![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
New to 64-Bit...please suggest some software...
- Thread starter Lyquist
- Start date
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
www.start64.com
Go there, read up, there's a lot of stuff available. There was a thread here like this less than 2 weeks ago, going back through the post topics will find it for ya also. Same questions, over and over again, already answered...
Go there, read up, there's a lot of stuff available. There was a thread here like this less than 2 weeks ago, going back through the post topics will find it for ya also. Same questions, over and over again, already answered...
LMAO, does anyone use any of that JUNK software. Seriously x64 has been nothing but an PR gimmick. There isnt anything there I'd even use and nothing there justifying x64 for it
What about the 4 gigs of memory. 32-bit edition doesn't allow all 4 gigs right?
LMAO, does anyone use any of that JUNK software. Seriously x64 has been nothing but an PR gimmick. There isnt anything there I'd even use and nothing there justifying x64 for it
3ds max, photoshop, SLI with graphic cards that have 1GB+ ram each? No, nothing justifies x64 at all...
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
LMAO, does anyone use any of that JUNK software. Seriously x64 has been nothing but an PR gimmick. There isnt anything there I'd even use and nothing there justifying x64 for it
It's amazing how fast a decent thread can turn into absolute shit by an ignorant off the cuff remark, ain't it?
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
7-zip 64bit is pretty awesome....
LMAO, does anyone use any of that JUNK software. Seriously x64 has been nothing but an PR gimmick. There isnt anything there I'd even use and nothing there justifying x64 for it
There is a HUGE performance increase with Adobe CS4 64 bit Vs. 32 bit, and also a nice increase with Virtualdub. Also nice performance increase with 7-Zip. However, aside from that I agree in terms of I don't see any other worthwhile software that fully take advantage of x64. Hopefully in the next several years.
To the OP, I recently made a thread asking the same question: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1377958
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
... which is exactly where 64 bit is designed to show its prowess over 32 bit, in power apps, not your average daily crap like Notepad or whatever. In time everything will be 64 bit because that's just how things go, but comments that dismiss 64 bit as a "PR gimmick" only prove to show the absolute ignorance of the person making the comment in the first place.
I do have vista x64 and vista 32bit and there is a very noticable improvement in x64 even using 32 bit. apps.
It's faster, more responsive, more robust, more stable. Video playback is more fluid. Everything is just better. And I can say that because I can directly compare the two.
It's faster, more responsive, more robust, more stable. Video playback is more fluid. Everything is just better. And I can say that because I can directly compare the two.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
ahh, one big drawback to 64-bit vista.... older games that rely on older versions of punkbuster (Quake 3 Arena in my case) wont work......
so yea.... one thing to keep in mind... if it matters at all to you....
so yea.... one thing to keep in mind... if it matters at all to you....
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
Quake 3 is the only game I play and I've got no issues using it (although I hate it with a passion) under XP Pro x64 and I've tested it under Vista Business SP1 x64 on the same hardware, works fine here.
If the application is designed to use x64 yes, it may be faster, but not many are 64 bit. And again most of the stuff listed here are little utilities... so you are going to run 64 bit OS for a few little crap utilities.. why bother?
For the most part using the WOW emulation 32-bit apps are NOT faster in an x64 environment. Apps like QuickPar and WinRar are two great examples, they are number crunching softwares that run much slower in an x64 environment. Sure there are a few apps like one poster listed... but seriously... I do so much more that just use unzip apps (7-zip 64bit). Compression and encoders are fine - but show me ones that actually use 64 bit?
So again, the only benefit here is that yes you can use more than 4GB addressable memory (GPU + System) but you are losing so much performance using WOW for 32 bit apps that its not worth it. For the record I always have Vista x64 SP2 beta installed on a second drive for testing.
A coder at Nvnews explored this a bit -
http://nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=114806&highlight=x64+slower
For the most part using the WOW emulation 32-bit apps are NOT faster in an x64 environment. Apps like QuickPar and WinRar are two great examples, they are number crunching softwares that run much slower in an x64 environment. Sure there are a few apps like one poster listed... but seriously... I do so much more that just use unzip apps (7-zip 64bit). Compression and encoders are fine - but show me ones that actually use 64 bit?
So again, the only benefit here is that yes you can use more than 4GB addressable memory (GPU + System) but you are losing so much performance using WOW for 32 bit apps that its not worth it. For the record I always have Vista x64 SP2 beta installed on a second drive for testing.
A coder at Nvnews explored this a bit -
http://nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=114806&highlight=x64+slower
In particular cases, the WoW64 thunking layer (not an emulator, of course) might well lead to lower performance for 32-bit programs, if they're focusing highly on doing very specific tasks which hit that layer frequently. However, this is somewhat academic when real-world performance is no different in the vast majority of cases.
When theoretical rarely-seen slowdowns are put up against being able to make use of additional RAM and 64-bit programs, a 64-bit OS is a clear winner for most scenarios. Only if you're in the habit of running particularly CPU-intensive 32-bit-only programs which make many system calls but don't benefit from additional RAM (even for multitasking) would it make sense to stay with 32-bit for performance reasons.
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
no joke. Troll made it on 3. Gotta hand it to these guys, they're fast.
My favorite thing in the world about Vista 64 was when i came back from a camping trip having left my PC folding all weekend. Folding is CPU intensive, but its ram footprint is pretty small. I had also managed to leave firefox 2, the one with the memory leak in it running. Task manager was saying that Firefox 2 was consuming just under 1GB of memory
O). You know what? it ran everything without a hitch. Closed my folding instance and started up a game of TF2. Ran without a hitch.BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
Older software like? I've had no problems getting 32bit software working on Vista x64 (assuming it worked on Vista 32 to begin with).
Some games and open source programs I use don't have 64 support. Went back to XP so I don't know how they fair with Vista. Windows 7 64 would be the first one I'd ever try.
The Windows On Windows compatibility layer is pretty fast. The programs should still run at least as fast as they would on a 32-bit system if not faster. Nothing is gonna be slower in 64 bit.
How did you come to that conclusion? There is an emulation layer there, everything will be slower in X64 that is made for X86. Its common sense. They wont be as fast or faster with an emulation layer to run them.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
How did you come to that conclusion? There is an emulation layer there, everything will be slower in X64 that is made for X86. Its common sense. They wont be as fast or faster with an emulation layer to run them.
Actually, under XP Pro x64 in my own testing, Quake 3 - a 32 bit app start to finish - is actually ~20% faster on the same hardware than it is under XP x86... you have to realize that you're making a fairly ignorant assumption in general when you do bother to do it in that manner.
The fact is: you can't just look at some emulation layer as the end-all-be-all determinant of performance when dealing with 32 bit apps under XP Pro x64 - or most any 64 bit version of Windows when compared to the 32 bit version of the same OS.
There are other factors at work here, such as the fact that RAM bandwidth works better because the OS is communicating with it in a more efficient - meaning bigger chunks - manner. You're also neglecting drivers which would be handling data in a more efficient - meaning bigger chunks - manner as well.
Quake 3 runs faster under a 64 bit OS even if the app is 32 bits because it's:
- having access to system RAM in a more efficient manner because the underlying OS is 64 bit
- dealing with the GPU in a more efficient manner because the video drivers are 64 bit
and other considerations.
Don't jump to making ignorant assumptions... they'll come back to bite you in the ass far more often than not. Having said that, the WoW layer IS very damned efficient, it always has been. Nice to see other people know this... and now, hopefully, so do you.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
+1, also, for those not running AMDs or i7s, the Merom architecture doesnt support marco-ops fusion under 64-bit
i myself still prefer 64-bit... but lets not kid ourselves here, as of right now, 32/64 perform very similarly for *most* apps
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
For most, but not all. Some apps do show a boost in an x64 environment. The troll above, dnottis, can't seem to take his head out of his ass long enough to realize that x64 isn't just about performance, either. It isn't even just about performance right now.
Above all, the x64 is about moving forward, and if there aren't many computers out there running x64 OSes, what motivation would programmers have for writing x64 apps?
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
lol, you do realize you said exactly the same thing that i did right.... *most* apps...
anyway, im not arguing, like i said, i prefer 64 bit myself (even though i am currently running 32 bit on account of a TV tuner card that has crappy 64 bit drivers....)
the biggest tragedy is windows 7 coming in a 32 bit version at all
DeaconFrost
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,582
Yes, that was to emphasize the most part....meaning most, but not all, as dnottis seems to think.
How did you come to that conclusion? There is an emulation layer there, everything will be slower in X64 that is made for X86. Its common sense. They wont be as fast or faster with an emulation layer to run them.
Your ignorance is amazing. Are you done trolling yet?
Jon55, I agree, Kind of funny though, Some kids think they know it all. You would think a long time member would not display such attitudes. Not all of us "are know it all" though.
Even though we have been doing this a long time (techies) we do know we can still learn.
Even though we have been doing this a long time (techies) we do know we can still learn.