Is the 32-bit version of Windows 10 faster on hardware with less than 4GB RAM?

A

athenian200

Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
837
So, I have an old Toshiba Satellite (C655-S5049) with only 2GB RAM. The thing is, I don't generally buy laptops for myself and usually end up using whatever other people discard. Someone thought the machine was broken because it stopped booting into Windows and they couldn't get the OEM restore disks to work, gave it to me to throw out... but I got it working with a standard installation.

I've put some work into tweaking Windows. I've been using ReadyBoost with an 8GB Flash drive, and I went through and did a lot of things like disabling animations, Cortana, excess services, etc. After enabling ReadyBoost everything seems to speed up significantly after using the computer for about 20 minutes, although it acts really sluggish during those first 20 minutes after a reboot.

Still, Windows uses almost a full gigabyte of RAM when it starts up, and I've been looking for ways to cut it back. I could probably just drop another 2GB stick into the machine and solve a lot of the problems (it supports 4GB), but I don't really want to invest money into upgrading something with a Celeron 900. If it supported 8GB, I would probably install the maximum amount just for fun, but 4GB is kind of a boring amount... it's not small enough that I have to aggressively tweak things, but it's not large enough that I can relax about RAM usage.

The only thing I really want to do with this computer is surf the Internet and run Office. It mostly works well for that, although it could be a little snappier. I was looking at the RAM requirements, and I noticed that while I'm just barely meeting the RAM requirements for 64-bit Windows, the 32-bit version only requires 1GB. Is it safe to assume that I would cut back a lot on RAM usage with 32-bit? Or would it be roughly the same as the 64-bit version in terms of RAM use? Also, would there be a CPU speed penalty for using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor?
 
64-bit uses a bit more ram than 32-bit mainly because 64-bit instructions have to use 64-bit addresses (8-16bytes more per instruction).
 
If given the choice you should always go 64-bit over 32-bit, even for low ram. The reason is security and the explanation is a bit technical. Basically, there is a security feature called ASLR, on 32-bit it is easily bypassed but on 64-bit it is hard to bypass. ASLR randomizes addresses of apps so exploits can't guess where crucial code is, even with low amounts of ram 64-bit gives you a virtual address space equal to the max amount of memory making guessing the addresses the exploit needs vastly more difficult. Some 64-bit code is much faster than equivalent 32-bit code as well.
 
Ugh, why am I not surprised? Same thing that keeps me from just putting XP on this machine keeps me from going to 32-bit. I really hate the way security is implemented on computers. I'm so tired of applications being bloated up with security features, having to install three or four plugins just to make sites load in a reasonable amount of time, constantly being pressured to hand out my mobile phone number, getting yelled at for using a different browser or computer than I used last time, and being forced to jump through hoops over every little thing. Oh, and I hate those sites that ask you to change your password every month to something ridiculously long, and include all those weird characters. The end result is always that I can never remember my password and have to reset it every other time I want to log in. This stuff works for most people that always use the same computer and the same browser, but I have multiple computers and use multiple browsers, so I get hit the hardest by this technique.

It's almost as inconvenient to login to a website from a different browser/computer now as it is to get on a plane with a carry-on bag. I guess I'll stick to the 64-bit version and deal with the performance hit, it's not really bad enough that I would want to compromise the computer's security. I can't help but say I resent how modern security has changed my life, even if it's for my own good. It gives me a lot less control and insight into what exactly a program is doing, and keeps a lot of the internals in a black box. I'm not very comfortable with that, honestly...
 
You sound really mad, and you sound like 64-bit imposes a 98% performance penalty or something.

The "penalty" is virtually unnoticeable on even low-end systems. Even a 2GB RAM antique would be fine. I got through Server 2008 classes back when it was new on a 2GB laptop, and at one time I was running two VMs along with the host OS.

I survived.
 
lol oh yea why are you the least bit annoyed that 64bit is recommended? espicaly if you load win 10 as its able to squeeze by with almost zero performance hit- if any...ram included. Know one said you had to use it. the biggest reason i recommend it is better compatibility...not everything comes in 32bit these days
 
In the time since I wrote this, the performance seems to have improved. I ran some tests, figured out that it only gets slow when it's accessing the hard drive... as long as it's using ReadyBoost or the RAM, it's fine to the point that I can open five tabs. Cutting a little bit of RAM use down with 32-bit probably wouldn't help much.

Oh, I was mad about security in general... not the 64-bit thing. I probably should have clarified that. I've been having all kinds of issues lately... not being able to change drivers easily if I have issues, not being able to use plug-ins I want to use because they're not signed, etc. It seems like it's increasingly difficult to do anything but just use the default, recommended configuration. It's all intended to keep me safe from hackers, but it also has the side effect of severely limiting what I can do and how I can do it.
 
Last edited:
yep.....on my low end laptop its slow as spinner HD really doesn't help...keep you eye out for a cheap ssd perhaps
 
Does that thing have a Celeron 900 in it? If so, a T9300 is a huge boost in performance for around $20 off of Ebay.

I would also upgrade it to 4GB of RAM.

I just did an almost exact upgrade for somebody.. except for the RAM was already at 3GB so I left that alone.

Before the processor upgrade it was stupid slow. I upgraded the CPU and tested it out. Much faster. I then did a Windows 10 upgrade (kept nothing), and it is a nice little machine.

In short, the Celeron 900 is a piece of trash.
 
cyclone3d said:
Does that thing have a Celeron 900 in it? If so, a T9300 is a huge boost in performance for around $20 off of Ebay.

I would also upgrade it to 4GB of RAM.

I just did an almost exact upgrade for somebody.. except for the RAM was already at 3GB so I left that alone.

Before the processor upgrade it was stupid slow. I upgraded the CPU and tested it out. Much faster. I then did a Windows 10 upgrade (kept nothing), and it is a nice little machine.

In short, the Celeron 900 is a piece of trash.
Click to expand...
yea for a min investment thats not a bad idea.....not sure i could deal with a single core pc myself...shesh my old amd dual core struggles to get by with win 10...lol chrome can actually max out both cores to 100% every now and then
 
Processors can actually be swapped out on laptops? Thought they soldered those on nowadays so you couldn't. Honestly, if it needs anything new, then I might as well get a new laptop, because I can already get one better than this for around $100. Aside from that, I already have better machines... this one is sort of a backup. I mostly find myself using it when I absolutely need something with its own screen and a smaller footprint that will fit on a TV tray. I use this computer out of laziness... being too lazy to reattach the keyboard to my Surface Pro every couple of hours when the signal drops, too lazy to put the wireless mouse and keyboard back on the TV tray when my Mom is at work, and too lazy to go into my bedroom and sit in a metal folding chair instead of the recliner.

I've found that this computer actually works really well with Remote Desktop and Steam In-Home streaming... so I probably don't need to be running stuff on it locally anyway. I've been using it like a computer, when it actually makes a much better thin client. LOL. But really, I should probably just stop being lazy and use my other computers instead... though RDP and Steam are making it really easy to keep being lazy.
 
Yes, processors can be upgraded pretty "easily" on most older laptops. Just don't go up to a 45w processor if they only thing that model line ever came with was a 35w; they don't design the cooling capabilities any higher than they need for highest model they'll be putting in it.
 
athenian200 said:
Processors can actually be swapped out on laptops? Thought they soldered those on nowadays so you couldn't.
Click to expand...
Many laptops have socketed processors. I've upgraded three of my laptops, of varying generations. 1st gen dual core mobile, a core2 mobile, and then a sandy bridge mobile. Depending on the laptop, the process was a bit involved, simply due to the fact that I had to take nearly everything apart to get to the processor socket, but it was very doable, and a worthwhile investment.
 
I wouldn't run 64 bit unless you have 3GB or more of system memory, or 2GB of system memory and a 2GB discrete GPU.

I recently installed 10 32 bit on a Vista era, Core solo system with 2GB of ram and it ran really well for what the hardware is. I had to put Firefox on it though, Edge was too sluggish.
 
Last edited:
i think my cell phone has a stronger cpu than his old living room laptop j/k..i might dual boot android or linux on it to make it more fluid
 
There is a performance hit and sometimes this is too much (talking supercomputing NOT general desktop...)

This is why x32 was created for linux:
The x32 ABI is an application binary interface (ABI) and one of the interfaces of the Linux kernel. It allows programs to take advantage of the benefits of x86-64 instruction set (larger number of CPU registers, better floating-point performance, faster position-independent codeshared libraries, function parameters passed via registers, faster syscall instruction) while using 32-bit pointers and thus avoiding the overhead of 64-bit pointers
Click to expand...

x32 ABI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
bigdogchris said:
I wouldn't run 64 bit unless you have 3GB or more of system memory, or 2GB of system memory and a 2GB discrete GPU.

I recently installed 10 32 bit on a Vista era, Core solo system with 2GB of ram and it ran really well for what the hardware is. I had to put Firefox on it though, Edge was too sluggish.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense to me... Unless Firefox got really optomized lately, since I refuse to run browsers without sandboxes, I haven't ran firefox in years.

As to 2GB of ram and X64, as most have said, X64 is definitely more secure, but it also doesn't have the massive perf hit people are talking about. And the reason is 64 bit has more registers, it's not an apple to apples comparison, because although the pointers are bigger, the CPU has more scratch space to work with.

In most perf testing I ran in the past, it was mostly a wash, even on 2GB systems. If a system can take 64 bit, I install 64 bit.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
athenian200 said:
Processors can actually be swapped out on laptops? Thought they soldered those on nowadays so you couldn't. Honestly, if it needs anything new, then I might as well get a new laptop, because I can already get one better than this for around $100. Aside from that, I already have better machines... this one is sort of a backup. I mostly find myself using it when I absolutely need something with its own screen and a smaller footprint that will fit on a TV tray. I use this computer out of laziness... being too lazy to reattach the keyboard to my Surface Pro every couple of hours when the signal drops, too lazy to put the wireless mouse and keyboard back on the TV tray when my Mom is at work, and too lazy to go into my bedroom and sit in a metal folding chair instead of the recliner.

I've found that this computer actually works really well with Remote Desktop and Steam In-Home streaming... so I probably don't need to be running stuff on it locally anyway. I've been using it like a computer, when it actually makes a much better thin client. LOL. But really, I should probably just stop being lazy and use my other computers instead... though RDP and Steam are making it really easy to keep being lazy.
Click to expand...

Best bet is to get a more powerful CPU of the same architecture and socket, and the same TDP. Put in 4GB of RAM in that bitch and you're good.
 
Ranma_Sao said:
That makes no sense to me... Unless Firefox got really optomized lately, since I refuse to run browsers without sandboxes, I haven't ran firefox in years.

As to 2GB of ram and X64, as most have said, X64 is definitely more secure, but it also doesn't have the massive perf hit people are talking about. And the reason is 64 bit has more registers, it's not an apple to apples comparison, because although the pointers are bigger, the CPU has more scratch space to work with.

In most perf testing I ran in the past, it was mostly a wash, even on 2GB systems. If a system can take 64 bit, I install 64 bit.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Click to expand...
Many things do not make sense, doesn't mean they aren't real. I have no inherit bias towards 64 bit so I run the lightest OS possible on that old hardware and that's 32 bit. Firefox is faster on it than Edge. The "more secure" argument is invalid to me because I've not seen empirical evidence that shows it's significantly better. Maybe a point or two better with infection rates. Not worth it on such an old system IMO.
 
I bet an SSD will improve the snappiness of that system by a large margin. What spinner is in there? 5400RPM? 4200RPM? Highly doubt it's a 7200RPM model. 5400RPM or less hard drives are SLOW.
 
If it's just the ram footprint, both 32 and 64 bit w10 have the same footprint. The 1GB/2GB ram required for 32/64 bit w10 was most likely pulled out of their axs. Everything after XP is unusable with 1GB ram in a standard OS configuration.
 
The 1GB/2GB thing... Well think about it. If 1GB is "we don't recommend it" low, what is the next minimum RAM size you can have? 1.25GB? (hint: the next easily available RAM size after 1GB, is 2GB)
 
I've got a cheap 8 inch Insignia tablet from BestBuy and it runs Windows 10 home 32 bit just fine on 1GB of ram. It's not blazing fast but it's surprisingly useable.
 
I have Windows 10 installed on all my Dell Venue 8 pro devices and it runs fine in 2GB X64 would not change that. Dell needs to release a 64bit UEFI for it.
 
Instead of complaining about 64bit, just get a damn computer that has more than 2GBs of RAM. Its 2016 for Christ's sake.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
I have Windows 10 installed on all my Dell Venue 8 pro devices and it runs fine in 2GB X64 would not change that. Dell needs to release a 64bit UEFI for it.
Click to expand...

The processor on that is a lot faster than that the OP is running.
 
MrTroy03 said:
Instead of complaining about 64bit, just get a damn computer that has more than 2GBs of RAM. Its 2016 for Christ's sake.
Click to expand...

Umm... you're missing the point if you think I NEED to use this computer.

I already have several computers with more than 2GB of RAM. I was just trying to tune this one to work as well as possible... mostly as a personal challenge, partly because it was convenient to use. But I already found a Windows 10 tweaking page anyway that helped me disable unneeded services. You really have to work at making Windows lean, but it can be made to run well enough on this machine. At this point, it runs well enough that I think I can leave the 64-bit version on here anyway. The bottleneck in performance isn't limited RAM... it's the hard drive.

Now that I've succeeded, though, someone just gave me a Surface Book with 16GB of RAM, and now I'm trying to challenge myself to hack as many programs as I can to run at a 3:2 ratio because the screen has an aspect ratio that's not compatible with anything else.

I just like doing things like this... one time, I spent a whole day trying to help someone run Nintendo 64 games on an old Pentium 4 with a lousy graphics card over Skype because his Dad wouldn't let him have a better computer. Eventually we did it and actually got decent performance. We also got a few DS games
 
Last edited:
athenian200 said:
Umm... you're missing the point if you think I NEED to use this computer.

I already have several computers with more than 2GB of RAM. I was just trying to tune this one to work as well as possible... mostly as a personal challenge, partly because it was convenient to use. But I already found a Windows 10 tweaking page anyway that helped me disable unneeded services. You really have to work at making Windows lean, but it can be made to run well enough on this machine. At this point, it runs well enough that I think I can leave the 64-bit version on here anyway.

Now that I've succeeded, though, someone just gave me a Surface Book with 16GB of RAM, and now I'm trying to challenge myself to hack as many programs as I can to run at a 3:2 ratio because the screen has an aspect ratio that's not compatible with anything else.

I just like doing things like this... one time, I spent a whole day trying to help someone run Nintendo 64 games on an old Pentium 4 with a lousy graphics card over Skype because his Dad wouldn't let him have a better computer. Eventually we did it and actually got decent performance.
Click to expand...
Disabling 'unneeded' services ended with XP.
 
BlackViper's stuff is for the most legit. Services set to 'ondemand' instead of automatic still have to be initialized to at least receive events and signals. If it's disabled, less will be done on startup. Certain services misbehave and service A takes some sweet time idling during boot re-attempting to connect to the disabled service.
Lots of Placebo and Nocebo happens, as well as 'random' Windows actions like spontaneous update check, some scheduled self-maintenance, etc.
For work, I don't care a lot and just disable things like 'upnp lookup, remote registry, adobe acrobat updater, printser/scanner bloat services.
For home, I have like 18 processes running.
Now, about the 32 bit code, naib's response is one I like a lot. Yes, with AMD's 64 bit implementation, some registers are wider, some registers are added. Good news for Linux.
Even though you're running code that uses 32-bit data, narrow pointer width, it can still utilize those extra features without the need to modify the source code. It's the compiler and linker who will find the slot parts that could benefit from, say, using various tricks to still 'force' the AMD 64 bit CPU to use its 64 bit features.
For Windows though, I always go with a 32 bit version when it's a slow (1.8GHz Core 2, 2 gigs of ram, even 4) because the code is smaller in size. You probably won't suffer from performance degradation due to a lack of handling Huge Numbers Math, but more likely because the cache is only so large and 64 bit code is longer.
 
athenian200 said:
I've put some work into tweaking Windows. I've been using ReadyBoost with an 8GB Flash drive, and I went through and did a lot of things like disabling animations, Cortana, excess services, etc. After enabling ReadyBoost everything seems to speed up significantly after using the computer for about 20 minutes, although it acts really sluggish during those first 20 minutes after a reboot.
Click to expand...

If you have ≤ 4GB RAM in windows 10 to avoid the issue with slow OS after reboot, go to power plans in control panel, disable Hibernate and disable Fast Startup then open an elevated CMD and type "powercfg -h -size 0" press enter close CMD, open again elevated CMD and type "powercfg /h /type reduced" fast startup is enabled by default in windows 10 even if you don't have SSD and low amount of RAM, So it will just cause poor boot/shutdown times and even more poorer reboot times. I did this with a friends machine for his father that always complained about the machine being slower to boot than windows 7 and it turned to be an old HP Machine with intel C2D E8400 + 4GB RAM + 5400RPM HDD, voila. everything went faster now to shutdown/boot/reboot.
 
Araxie said:
If you have ≤ 4GB RAM in windows 10 to avoid the issue with slow OS after reboot, go to power plans in control panel, disable Hibernate and disable Fast Startup then open an elevated CMD and type "powercfg -h -size 0" press enter close CMD, open again elevated CMD and type "powercfg /h /type reduced" fast startup is enabled by default in windows 10 even if you don't have SSD and low amount of RAM, So it will just cause poor boot/shutdown times and even more poorer reboot times. I did this with a friends machine for his father that always complained about the machine being slower to boot than windows 7 and it turned to be an old HP Machine with intel C2D E8400 + 4GB RAM + 5400RPM HDD, voila. everything went faster now to shutdown/boot/reboot.
Click to expand...
With cases like that i almost always find a hard drive that's never been defraged either lol or these hard drive is running 20MB's a sec Max without sata drivers ever been installed:) Like the op mentioned the hard drive performance makes a huge difference
 
michalrz said:
BlackViper's stuff is for the most legit. Services set to 'ondemand' instead of automatic still have to be initialized to at least receive events and signals. If it's disabled, less will be done on startup. Certain services misbehave and service A takes some sweet time idling during boot re-attempting to connect to the disabled service.
Lots of Placebo and Nocebo happens, as well as 'random' Windows actions like spontaneous update check, some scheduled self-maintenance, etc.
For work, I don't care a lot and just disable things like 'upnp lookup, remote registry, adobe acrobat updater, printser/scanner bloat services.
For home, I have like 18 processes running.
Now, about the 32 bit code, naib's response is one I like a lot. Yes, with AMD's 64 bit implementation, some registers are wider, some registers are added. Good news for Linux.
Even though you're running code that uses 32-bit data, narrow pointer width, it can still utilize those extra features without the need to modify the source code. It's the compiler and linker who will find the slot parts that could benefit from, say, using various tricks to still 'force' the AMD 64 bit CPU to use its 64 bit features.
For Windows though, I always go with a 32 bit version when it's a slow (1.8GHz Core 2, 2 gigs of ram, even 4) because the code is smaller in size. You probably won't suffer from performance degradation due to a lack of handling Huge Numbers Math, but more likely because the cache is only so large and 64 bit code is longer.
Click to expand...

Man, been a long time since I've heard that name, and I spent a good several years on this forum debunking that dudes website. He broke so much stuff, it's not even funny. I spent hours debugging watson dumps because windows API's were just failing on people's boxes, and nobody knew why.

You can't thunk a CPU into 64 bit mode, without running a 64 bit operating system. The processor needs to be switched into 64 bit mode, which is a protected operation. Now 32 bit code can use the new SSE instructions if that's what you meant, but that's way more than just a recompile.

As I said before, it's mostly been a wash for me, because although the code is slightly larger, the extra registers make up for it. But it's your computer, and as long as you are licensed, install what you want.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top