32 bit, 64 bit?

[Skybird]

Dumb question: what kind of systems need/can take benefits from a 64 Bit version of Windows 7? Is it certain CPUs? Or mainboards?

[Arclight]

CPU with x64 architecture. Not even sure they still sell hardware that doesn't support 64-bit; the thing you need to be sure about is that you have a 64-bit OS.

[Skybird]

CPU with x64 architecture. Not even sure they still sell hardware that doesn't support 64-bit; the thing you need to be sure about is that you have a 64-bit OS.

Another dumb question: and what hardware is that? What kind or processors? Must HD and memory also be changed if going 32 or 64 bit?

I mean if I would go to a store today and start putting together components for a system, how do I know whether the things I pick up is 64 or 32 bit? I read adverts and sales offers, but the bit version never is mentioned.

[Arclight]

I think it's never mentioned because it's there by default. :hmmm:

Make sure you have CPU that can process 64-bit (x64 supported/architecture) and get 64-bit OS, that's it.

No special memory or boards. If you buy a modern system, it's there. I never gave it a thought when I bought my PC over 2 years ago, and I'm happily running 64-bit OS. :yep:

[Skybird]

Why are 32 bit versions for Home Premium and Professional offered, then?

And the XP compatability mode, it sometimes get listed as a feature of Pro, but not Home Premium. Is that feature just an increase of chances that old XP software (sims) will run on it, or is it a separate XP emulator? Do I need Pro to make surte that older things like FS9 and SBP run under W7?

[Skybird]

Make sure you have CPU that can process 64-bit (x64 supported/architecture)

Which are these? It never gets listed. I consider an Dual Core i5 with something at 3 or more GHz, to make sure that software using just one core will at least run as fast as on my current single core 3 GHz. Quad Core at 2.6 GHz will not do me much good, if only one core is used.

[Arclight]

Why they still sell 32-bit OS is a good question, but matter of fact is there are still people on older systems that can't run 64-bit OS. After taking a lot of heat over Vista, last thing Msoft needs is more flak from forcing people to move to 64-bit. Perhaps 32-bit OS is also (marginally) cheaper, making it a more cost-effective option for lower-end pre-built systems that come with OEM edition. Conversely, it makes it possible to charge extra for equiping such machines with a 64-bit OS.

There are definitely programs that won't run in 32-b "emulation" on a 64-b platform, but I can't give any examples because I never came across any. Everything I use works fine.

XP-mode is nothing more than a Virtual Machine pre-installed with XP; I have it, but never used it. Again, I'm sure there are programs that won't run in Vista/Win7 (it's more likely it won't run on Vista than Win7), but everything so far works fine for me. Seems (imo) like a marketing move to take away any concerns people might have about "upgrading" (keep in mind trust was damaged by Vista), or a feature to entice people to purchase a more expensive edition.

Though I should note I don't use "specialist" stuff; fairly average user.



You can forget about gaming on XP-mode btw; hardware is simulated: your actual graphics card does not get used for anything executed within the VM.

[Arclight]

The following processors implement the Intel 64 architecture:

Intel NetBurst microarchitecture

Intel Xeon (some models since "Nocona")
Intel Celeron D (some models since "Prescott")
Intel Pentium 4 (some models since "Prescott")
Intel Pentium D
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition

Intel Core microarchitecture

Intel Xeon (all models since "Woodcrest")
Intel Core 2 (Including Mobile processors since "Merom")
Intel Pentium Dual Core (E2140, E2160, E2180, E2200, E2220, E5200, E5300, E5400, E6300, E6500, T2310, T2330, T2370, T2390, and T3200)
Intel Celeron (Celeron 4x0; Celeron M 5xx)

Intel Atom microarchitecture

Intel Atom 200 series (not to be confused with the N200 series, widely used in netbooks)
Intel Atom 300 series

Intel Nehalem microarchitecture

Intel Core i3
Intel Core i5
Intel Core i7

Yes, from wiki, but reliable afaict.

I agree that when you upgrade, you should stay at the same "performance level". i.e. 3GHz single-core > 3GHz dual-core > 3GHz quad-core. You'll notice some performance improvement from newer architectures, but you shouldn't trade in 1GHz of speed just to get more cores.

The OS can divide the workload over multiple cores, even for applications that are optimized for single-core systems, but this creates overhead for the CPU and thus comes at a performance penalty. (I think, needs some research)

[Arclight]

Also a note on i5: it has turbo boost or something, whatever they called it.

Say an application only really uses 2 cores of the 4 available, then the 2 unused ones are "shut down", and their performance is sent to the other 2 (by increasing the GHz, ie. clockspeed). CPUs are designed or rated with a certain power-draw in mind; you'll often see a wattage mentioned along the model-name. Normally, overclocking (increasing the clockspeed) raises the clockspeed on all cores, putting the CPU beyond this envelope. i5 keeps the CPU within this envelope by overclocking the used cores and shutting down the unused ones.

I posted a link to a very in-depth article a while back, good reading if you're in the market for i5.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=156156

[Skybird]

That's a lot of answers, thankn you very much! It is appreciated.

I had troubles with my old rig yesterday, I got it running again, but it is the second time within 9 months that I needed to pick all pieces apart and and then put it together several times before after some hours the system agreed to boot again. Don't know why this happened out of a sudden. But it has several years marked in it's record, so I have to start taking into account that the system could take a permanent leave from duty at any time now. I will certainly do not do any hardware updates or chnages anymore here. It is the third HD, the fourth graphics card, the second DVD drive, the second PSU and the second set of RAM bars. Only ventilators, soundcard (from my previous system) and mainboard remained unchanged.

[Arclight]

I'm just glad someone finds the stuff I crammed in my brain usefull. :lol:

Some systems are just temperamental, but it might be a sign that it's on it's way out. I can't tell you how often simply stripping a system, cleaning and putting it back together fixed a seemingly fatal problem, but usually it just resurfaces in a new form a few months down the road.

In the end, the industry is moving on; new sockets for CPUs, AGP becomes PCI-express, DDR changes into DDR2 and moves on to DDR3 before you had a chance to catch up. Buying "old" tech becomes prohibitively expensive at some point; I remember spending €90,- on 1GB of PC-133 SDRAM some 2 years ago, not too long before I bought my current system and purchased 2GB of DDR2 for "only" €65,-. Likewise, I payed €90,- for an AGP HD2600, while a little more could get me a PCI-E 8800GT... same price at the time as an AGP 7600GT, iirc.

Anyway, my point is: eventually you're better off spending a lot to catch up than keep spending less at overpriced stuff to keep an outdated box running. (imo of course)

[Skybird]

So far my spendings payed off, last change is a year ago, a broken gfx which was still running on warranty, so I got a new one for free. Considering that I was not sure about system lifetime and investing into AGP already 2.5 years ago, I cannot complain. The other components were replaced because they broke.

I think it did it's duty. Next time I get technical problems that do not get resolved by kicking against the side of the box, I buy a new one. In six days. Or six months. It depends. :DL then I'll be back with questions on mainboard and gfx. :DL

[Arclight]

We'll be here waiting to answer them when you do. :yep:

[NeonSamurai]

I am surprised you didn't mention the big reason why people use 64 bit operating systems. So that they can address more than ~4 gb of memory.

I run a laptop with 6gb of memory that dual boots vista 64, and xp 32. Only vista can address all the memory (including the video card's memory), while xp can address a little over 3gb of the system memory (and the video card memory too).

This is probably the most common reason why your average home user will use a 64 bit os.


PS I have encountered several programs that will not run in emulated 32 bit mode.

[Arclight]

Ah, I figured he just wanted to know what he needed to run it. T'was my understanding he was already informed of the "why", just wanted to know "how". :)

Just in case, here's something that explains in detail the issue of the 4GB Windows memory limit: http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

*Apart from that, why you need 64-bit is hard to say; there are benefits, but it's highly dependent on the apllication. Some things might even execute slower, and 64-bit applications have a higher memory footprint than 32-bit applications.