Windows 7: actual benefits of 64-bit?

venm11

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
2,236
Hey, folks.

Apparently 64-bit W7 uses far more memory. So, what does 64-bits get you besides more addressable memory? Is there any significant performance gain from 64-bit reg/data instructions, optimizations in graphics drivers, etc?

Also, are there any compatibility issues like XP 64 had?
 
I upgraded from XP Pro to Win 7 Home Premium 64. The only problem I have had so far is with the Netgear print server. I cannot get the software to install. I had to manually set the port parameters. I can print but cannot scan through the print server. The only real benefit I could find at this time is the 64 bit version allows you to install and utilize more memory. I went with it for future benefits. I checked my software and major hardware for 64 bit drivers and compatibility and found versions for almost everything so far.
 
More RAM/HDD space, yes, but "far" is a bit of a stretch.

Microsoft recommends 2gb ram for 64-bit, and 1gb for 32-bit.

I really don't understand why it would need 2x the ram, because only memory management pointers would actually double in size.. .everything else would use some kind of 32-bit relative addressing. Or, is code that's compiled for 64-bits actually larger? Like, the instructions are longer bytewise?

But, my main question about advantages and disadvantages. We have one example of legacy incompatibility.
 
even when i only had 2gb of ram i still desided to use 64bit because of one thing i found. XP64 (driver issues aside) was far far ahead of xp32 in terms of being very stable. i never had a single problem running vista 64 as far as the OS goes and now with win7 i have yet to have it crash since RC. everybody i know runs x64 now all because of my advice about it being beyond stable.
 
Microsoft recommends 2gb ram for 64-bit, and 1gb for 32-bit.

I really don't understand why it would need 2x the ram, because only memory management pointers would actually double in size.. .everything else would use some kind of 32-bit relative addressing. Or, is code that's compiled for 64-bits actually larger? Like, the instructions are longer bytewise?

But, my main question about advantages and disadvantages. We have one example of legacy incompatibility.

I think MS takes into account typical usage scenarios...I.E. you are likely to do more, with more demanding software, on 64-bit than 32-bit, at least that's probably what they figure. As far as compatibility, everything I've ever tried has worked in 64-bit or had 64-bit versions. Lots of games, random web apps, the devices in my sig, etc.
 
Ah... google to the rescue:
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=750496

Apparently, 64 is bigger mainly because of the 32-bit "emulation" (WOW?).

The performance differences are alleged to be minimal, which makes sense because of all the optimizations in software and at the chip level.

The alleged advantage is in memory addressable by the OS (>3.5gb) but also by individual applications (>2gb). Altough... I've seen apps in 32-bit Win Server 2003 mode chew up far more than 2gb so I'm skeptical of this claim.
 
Apps normally are restricted to 2GBs in 32-bit mode, but can be compiled with a switch/flag that allows up to 3GBs in 32-bit mode.
 
Microsoft recommends 2gb ram for 64-bit, and 1gb for 32-bit.

I really don't understand why it would need 2x the ram....

64-bit Windows does NOT 'need' double the RAM. The minimum recommendatios are what they are because the additional overhead of 64-bit Windows only has meaningful impact down in the lower reaches. By the time you reach 4Gb installed RAM the differences aren't meaningfully noticeable.

The only (at this point in time) genuine advantage of 64-bit Windows is the additional memory addressing. If your usage habits require you to have 4Gb or greater RAM installed in the rig then use 64-bit Windows. If your usage habits see you running a rig with less than 4Gb RAM fitted then toss a coin, because it makes jackshit difference which install you use.
 
I really don't understand why it would need 2x the ram, because only memory management pointers would actually double in size.. .everything else would use some kind of 32-bit relative addressing. Or, is code that's compiled for 64-bits actually larger? Like, the instructions are longer bytewise?
Yes, the instructions are longer bytewise in 64-bit applications. In general, apps will have the same number of instructions, but those instructions will each be twice as bit (64 bits versus 32 bits).
 
Yes, the instructions are longer bytewise in 64-bit applications. In general, apps will have the same number of instructions, but those instructions will each be twice as bit (64 bits versus 32 bits).

[I assume you mean "twice as big" not "twice as bit"]
Not really, a lot of instructions only deal with registers, and those will be the same size. Something like "push ebp" (32-bit) will be the same size as "push rbp" (64-bit), ditto something like "add eax,ecx" and "add rax,rcx". And even those instructions that reference memory addresses or use ints, don't generally double in size in 64-bit as the instruction contains more than the int/memory address. I think the numbers I've seen indicate 64-bit apps are in general 30% larger than 32-bit apps. Like I said, the memory requirements probably are guided by typical usage scenarios...

[edit] I can't find the article on program size differences, but I did find:
There's nothing bad in the fact that with a 32-bit system having 2 GB of memory a program took 300 MB, but with a 64-bit system having 8 GB of memory this program takes 400 MB.
at http://www.viva64.com/content/artic...ation.html&lang=en&content=64-bit-development - which sort of backs up my numbers.

Also another example: 32-bit iexplore.exe on my windows 7 system is 658KBs, 64-bit iexplore is 681KBs.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting. So what kind of tasks will benefit significantly from explicit 64-bit data manipulation? I had the impression that the line between 32 and 64 bits has been a fuzzy issue at chip level for awhiel now (eg., instruction combining?), so what more can be squeezed?
 
32-bit apps can run 2GB max,
32-bit apps that are LargeAddressAware + modified userva settings can run 3GB per app on 32-bit operating systems,
32-bit apps that are LargeAddressAware running on 64-bit operating systems can use 4GB per app without any modification.

Some games are LargeAddressAware that really need the extra ram (MMO's, RTS's, etc). I recommend 64-bit with 3GB or more of ram because of that; no messing with userva settings and better stability. There are no noticeable performance differences running a 32-bit app under 64-bit, but a program optimized for 64-bit might have some improvements. All hardware will require 64-bit drivers though.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft recommends 2gb ram for 64-bit, and 1gb for 32-bit.
Well, they could recommend "1.05GB" but where does someone get a .05GB RAM module these days?

They recommend 2GB for many reasons, but mainly it's because it's going from 1 to 2. Since there aren't many 1.xxGB systems out there, recommending a partial didn't make much sense.

But, my main question about advantages and disadvantages. We have one example of legacy incompatibility.
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1
 
I went for 64 bit so that Windows would see all 4gb of RAM on my computer. For the longest time, it only saw 2.75gb (Video card and whatever else counts towards that limit on 32-bit OS).

Also, I figure that 64-bit is the way things are going, so if theres no price difference, why WOULDN'T I go with 64. Its not hurting anything, and in 3-4 years there'll be a lot of 64-bit stuff anyway.
 
The bit-tech article was interesting, but a little light on tangible specifics, like performance differences (even in terms of magnitude).

I think I'm going with 32bit. Mainly, theres less of a chance of driver issues and incompatibility, and all of my apps are 32 bit anyway, which if anything can run slightly slower in 64bit.

Plus, while it can only use less memory, less memory is necessary because of 64-bit overhead and the necessity of WOW64. If I can't address some ram, I'll try to use the ramdisk trick and use it for swap/temp/scratch.
 
Last edited:
I've had 0 issues with 64-bit. I recommend at least trying it, and if you're unhappy, switching to 32 (Requires Format of course).
 
The bit-tech article was interesting, but a little light on tangible specifics, like performance differences (even in terms of magnitude).

I think I'm going with 32bit. Mainly, theres less of a chance of driver issues and incompatibility, and all of my apps are 32 bit anyway, which if anything can run slightly slower in 64bit.

Plus, while it can only use less memory, less memory is necessary because of 64-bit overhead and the necessity of WOW64. If I can't address some ram, I'll try to use the ramdisk trick and use it for swap/temp/scratch.


I've had zero issues going to 64-bit. It's not a fiasco like win xp pro x64 was. *shudder*
 
I've had 0 issues with 64-bit. I recommend at least trying it, and if you're unhappy, switching to 32 (Requires Format of course).

What exactly is your graphics setup... is it integrated and sharing system RAM? It sounds like you're down 768mb.
 
The bit-tech article was interesting, but a little light on tangible specifics, like performance differences (even in terms of magnitude).

I think I'm going with 32bit. Mainly, theres less of a chance of driver issues and incompatibility, and all of my apps are 32 bit anyway, which if anything can run slightly slower in 64bit.

Plus, while it can only use less memory, less memory is necessary because of 64-bit overhead and the necessity of WOW64. If I can't address some ram, I'll try to use the ramdisk trick and use it for swap/temp/scratch.

I think you're making a couple of mistakes. First of all, for WHQL certification there is a requirement for 32 bit and 64 bit drivers. Because of this, there should be little to no trouble for 64 bit drivers. Next, while a RAMdisk is nice, it's not going to increase the amount of usable RAM for software. This will not help much, if any, if you have multiple programs running.

I personally have not heard of people being able to run 32 bit software on the 32 bit version of Win7 which wouldn't run on the 64 bit version. It was the same way with Vista32 and Vista64. I'm not going to say it can't happen, but it seems to be extremely rare.

You're going about this completely ass backwards. What happens if you drop in a video card with 1 gig of RAM? You have just cut down your usable RAM to less than 3 gig. There is only so much a RAMdisk can do and you'd need a large amount of RAM to make a RAMdisk truly usable. What happens a couple of years down the line? The amount of RAM put into machines is only going to increase and you're going to hamstring yourself with a 32 bit OS. The same thing applies to 64 bit software. When more 64 bit software is released which does have a performance increase over the 32 bit software, you won't be able to take advantage of it. Finally, there will be software released as 64 bit only and you won't be able to run any of it. Win7 64 gives you many options, whereas 32 bit only brings you limitations.

 
I have been running 64 bit for a long time now and it makes a HUGE difference. Not only can you have more programs open at the same time, but also 64 bit applications are not limited and can take anything you throw at it. For example, I use a lot of high-end 3D software packages as a 3D artist and programs like C4D, Modo, Vue, etc. which have 64 bit versions can take all the resources you want to throw at it. That means not only are render times faster, but you can also address more resources when building a scene without many limits at all.

I have 10GB now and plan on going to 24GB very soon. So yes, 64 bit OS and 64 bit software is a must for power users like myself.
 
I think you're making a couple of mistakes. First of all, for WHQL certification there is a requirement for 32 bit and 64 bit drivers. Because of this, there should be little to no trouble for 64 bit drivers. Next, while a RAMdisk is nice, it's not going to increase the amount of usable RAM for software. This will not help much, if any, if you have multiple programs running.

I personally have not heard of people being able to run 32 bit software on the 32 bit version of Win7 which wouldn't run on the 64 bit version. It was the same way with Vista32 and Vista64. I'm not going to say it can't happen, but it seems to be extremely rare.

You're going about this completely ass backwards. What happens if you drop in a video card with 1 gig of RAM? You have just cut down your usable RAM to less than 3 gig. There is only so much a RAMdisk can do and you'd need a large amount of RAM to make a RAMdisk truly usable. What happens a couple of years down the line? The amount of RAM put into machines is only going to increase and you're going to hamstring yourself with a 32 bit OS. The same thing applies to 64 bit software. When more 64 bit software is released which does have a performance increase over the 32 bit software, you won't be able to take advantage of it. Finally, there will be software released as 64 bit only and you won't be able to run any of it. Win7 64 gives you many options, whereas 32 bit only brings you limitations.


Yeah, I'm really not interested in complete conjecture answering questions that weren't even the ones I was asking, all in an obnoxious tone.
 
I have been running 64 bit for a long time now and it makes a HUGE difference. Not only can you have more programs open at the same time, but also 64 bit applications are not limited and can take anything you throw at it. For example, I use a lot of high-end 3D software packages as a 3D artist and programs like C4D, Modo, Vue, etc. which have 64 bit versions can take all the resources you want to throw at it. That means not only are render times faster, but you can also address more resources when building a scene without many limits at all.

I have 10GB now and plan on going to 24GB very soon. So yes, 64 bit OS and 64 bit software is a must for power users like myself.

Is it a question of more memory alleviating bottlenecks with your memory-demanding tasks, or does the itself improve because of 64-bit instructions?

For example, if had a rendering job that required 3gigs -- how muchbetter would it perform in 64bit than 32bit? The best benchmarked improvement I've found so far is 12% from adobe 64-bit (photoshop i think).
 
Yeah, I'm really not interested in complete conjecture answering questions that weren't even the ones I was asking, all in an obnoxious tone.

Actually, I addressed every one of your "concerns" and added more to it. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they are not correct. If you want to limit yourself for the future, go ahead and do so. Just don't complain when you run into these limits later on.
 
Not to hijack, but I had a question regarding memory allocation. I have 8gb installed (i did run 64 vista); now I have 32bit 7. I understand that it will not use around 4gb of that RAM, but if I load up COD4 or something, can it utilize more than 3.5gb or whatever? Will games or other high taxing apps use the unallocated RAM or do I have to have 64bit?
Thanks for any info guys.
 
Not to hijack, but I had a question regarding memory allocation. I have 8gb installed (i did run 64 vista); now I have 32bit 7. I understand that it will not use around 4gb of that RAM, but if I load up COD4 or something, can it utilize more than 3.5gb or whatever? Will games or other high taxing apps use the unallocated RAM or do I have to have 64bit?
Thanks for any info guys.

No, with 32bit OS and 32bit software, any single app is limited to 2 gigs. There is a way for 32bit software to use 3gigs with a switch, but I'm not sure that many games or general software use it. They unallocated ram will be useless on Windows 7 x86, unless you use some RAMdrive software to make a faux harddrive. Can I ask why you went back to 32bit? Seems strange that someone would want to switch back, especially if they have a computer with butt-loads of ram.
 
Actually, I addressed every one of your "concerns" and added more to it. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they are not correct. If you want to limit yourself for the future, go ahead and do so. Just don't complain when you run into these limits later on.

I think reinstalling windows is one devastating catastrophe that we're all used to. Look, given that there's no meaningful gains to me from using 64bit, and there is risk of compatibility issues, there is a slightly larger footprint, and I can utilize the "wasted" ram effectively.... I'm going to do 32-bit. In fact, since you're being such a dick about it, I'm going to use just 8 of those 32 bits and then won't you feel dumb.
 
Last edited:
While you might not see a lot of gains when it comes to switching to x64 right now, but that will change. As computers are sold with increased specifications you will find that more and more companies are making software geared towards x64. In the short term who cares, but as geeks that are all about specs and performance, why wouldn't you want to just install x64 right away?

That being said, when you buy Windows 7 (or Vista) your key will work for either x86 or x64. So if in a couple of months you decide to upgrade to x64, it just takes a few minutes to backup and reinstall. My opinion is just go with what you are comfortable with and just keep in the back of your mind you can always switch to the other architecture when you're ready.
 
Is it a question of more memory alleviating bottlenecks with your memory-demanding tasks, or does the itself improve because of 64-bit instructions?

For example, if had a rendering job that required 3gigs -- how muchbetter would it perform in 64bit than 32bit? The best benchmarked improvement I've found so far is 12% from adobe 64-bit (photoshop i think).

Well, I don't want to turn this into a 3D thread, but that is kind of an open question and somewhat vague. What I mean by that is I am not sure what you are referring to specifically as it involves a lot more than just thinking about a rendering job that requires 3GB.

First, yes the software that is 64 bit like C4D, Vue, etc. makes a HUGE difference in performance over 32 bit. If I had to say, it would be at least twice as fast or more so depending upon what I was doing and what the scene consisted of. The other thing that often is not known for those not doing 3D art is it is more than just render times being better. It is also the amount of resources you can use building a scene. Most high-end software programs like C4D, Vue and others let you monitor your resources in the software. It is NOT the same as your hardware monitoring resources, it indicates how much room you have for building a scene. Therefore, with more memory and 64 bit software and OS you can have more in your scene and/or greater detail with little to no limits.

I also have 2 older computers setup that act as "render nodes" that are part of my "render farm" for distributed networked rendering. It just keeps growing! :)
 
Well, I don't want to turn this into a 3D thread, but that is kind of an open question and somewhat vague. What I mean by that is I am not sure what you are referring to specifically as it involves a lot more than just thinking about a rendering job that requires 3GB.

First, yes the software that is 64 bit like C4D, Vue, etc. makes a HUGE difference in performance over 32 bit. If I had to say, it would be at least twice as fast or more so depending upon what I was doing and what the scene consisted of. The other thing that often is not known for those not doing 3D art is it is more than just render times being better. It is also the amount of resources you can use building a scene. Most high-end software programs like C4D, Vue and others let you monitor your resources in the software. It is NOT the same as your hardware monitoring resources, it indicates how much room you have for building a scene. Therefore, with more memory and 64 bit software and OS you can have more in your scene and/or greater detail with little to no limits.

I also have 2 older computers setup that act as "render nodes" that are part of my "render farm" for distributed networked rendering. It just keeps growing! :)

Well, the 3gb stipulation was my attempt to compare "apples to apples", or at least learn something in the attempt to get to that. In theory, rendering ought to be an ideal way to compare, because it's purely computational and thus cpu-bound (mostly). Granted, you're experiencing some real-world advantages from addressing that much memory which would be skewed or totally infeasable on 32-bits. Also, you may have advantages very specific to your task, as the rendering may be utilizing much higher precision registers and instructions that might bottleneck when run on the same CPU but compiled for 32 bits (that is, if extra precision wasn't used, they would be similiar in raw performance).

I think what's needed is a variety of specific synthetic benchmarks that are compiled in both 32-bit and 64-bit, and are compact enough to isolate the addressing issue. Then the same tests need to be run in 32 bits on 32-bit kernel, on 32/64 and on 64/64. Examining the differences between tasks and tween code/environments will tell us a great deal about where we see gains in 64 bits. This is a different approach to anecdotal or real-world which is not telling us exactly where the gains/losses are occurring or what each user or application can expect.

Personally, I have a variety of computers running and my tasks are spread among them, and I'm not hitting any memory barriers under 32 bits. Only my gaming computer has 4gb and that never sees over 1.5gb of memory usage for anything. My most used computer, my laptop, typically uses ~2gb for browsers/office/dev tools and that's well below the "32-bit" limit. Maybe occasionally I'll hit 3gb in photoshop or rose.
 
Last edited:
8 to 16 to 32 with a 24 bit CPU thrown in for added confusion....now 64 and we will see 128 and up. it is the evolutionary path. if you are not "getting" what you want or need from 64 bit, then stick with 32.

i will say when i am mutlitrack recording...4gb of RAM and 2+tb of HDD space is plenty welcome.
 
I think reinstalling windows is one devastating catastrophe that we're all used to. Look, given that there's no meaningful gains to me from using 64bit, and there is risk of compatibility issues, there is a slightly larger footprint, and I can utilize the "wasted" ram effectively.... I'm going to do 32-bit.

Oh please, stop being so damn dramatic. The "larger" footprint is a gig or two (oh noes!). Maybe there were some compatibility issues in 2007, but that's not even a valid argument anymore. Unless you're trying to connect a printer from 1999, the "issues" are minimal, and even then it would probably work. And "utilizing" wasted RAM more effectively? So you bypass Windows by managing the RAM usage yourself? What are you saying here?

I can't believe people are still arguing over whether or not they should move to 64-bit.
 
Here's a new "benefit" so to speak. Looks like 64 bit might be the prefered platform now for some drivers!

The multi-touch drivers for the tx2 are not yet available for x86, they came out for x64 first. In fact since HP seems to be putting x64 on the tx2 as the standard OS, I wonder if N-Trig will even bother with the 32 bit drivers.

So to get production level drivers for the multi-touch on the tx2, x64 is the ONLY option right now.
 
I think reinstalling windows is one devastating catastrophe that we're all used to. Look, given that there's no meaningful gains to me from using 64bit, and there is risk of compatibility issues, there is a slightly larger footprint, and I can utilize the "wasted" ram effectively.... I'm going to do 32-bit. In fact, since you're being such a dick about it, I'm going to use just 8 of those 32 bits and then won't you feel dumb.

I don't know why you bothered to ask if you were just going to be a typical know it all and ignore the advice of those who answer your questions correctly.

Risk of incompatibility my ass.. is it 2005, and are we talking about XP pro x64? No? Then this thread is retarded.
 
OP comes in, barely understanding the issues at hand, but with an already formed decision about going 32-bit.

Everyone that has actually used both and knows their ass from their hand says 64-bit is better.

OP gets emo because the facts aren't lining up with how things work in his own little world.

It would be even more funny if this didn't happen every day.
 
OP comes in, barely understanding the issues at hand, but with an already formed decision about going 32-bit.

Everyone that has actually used both and knows their ass from their hand says 64-bit is better.

OP gets emo because the facts aren't lining up with how things work in his own little world.

It would be even more funny if this didn't happen every day.

Look, I appreciate folks' gesture of input, but this string of advice is subjective and speculative and gives me no concrete info. It makes presumptions about how I would use my machine, and started out simply rude. Nor did I imply the questions SmokeRings was answering about a long term strategy to avoid having to reinstall windows. Actually there was one piece of concrete info he did give was on WHQL compatibility, until I looked and realized that a number of drivers I use aren't WHQL certified, and that's not at all unusual.

For example, if I'm looking for concrete performance and memory consumption differences, how does this assertion help me: "Everyone that has actually used both and knows their ass from their hand says 64-bit is better." ???? Or this one: "I personally have not heard of people being able to run ..." Or this "seems to be extremely rare.". Or this icing on the cake of uselessness: "You're going about this completely ass backwards." I'd tend to think that forming a conclusion without the facts is ass-backwards.

So, I'd have to conclude that you(s) do NOT know your ass(es) from your hand, nor any concrete information that would contribute to a rational decision between 32 and 64 bits. What you do have is a firm grasp on lemming-based decision making.
 
Last edited:
OP comes in, barely understanding the issues at hand, but with an already formed decision about going 32-bit.

Everyone that has actually used both and knows their ass from their hand says 64-bit is better.

Oh God- can't stop laughing- that is going in my sig. :D

Look, I appreciate your gesture of input, but it was subjective and speculative and gave me no concrete info.....So, I'd have to conclude that you do NOT know your ass from your hand, nor any concrete information that would contribute to a rational decision between 32 and 64 bits. What you do have is a firm grasp on lemming-based decision making.

Dude, EVERYONE here is giving you concrete info. Take your blinders off and read.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top