Do you have to use a 64 bit Vista with a dual core setup?

No, you don't have to have 64-bit, yes you can use your 32-bit disc.


the limitation that 64-bit doesn't have is the 4GB memory barrier.
 
i love my 64-bit vista setup, but yeah the 4gb barrier would be annoying for 32-bit.
 
You don't need to have a multi-core setup for 64-bit. You should have a large amount of memory to see many of the benefits of 64-bit. Although Vista (32 and 64) doesn't require a multi-core processor, it is recommended.
 
DJBPace07 said:
You don't need to have a multi-core setup for 64-bit. You should have a large amount of memory to see many of the benefits of 64-bit. Although Vista (32 and 64) doesn't require a multi-core processor, it is recommended.
Click to expand...

From his topic question, we can assume he already has a dual-core system. However, what makes you think having a multi-core processor is recommended for Vista? I ran it on an Athlon64 4000+ for well over 7 months with no issues. My laptop is a Celeron M 520 and has no issues running Vista Ultimate 64.
 
ryan_975 said:
However, what makes you think having a multi-core processor is recommended for Vista?
Click to expand...
Most places would tell you that a dual-core setup is recommended for Vista. There's nothing wrong with saying it is recommended....as long as a person doesn't say it is required.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Most places would tell you that a dual-core setup is recommended for Vista. There's nothing wrong with saying it is recommended....as long as a person doesn't say it is required.
Click to expand...

Except that it suggests that Vista itself performs better on a dual core setup compared to a single core system, which simply isn't the case. Applications, sure. But for a gaming (except for teh newest games) or basic tasks systems, there's not much difference between SMP and UP. Now I can see recommending a dual-core system for an overall average performance gain, but not recommending it soley for Vista's sake.
 
True, but does anyone simply run Vista with no applications? Sounds like you're just splitting hairs at this point. It may not be a huge difference, but I think most people would rather have a dual-core processor, as opposed to a single core of the same speed. I'm not suggesting that small mundane tasks would suddenly fly, but it definitely would be better off.
 
DeaconFrost said:
True, but does anyone simply run Vista with no applications? Sounds like you're just splitting hairs at this point. It may not be a huge difference, but I think most people would rather have a dual-core processor, as opposed to a single core of the same speed. I'm not suggesting that small mundane tasks would suddenly fly, but it definitely would be better off.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. In my defense, for the last week, I've been working with a lady that I sold a new Vista box to. My head is still in "teaching noobie" mode. Plus, with all the rampant "Vista sucks, it won't run on my 15 year old computer" threads around the net, every little bit of truth helps.
 
I understand what you mean. I had Vista x64 running on a Celeron D 356 and it ran very well. That was the first system I loaded Vista on to test it out.
 
DeaconFrost said:
I understand what you mean. I had Vista x64 running on a Celeron D 356 and it ran very well. That was the first system I loaded Vista on to test it out.
Click to expand...

Hell, my sister runs Home Basic on her Sempron 2300+ system with only 512MB ram and it does well enough for her.
 
I have two computers, the one that's in my sig is my main PC. The other one is seven years old, has a 2Ghz Pentium 4, 1 GB of Rambus RAM, and a GeForce 7 graphics card. It runs Vista...just not very quickly.
 
Since you have the hardware, no reason to not go with 64 bit at all at this point.
For drivers to get signed, with Vista now, the device manufacturers must make a 64 bit equivalent as well. As such- support for 64 bit is just as good as 32 bit- in most cases.


That, and you'll already be ready for the future when it moves to 64 bit.




In response to last post, I've got it running on an 8 year old machine. P4 3.2Ghz... Pretty slow machine. I spent $50 on 2GB of RAM, and it runs Vista like a dream.
 
TechieSooner said:
Since you have the hardware, no reason to not go with 64 bit at all at this point.
For drivers to get signed, with Vista now, the device manufacturers must make a 64 bit equivalent as well. As such- support for 64 bit is just as good as 32 bit- in most cases.


That, and you'll already be ready for the future when it moves to 64 bit.




In response to last post, I've got it running on an 8 year old machine. P4 3.2Ghz... Pretty slow machine. I spent $50 on 2GB of RAM, and it runs Vista like a dream.
Click to expand...

I don't think they Pentium 4's 8 years ago, much less have them running at 3.2GHz.
 
I am running Vista 32 bit on a quad (Q6600) and at the same speed as the E6600 it replaced, it is just a better experience all around. I consider it money well spent. Vista runs ok on my single core laptop, but more cores is noticeably better. I have 4GB RAM installed. It shows 3.25 GB, but I will not reach the point with this build that I will feel limited by that. But in reference to the original post, Vista 32 is license limited to 2 physical processor chips, so with quad core being as good as it gets at the moment, you could run 8 cores at this point without problem, if you had a dual socket board, 64 bit not required. Yet...
 
DeaconFrost said:
I understand what you mean. I had Vista x64 running on a Celeron D 356 and it ran very well. That was the first system I loaded Vista on to test it out.
Click to expand...

I have Vista Ultimate x64 on such a system (with 512 MB of RAM, no less, and with SP1 applied). Runs just fine (in fact, better than Home Basic 32-bit ran on the same system).

To put the Celeron-D 356 in perspective, it's a single-core CPU based on the Cedar Mill processor core (basically, it's a halved Pentium-D). It replaced the Prescott-based Celerons in desktops in 2006, and was itself replaced by Core-based Celerons in mid-2007.

The Prescott-based Celerons (and the Cedar Mill-based Celeron Ds) kept right on rebuilding the rotten reputation that had been heaped on the early generations of the Celeron Brand (derisively referred to as *Celery*).
 
DJBPace07 said:
I have two computers, the one that's in my sig is my main PC. The other one is seven years old, has a 2Ghz Pentium 4, 1 GB of Rambus RAM, and a GeForce 7 graphics card. It runs Vista...just not very quickly.
Click to expand...

Look at the machine in my own signature (another Vista Ultimate-based PC). That's my daily workhorse. The CPU (P4 2.6C OC'd to 2.9) is four years old, and the mobo is even older. Only the graphics are relatively new, and that's only because of my AIW 9700 Pro finally failing, thus forcing an upgrade. (The X-Fi XtremeGamer I bought was so my mom could finally have something better than onboard sound.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top