw it up more. I have to uninstall flash and reload it. Haven't tried ie8 yet but 7 had the same issues. It was weird as flash ran on it without issue for months.

Big thing now is that more and more software is being written with 64 bit in mind so they issues are being fixed. Big holdout now is adobe with flash. That will fix a lot of peoples issues.
Click to expand...

There must be something wrong with your install, because I've had 3 computers all running Vista Home Premium 64 and never had any problems watching anything. All used FF as well.
 
Joe Average said:
For video stuff, Windows 7 rules nowadays because the "plays anything" concept, and it nearly does. If you use MPC-HC (Media Player Classic - Home Cinema, a customized version), and you match the version (x86 or x64) with the version of Windows 7 you're using (again, x86 or x64), that'll play pretty much anything floating around out there except RealMedia content. It'll cover DivX, Xvid, h/x264, MPEG1/2/4, etc etc and of course QuickTime content too.

With Vista, FFDShow x86 or x64 coupled with MPC-HC x86 or x64 seems to be the single solution for the most playback possibilities, in my experience.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

When I first installed win7 I was unaware that it already had all the codecs I need, I was pleasantly surprised that MPC-HD played everything I threw at it.
I did install FFDshow anyway since I like its post-processing features.
 
Azureth said:
There must be something wrong with your install, because I've had 3 computers all running Vista Home Premium 64 and never had any problems watching anything. All used FF as well.
Click to expand...

Hell it worked fine at first.

I've known a few people that have had issues with this. One of my coworkers has reloaded a few of his friends machines back to xp or vista 32 where they bought something with vista 64 on it. Not really sure whats going on. I've read about people having similar issues but I have yet to see a solid fix.

In my case I blow away flash a reload it, seems to generally get it running half assed again. Really adobe just needs a 64 bit binary for it. This should clean up a lot of issues.
 
64-bit. Why would you run a 32-bit OS now-a-days? There are very few apps that won't run on WOW64.
 
Jon55 said:
64-bit. Why would you run a 32-bit OS now-a-days? There are very few apps that won't run on WOW64.
Click to expand...
People that run older hardware without 64-bit drivers or people that run ancient 16-bit apps.

They're a dying breed and soon to be extinct.:D
 
I threw quicktime Lite and RealLite on my 7 install with MPC and combined with that and the standard WMP haven't found anything I can't play yet between the 2 players. I do like the real player's recorder though, which I miss.
 
wow!

32 or 64....gotta love the decision making process!!!

maybe windows 7!


bud light....less filling, tastes great!

al
 
The only reason not to go 64 imo is if you have any 16 bit programs that you need frequently...that's my only gripe with my vista64 install.
 
That's why we have virtual machine software nowadays for those old bastards (and young ones too) that simply can't move on past those old 16 bit apps. :D

VirtualBox is free, VirtualPC 2007 is free (but for older versions of Windows, the one for Windows 7 only works if your CPU has VT-x support), or VMWare too, and are alternatives that will let you run entire OSes to handle that old code.

If it's a game of some kind, DOSBox might be able to help depending on the situation.
 
swatbat said:
I've read about people having similar issues but I have yet to see a solid fix.
Click to expand...
The problem is/was, that these people thought they should be using the x64 version of IE. The default is the x86 version, even on an x64 OS, such as Vista x64. The x64 browser doesn't have support for all codecs and built-in helpers. The x86 version of IE is no different that the one loaded on Vista x86. Any web videos that will play in Vista x86 will also play fine in Vista x64, using the default browser.
 
DeaconFrost said:
The problem is/was, that these people thought they should be using the x64 version of IE. The default is the x86 version, even on an x64 OS, such as Vista x64. The x64 browser doesn't have support for all codecs and built-in helpers. The x86 version of IE is no different that the one loaded on Vista x86. Any web videos that will play in Vista x86 will also play fine in Vista x64, using the default browser.
Click to expand...

No it was issues with using the 32 bit browser on the 64 bit system. Really it is flash. Adobes flash has had issues with the 64 bit os causing a lot of slowdowns. Some people experience it and others don't. The fix will be when adobe releases a 64 bit flash plugin for windows so you can run the 64 bit ie or firefox.
 
There is no reason for 99% of all users to use 32bit versions of Windows. 64bit is the only way to go today. (Unless you do not have a 64bit processor, which I assume is not the case.)
 
just spoke to MS rep on another issue, and he said that 32 bit was just fine unless you were doing some heavy heavy lifting...


which is maybe 99 percent of this board!

but, FWIW, he was saying the proc speed is the biggest deal, (we know that , so we OC our machines) and that you would run into some compatibility issues....

didn't know that you could get virtual machine software , will look into that!


the bleeding edge?

but for now, I am gonna stay with 32 bit for now, but hey, I am neeeew!
 
surfbug said:
just spoke to MS rep on another issue, and he said that 32 bit was just fine unless you were doing some heavy heavy lifting...


which is maybe 99 percent of this board!

but, FWIW, he was saying the proc speed is the biggest deal, (we know that , so we OC our machines) and that you would run into some compatibility issues....

didn't know that you could get virtual machine software , will look into that!


the bleeding edge?

but for now, I am gonna stay with 32 bit for now, but hey, I am neeeew!
Click to expand...

That's actually bad advice from the MS Rep. Seriously, 64bit is just as good as 32bit and better. When I say there is no reason for 32bit Windows for 99% of all the users out there I mean it. There is no reason NOT to use 64bit Windows as they are the same price. Why limit yourself to 4GB of RAM or less? Anything designed to work with 32bit Vista will work with the 64bit version. Very little if any 32bit software doesn't work in 64bit Windows. Virtual PC, which is free BT\W, can handle just about anything that wouldn't work with Vista 64.
 
Dan_D said:
That's actually bad advice from the MS Rep. Seriously, 64bit is just as good as 32bit and better. When I say there is no reason for 32bit Windows for 99% of all the users out there I mean it. There is no reason NOT to use 64bit Windows as they are the same price. Why limit yourself to 4GB of RAM or less? Anything designed to work with 32bit Vista will work with the 64bit version. Very little if any 32bit software doesn't work in 64bit Windows. Virtual PC, which is free BT\W, can handle just about anything that wouldn't work with Vista 64.
Click to expand...

Any idiot who thinks 32-bit is somehow superior deserves what they get. I want to shoot these people who say 32-bit is "safer".
 
Jon55 said:
Any idiot who thinks 32-bit is somehow superior deserves what they get. I want to shoot these people who say 32-bit is "safer".
Click to expand...

Or that "64bit is only needed for high performance applications and enthusiasts."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top