Vista 32bit VS 64bit (im a noob)

McRackin

McRackin

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
284
Whats the diff between 32b and 64b vista?

ps. im a noob with XP for the past 7 yrs
 
The biggest real world difference is the amount of addressable memory. With a 32-bit operating system, normally the OS can only address 2^32 bytes or 4 GB of RAM. With a 64-bit OS, that number is 2^64 theoretically though in real life I don't believe any current mass market CPU's actually can address that much RAM, and even as cheap as DDR2 RAM these days, that much memory would cost millions.

And with more memory, software can do more things though from a desktop perspective with current technology, there's not a lot that would take advantage of that kind of memory.
 
So what you're saying is someone with a simple quadcore processor and 4gig ram it makes maybe 5% performance difference?
 
McRackin said:
So what you're saying is someone with a simple quadcore processor and 4gig ram it makes maybe 5% performance difference?
Click to expand...

Probably something like that. Vista x64 does run faster than 32-bit though, so you may as well go with it if you have a 64-bit-capable CPU unless you need to run a particular application that isn't compatible.
 
Zero82z said:
Probably something like that. Vista x64 does run faster than 32-bit though, so you may as well go with it if you have a 64-bit-capable CPU unless you need to run a particular application that isn't compatible.
Click to expand...

And keep in mind that 64-bit Vista can run 32-bit applications just fine with no performance loss. The compatibility issues are programs that have to deal directly with the OS (disk defragmenters, virus scanners, etc). Every game I've tried runs fine on 64-bit Vista.

What you lose with 64-bit Vista is 16-bit application support, predominantly old DOS programs. You can still emulate them with a program like DOSBox.
 
So what you're saying is someone with a simple quadcore processor and 4gig ram it makes maybe 5% performance difference?
Click to expand...

No, he's just saying that while adding memory will help your computer to a certain point, eventually you will add more memory than you need and you will no longer see any benefit from more memory.

For example, if all you use on your computer is Notepad, and you have 512MB of RAM, you're probably fine. However, you can upgrade your memory to 2GB, 4GB, or even 8GB.

Let's say you upgraded that 512MB to 1GB. At that point, even when running Notepad, you'll probably notice that your computer is faster, and takes less time to turn on and get into Notepad. However, once you get 2GB of memory in the computer, you won't notice much of a change. By the time you end up with 4GB of memory, Notepad can't even being to use all the RAM in your computer, so you won't notice any change when upgrading to 8GB.

What does this have to do with your question?

The biggest difference between 64-bit and 32-bit is the amount of memory each operating system can use. The 32-bit operating system is limited to around 3GB of system memory, while the 64-bit version can address many terabytes of memory. If you have more than 3GB of memory in your computer, you would be better off using Vista 64-bit. If not, ir really doesn't matter which one you use - there is practically no other difference between them.
 
DanW said:
If not, ir really doesn't matter which one you use - there is practically no other difference between them.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. There is a definite increase in general OS performance moving from 32-bit to 64-bit Vista.
 
There are so many things consider when it comes to 64bit performance. The computer industry hasn't made a full swing to 64bit yet. Right now, I only see minor improvements besides able to utilize more ram. In Linux world, it is a bit different if you start off with 64bit OS and only work with 64bit packages. However, I could be totally wrong. I just said that to avoid FLAME!!!!
 
I read in some forums overclocking in 64bit is a bit more difficult, because the cpu needs more vcore to stabilize it compared to a 32bit OS. Currenty running Vista 64 and I find it a bit believable.

Just bought a new harddisk, and I'll install a windows 7 beta x32 just to check.
 
DanW said:
For example, if all you use on your computer is Notepad, and you have 512GB of RAM, you're probably fine.
Click to expand...

Probably fine, eh?

You sure notepad will run on 512GB? Has anyone benched notepad on 512GB, cuz I'm a heavy notepad user, and if it will help me to upgrade...
 
Retrolock said:
I read in some forums overclocking in 64bit is a bit more difficult, because the cpu needs more vcore to stabilize it compared to a 32bit OS. Currenty running Vista 64 and I find it a bit believable.

Just bought a new harddisk, and I'll install a windows 7 beta x32 just to check.
Click to expand...

Overclocking and the OS you're running have nothing to do with each other.

The only limit on overclocking is the hardware involved and the cooling, that is all
 
Tylerdurdened said:
Overclocking and the OS you're running have nothing to do with each other.

The only limit on overclocking is the hardware involved and the cooling, that is all
Click to expand...

No, its probably true. Xp requires lesser vcore adjustment than when using Vista 64. Just ask those overclockers at xtremesystems. I know also because I can get my oc stable on xp with lesser voltage than on vista x64.

my e8400 vid also changed. Win 7 x32 = 1.200v , vista x64 = 1.225. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top